Supreme Court Declines To Hear Challenge To Warrantless Pole Camera Surveillance (aclu.org) 120
An anonymous reader shares a press release from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU): The U.S. Supreme Court [Monday] declined to hear Moore v. United States, leaving in place a patchwork of lower court decisions on an important and recurring question about privacy rights in the face of advancing surveillance technology. In this case, police secretly attached a small camera to a utility pole, using it to surveil a Massachusetts home 24/7 for eight months -- all without a warrant. Law enforcement could watch the camera's feed in real time, and remotely pan, tilt, and zoom close enough to read license plates and see faces. They could also review a searchable, digitized record of this footage at their convenience. The camera captured every coming and going of the home's residents and their guests over eight months. As a result, the government targeted the home of a community pillar -- a lawyer, respected judicial clerk, devoted church member, and a grandmother raising her grandkids -- to cherry-pick images from months of unceasing surveillance in an effort to support unwarranted criminal charges against an innocent person.
Federal courts of appeals and state supreme courts have divided on the question of whether such sweeping surveillance is a Fourth Amendment search requiring a warrant. The highest courts of Massachusetts, Colorado, and South Dakota have held that long-term pole camera surveillance of someone's home requires a warrant. In Moore v. United States, the members of the full en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit split evenly on the question, with three judges explaining that a warrant is required, and three judges expressing the belief that the Fourth Amendment imposes no limit on this invasive surveillance. This issue will continue to arise in the lower courts; the ACLU filed an amicus brief on the question in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit earlier this month. "The Supreme Court's decision not to hear this case means that people across the country remain vulnerable to law enforcement's claim of unfettered authority to surveil any of us at our homes, for as long as they wish, with no judicial oversight," said Nathan Freed Wessler, deputy director of the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. "As the cost of surveillance technology falls and its use by law enforcement expands, the need to resolve whether the Fourth Amendment poses any constraint has become all the more urgent. We will continue fighting for essential privacy protections."
Federal courts of appeals and state supreme courts have divided on the question of whether such sweeping surveillance is a Fourth Amendment search requiring a warrant. The highest courts of Massachusetts, Colorado, and South Dakota have held that long-term pole camera surveillance of someone's home requires a warrant. In Moore v. United States, the members of the full en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit split evenly on the question, with three judges explaining that a warrant is required, and three judges expressing the belief that the Fourth Amendment imposes no limit on this invasive surveillance. This issue will continue to arise in the lower courts; the ACLU filed an amicus brief on the question in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit earlier this month. "The Supreme Court's decision not to hear this case means that people across the country remain vulnerable to law enforcement's claim of unfettered authority to surveil any of us at our homes, for as long as they wish, with no judicial oversight," said Nathan Freed Wessler, deputy director of the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. "As the cost of surveillance technology falls and its use by law enforcement expands, the need to resolve whether the Fourth Amendment poses any constraint has become all the more urgent. We will continue fighting for essential privacy protections."
I'm not totally happy with this (Score:5, Insightful)
But I also understand we don't have any expectation of privacy when we're in a space that can be viewed from a public thoroughfare. I can stand on the street and legally take photos of an adult person in their front yard, after all. They may not be happy with me, but I'm within my rights to do it - even if societal norms would definitely flag it as creepy behavior.
Re:I'm not totally happy with this (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I'm not totally happy with this (Score:5, Insightful)
It is also a vastly more capable alternative. The issues are similar but they are not the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, in the eyes of the law, they are the same.
They could outfit the cop with binoculars and a high-gain directional microphone. Now where's the difference?
The bottom line is that if it's in public, it's in public- end of story.
Like I said, I'm not happy with it but under the law, it's legal.
Re: (Score:3)
What if the blinds are open to the house and the camera on a pole shows the people inside
What if the camera on the pole uses IR to detect heat shadows behind the walls
What if the camera on the pole transmits a laser at the window and records the vibrations
What if the camera on the wall uses and detects soft X-rays
There's enough emerging tech that the Supreme court should have taken this case
Re:I'm not totally happy with this (Score:4, Informative)
What if the camera on the pole uses IR to detect heat shadows behind the walls
What if the camera on the pole transmits a laser at the window and records the vibrations
What if the camera on the wall uses and detects soft X-rays
There's enough emerging tech that the Supreme court should have taken this case
I seem to recall that the scenarios you describe have already been adjudicated, years ago. Particularly the thermal cameras. And the ruling was that it required a warrant, because it's different than just your eyes,
Peeping into the windows? OK.
Night Vision on the exterior? OK.
Thermal imaging? WARRANT.
Laser audio? WARRANT.
At least that's what I remember.
Perhaps someone will dig up the cases and let us actually recollect more reliably.
(Because my memory is that the rulings are just the way you would want them. Which is a little hard to believe.)
Generally, it's always been legal to spy on people outside their homes (and even into their non-blinded windows). That's the natural order of things, encoded into law. Even 7x24.
Somewhat creepy, but nothing new to see here.
Re:I'm not totally happy with this (Score:4, Insightful)
IR- probably a sound legal question there.
Same with laser mics and other more advanced stuff.
However, since the camera did none of those things... the Supreme Court taking this case wouldn't have ruled on those things. That's not how court cases work.
Re: (Score:2)
Blinds are open, not the police's problem. That's your problem. You have no expectation of privacy to someone on public property through an open window.
You are 100% correct. It's sad that people don't understand it.
Re: (Score:2)
Like it or not, the fact is that it's up to YOU to create your own privacy.
Don't like people on street looking in your windows? Pull your curtains, because the law generally allows people to video anything that can be seen from a public vantage point.
Again, you may not like it, but that's the law.
Re:I'm not totally happy with this (Score:4, Informative)
Don't like people on street looking in your windows? Pull your curtains, because the law generally allows people to video anything that can be seen from a public vantage point.
There have been court rulings that viewing from a position not accessible by a person in the course of ordinary and customary daily activities (ie climbing a ladder to see over a fence, or mounting a camera on your roof to look down into your neighbors window) is a violation of the reasonable expectation of privacy.
Re: (Score:2)
Putting a ladder against your fance to look over- that's almost certainly unallowed.
Lifting off a drone... is allowed.
4th Amendment jurisprudence is not.... not straight-forward.
Re: (Score:2)
Drone usage gets hazy. It can be legal or illegal, depending on whether the invasion of privacy is incidental to the activity.
If the primary usage is not a violation, then the incidental privacy invasion is not illegal. (ie seeing into your neighbors yard while circling your house is fine, but hovering outside their bedroom window is likely not.)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the only reliable portion of 4th Amendment rules is precisely that there is.... a step too far where the Government has *obviosly* intruded on privacy (without warrant)
I feel like camera-on-utility-pole really isn't one.
Re: (Score:2)
In my state, a two-party consent state for recordings, you can look through someone's window from public, but you can't record what's going on inside without their consent.
Re: (Score:2)
In my state, it's specifically against the law to record inside someone's home without their express consent, including peeping through their windows. So you would need a warrant for that.
Re: I'm not totally happy with this (Score:2)
The eyes of the law are wrong. As usual.
In my eyes a telephoto lens is different than my eyeballs. As are nightvision and continuous recording.. My expectation of privacy assumes that I would be able to see the other person observing me in my line of sight, and that I am not being constantly recorded. I think an officer sitting in a car keeping a journal is way different than a camera hanging above my head that must have panning controls because it is zoomed in well beyond natural human vision.
Re: (Score:2)
My expectation of privacy assumes that I would be able to see the other person observing me in my line of sight
So someone wouldn't be able to sit up in a window and observe you? They couldn't sit in a bush and observe you? Both of those things are legal, and for good reason. How would you enforce a "no looking at me from a window" law?
and that I am not being constantly recorded. I think an officer sitting in a car keeping a journal is way different than a camera hanging above my head that must have panning controls because it is zoomed in well beyond natural human vision.
Sorry to inform you that those things are legal and not preventable for practical purposes. Should you not be allowed to use binoculars just because it makes someone else uncomfortable?
I wouldn't be thrilled about being observed either, but it's legal for a reason. Part of it is the Fi
Re: (Score:2)
So someone wouldn't be able to sit up in a window and observe you? They couldn't sit in a bush and observe you? Both of those things are legal, and for good reason. How would you enforce a "no looking at me from a window" law?
They can physically sit near a window or in a car or whatever. I can still observe them if they are close enough to see any details with their eyeballs. To actually hide in the bushes on my property and observe me, well that's already illegal for the police to do without a warrant and a bit off topic for this thread.
Sorry to inform you that those things are legal and not preventable for practical purposes
You're not actually sorry. But also I stated from the start that the legal arguments are wrong. As for preventable. It is completely preventable under the 4th Amendment. All we need to do is mak
Re: (Score:2)
Is it really?
I thought they had to get a warrant to set up a "stakeout"....for extended, long term surveillance?
Re: (Score:2)
Parking a camera outside your house is just a cheaper alternative.
Too much cheaper. It makes abuse inevitable. There ought to be a law against it. But the 4th amendment is not that law. Observing activity done in public view is neither a search nor a seizure.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think this is a constitutional issue.
But it's damn sure something legislatures should consider.
Of course legislatures restrict police is a tough sell... until it happens to them.
Re: (Score:3)
As creepy as this feels... it doesn't sound technically different than just having 2 people munching cheetohs in a cruiser watching a property, which has been a standard part of the police repertoire for basically ever.
Re: (Score:2)
Except it is obvious when a car is parked around here, a camera on top of the hydro pole, not so much.
Anyways, around here, there are laws against stalking, even the cops might have to rotate to avoid the charge, one hanging out on top of a pole staring into your windows would likely be something that you could get a Judge to issue an injunction against.
Re: (Score:2)
Except it is obvious when a car is parked around here, a camera on top of the hydro pole, not so much.
The obviousness is not the constitutional concern.
Police can rent the house across from you and take pictures from there if they like, too.
Anyways, around here, there are laws against stalking, even the cops might have to rotate to avoid the charge
Good!
Frankly, that's how it should be handled.
Police should be held to account to laws like stalking laws.
Trying to make this a constitutional issue is dubious, though.
Re: (Score:3)
At one point it was Constitutional for the cops to tap your phone line outside of your property (Olmstead v. United States, 1928), then the Supreme Court revisited it (Katz vs United States, 1967) and decided it wasn't as there was an expectation of privacy. This seems similar, spying from an unexpected angle.
Hmm, looking, it actually seems to have been a 1st amendment issue, with Justice Potter concluding that "wherever a man may be, he is entitled to know that he will be free.” From Katz vs the Unit
Re: (Score:2)
This seems similar, spying from an unexpected angle.
I disagree.
In a public space, a person may have all kinds of operational rights at different altitudes.
This could be drones, which are subject to regulation, not constitutional concerns, or it could be some guys in a hot air balloon.
The burden of protecting your privacy falls on you. Only in cases where there is no reasonable way to do so does it become a constitutional issue.
Again- the obviousness is not the constitutional problem. The police are, and have been, empowered to pretend like they're a fuck
Re: (Score:2)
So make that argument in court when it happens to you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's different because you have to pay those two guys. With remote control one cop can manage dozens of cameras. With deep learning image recognition one cop can manage 1000s. And entire community can be survived. Heck a single ARGUS [baesystems.com] sensor on a tall building or drone can surveil square miles of territory with enough fidelity to read license plates and follow individuals.
Total surveillance police states were not something that the framers of the constitution had to think about because it was unthinkable at
Re: (Score:2)
It's different because you have to pay those two guys. With remote control one cop can manage dozens of cameras. With deep learning image recognition one cop can manage 1000s. And entire community can be survived. Heck a single ARGUS [baesystems.com] sensor on a tall building or drone can surveil square miles of territory with enough fidelity to read license plates and follow individuals.
But that's just it.
That's not different.
If society wishes to pay for 50% of its population to be roving cops, that's society's prerogative. Thank fuck that's not the case, but still- that is a right a democratic society has.
I *certainly* agree with you that the CCTV everywhere future is freaky and... doesn't fit well with my idea of freedom, that isn't remotely close enough to to argue in a court as being unconstitutional.
Total surveillance police states were not something that the framers of the constitution had to think about because it was unthinkable at the time, but thanks to tech, that is now economicly tractable.
Correct- because it was unthinkable at the time.
But note that they didn't put a li
Re: (Score:2)
Then they should have the camera placed at a human height. They are viewing from higher place that a normal police officer will not be expected to stand / seat at and watch.
Higher places tend to show things that a street level view cannot see. Like seeing over the bushes, or even more of the property compared to viewing from ground level.
Re: (Score:2)
Higher places tend to show things that a street level view cannot see. Like seeing over the bushes, or even more of the property compared to viewing from ground level.
They do, but the 4th Amendment doesn't suddenly re-activate at 7ft above ground in a public space.
In fact, under current jurisprudence, they can fly around your property with a plane and photograph you to their heart's content, as long as it's public airspace.
Re:I'm not totally happy with this (Score:5, Interesting)
Try climbing up a lamppost and see how long it's considered a public place.
Would your city allow you to fix a camera on one of its lampposts?
Re: (Score:3)
Try climbing up a lamppost and see how long it's considered a public place.
Would your city allow you to fix a camera on one of its lampposts?
I'm guessing the lampposts are owned by the city, as is the Police Dept, so they can do whatever they want with either.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing the lampposts are owned by the city, as is the Police Dept, so they can do whatever they want with either.
That's not the point. GP's argument that the camera was in a public space and that surveillance from a public space doesn't need a warrant.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing the lampposts are owned by the city, as is the Police Dept, so they can do whatever they want with either.
That's not the point. GP's argument that the camera was in a public space and that surveillance from a public space doesn't need a warrant.
I agree with that, but was just commenting on the premise of someone *else* climbing the lamppost (for whatever reason) -- part of my post you forgot to include.
Try climbing up a lamppost and see how long it's considered a public place.
That's city property in a public place.
Re:I'm not totally happy with this (Score:4, Interesting)
That's city property in a public place.
Yeah, but the city isn't going to let you attach a camera to it, so, in this case, the police had a viewpoint not available to the public.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because someone is allowed to take pictures from the road doesn't mean they're allowed to get into my car on that road and take pictures.
Property rights (The pole) are separate from privacy rights (Public space)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I think there is precedent for my point of view from the Supreme Court: Kyllo v. United States. The Supreme Court held that observing the house using a device not in general use (a thermal imager) constituted a search. Since an ordinary person could not attach a camera to the pole, such cameras on light poles are not in general use.
Anyway, let me suggest you put a camera on a long pole that you own, and use it to look into the upstairs windows of your town's mayor or chief of police, while standi
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I think there is precedent for my point of view from the Supreme Court: Kyllo v. United States. The Supreme Court held that observing the house using a device not in general use (a thermal imager) constituted a search. Since an ordinary person could not attach a camera to the pole, such cameras on light poles are not in general use.
I don't think so.
The cut-off for Kyllo was that the equipment essentially allowed observation into the premises with no way for someone to protect their privacy. I.e., it allowed things that were previously only possible via warrant-required intrusion into the premises.
That is not the case for a regular camera mounted on a pole.
If it *were*, then I imagine there'd be a million court cases over CCTV cams.
Anyway, let me suggest you put a camera on a long pole that you own, and use it to look into the upstairs windows of your town's mayor or chief of police, while standing on the sidewalk, and see how long they let you continue.
Well, I think that raises separate problems, lol.
Problem #1) You're going to quickly find out that lo
Re: (Score:2)
The cut-off for Kyllo was that the equipment essentially allowed observation into the premises with no way for someone to protect their privacy.
No, you are wrong about this. The cut off was about whether the public could conduct the same type of surveillance as the police: in this case, using a thermal imager. From the decision:
"[w]here, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a 'search' and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant."
https://www.oyez.org/cases/200... [oyez.org]
Since the general public
Re: (Score:2)
You can't pick and choose meaning from the summary to fit your argument. That is not how court cases work.
"[w]here, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a 'search' and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant."
(b) While it may be difficult to refine the Katz test in some instances, in the case of the search of a home's interior-the prototypical and hence most commonly litigated area of protected privacy-there is a ready criterion, with roots deep in the common law, of the minimal expectation of privacy that exists, and that is acknowledged to be reasonable. To withdraw protection of this minimum expectation would be to permit police technology to erode the privacy guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment. Thus, obtaining by sense-enhancing technology any information regarding the home's interior that could not otherwise have been obtained without physical "intrusion into a constitutionally protected area," Silverman v. United States, 365 U. S. 505, 512, constitutes a search-at least where (as here) the technology in question is not in general public use. This assures preservation of that degree of privacy against government that existed when the Fourth Amendment was adopted. Pp. 33-35.
Nothing in this reasoning applies, or has anything to do with, a camera mounted on a pole. To suggest such would elicit
Re: (Score:2)
Thus, obtaining by sense-enhancing technology any information regarding the home's interior that could not otherwise have been obtained without physical "intrusion into a constitutionally protected area,"
A camera isn't "technology"?
In this case, a camera placed on a pole that is not accessible by the general public is clearly "sense-enhancing technology" and is not in general use.
Re: (Score:2)
A camera isn't "technology"?
You're doing it again.
Thus, obtaining by sense-enhancing technology any information regarding the home's interior that could not otherwise have been obtained without physical "intrusion into a constitutionally protected area," Silverman v. United States, 365 U. S. 505, 512, constitutes a search-at least where (as here) the technology in question is not in general public use.
A camera is obviously in general public use.
To claim, "ya, but a camera mounted on a pole is not" does not constitute a new technology that is not in public use.
In this case, a camera placed on a pole that is not accessible by the general public is clearly "sense-enhancing technology" and is not in general use.
lol, wtf. No. Q, is that you?
Come on, you're not being reasonable. You are constructing some wildly contrived logic here to try to make a case fit a ruling. No court is going to listen to that shit, and that's why they didn't.
Re: (Score:2)
US v. Bucci [findlaw.com] is controlling precedent for the 1st Circuit, where they conclude that an elevated camera that can't see through walls or otherwise see anything that someone in the public area couldn't also see, is not infringing on any reasonable expectation of privacy.
The court's reasoning follows:
“There are no fences, gates or shrubbery located in front of [Bucci's residence] that obstruct the view of the driveway or the garage from the street. Both [are] plainly visible.” An individual does not have an expectation of privacy in items or places he exposes to the public. See Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967) (“[T]he Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection.”)
If this situation sounds familiar, it's because it is. It's where polecams were ruled permissible.
The only thing th
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No. You're confusing the case an how it applies. The question is not about the viewpoint of the observer, but of the attempts for the private party to preserve its privacy. You can bake this down into a couple of very simple clauses:
1. If you're in public, you're fair game. End of. It doesn't matter if someone else is on public or private property while you're being recorded. If you're in public they can use thermal imaging or whatever.
2. If you're in private, you're subject to the rules of the property own
Re: (Score:2)
Privacy does not consider the location of the camera, it considers the intent of it defeating a specific protection.
That makes the most sense to me.
Though, I recall it's a little bit more flexible than that (at least in current jurisprudence)
i.e., not only are you required to try to protect your privacy (your wall), but society in general has to agree that looking over your wall is unreasonable. Which they may or may not, in the case of a pole that could always see over your wall.
Then it gets even more complicated, because some departments are now using drones for surveillance, and they are considered reasonable in
Re: (Score:2)
What if your room can't be viewed from street level without some kind of elevation?
Stick a camera on a tall pole and they've "defeated that protection".
Pretty sure if I set up a ladder on the sidewalk so I could climb up and peer into my neighbour's bedroom, I'd be arrested.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't believe that's true in my state, and probably not in other states requiring both parties consent for recording. If something in a private space is visible from a public space, you can look, but not necessarily record.
IANAL, YMMV
Re: (Score:2)
By my understanding, you would be entirely correct
But is that what has actually happened here?
Re: (Score:3)
You're free to take pictures in a public space.
Yet nowhere have I ever seen it argued that someone was allowed to get into someone else's car without their permission simply because it existed on public space.
You're confusing property rights with privacy rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly.
I'm not happy about it either, but it appears to be legal, if a little underhanded and sketchy.
I can stand on the street and legally take photos of an adult person in their front yard, after all. They may not be happy with me, but I'm within my rights to do it - even if societal norms would definitely flag it as creepy behavior.
Bingo. There is no, repeat NO expectation in privacy in public.
Re:I'm not totally happy with this (Score:4)
Bingo. There is no, repeat NO expectation in privacy in public.
In this case, the camera could see into the house from angles not available to the general public. There is a huge difference between being in your front yard and being inside a house, in a room that is not visible from the street.
Re: (Score:2)
In this case, the camera could see into the house from angles not available to the general public. There is a huge difference between being in your front yard and being inside a house, in a room that is not visible from the street.
That may very well be a violation if what you said is accurate.
On the other hand, so far it's been seen as legal to fly a drone up to get a better vantage point of a property.
I'm not in favor of that but the courts (so far) have found it to be legal. Like when some folks flew a drone up to where they could see into a Police station's parking lot. The courts (as I understand it, refused to find anything illegal in that act.
I'm undecided on that, though- it seems like the police did make an effort to create p
Re: (Score:2)
Additionally, it's legal to take pics of minors in public.
It's super creepy, but you can take pics in a park where there are children. That's legal. Period.
Or, go to Disney Land and take pictures there. Almost without doubt there will be minors in those images, and under the law, it's not illegal.
I guess you could ask everyone at Disney Land to move their kids out of the way while you take a picture, but we all know that's not gonna happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Try following a minor, or even an adult, especially female, around and filming them and it may be covered under a stalking law. According to wiki, every State has stalking laws on the books.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
There's quite a difference between stalking and taking video in public.
Should you not be allowed to take pictures at a beach or in a park or on the street because someone claims you might be stalking them?
There's a reason the word "stalking" is different than "videoing". If someone stalks you, by all means, prosecute them. I'll help you do it if I can.
But simply taking pictures isn't stalking. Do you really want a society where you can't photograph things in public without permission? Think about that for a
Re: (Score:2)
But I also understand we don't have any expectation of privacy when we're in a space that can be viewed from a public thoroughfare. I can stand on the street and legally take photos of an adult person in their front yard, after all. They may not be happy with me, but I'm within my rights to do it - even if societal norms would definitely flag it as creepy behavior.
Just because people can be photographed does not grant the photographer a right to do whatever they please with those photos.
Re: (Score:2)
legally take photos of an adult person in their front yard
Regardless of how you feel about it, you can take a picture of anyone who is in public regardless of age. The only thing that matters is if they are in a place that they could reasonably believe is private, then you are not allowed to photograph without permission or are on very thin ice and should just not bother. Depending on circumstance it's sometimes nice to ask before you shoot someone but isn't required (take a look at Bruce Gilden! [newyorker.com]). Some jurisdictions have laws that say you can't photograph childre
Re: (Score:2)
Even if you have a 6 foot wall around your property, if the camera is mounted on a pole outside your property, it will defeat the purpose of the wall. Does that mean it's still viewed from a public thoroughfare? Or will you be expecting a reasonable amount of privacy, considering you have a wall?
Not sure from the summary if there was a wall in this case. Just wondering.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I'm not totally happy with this (Score:2)
I would just like to let you know: In countries with actual privacyvrights, photographing you without your permission is illegal. On your private property, doubly illegal.
The US Constitution is a marvelous document, but the founders didn't know about photography (and videography). Y'all need a new amendment.
It's concerning but can't be the whole story (Score:5, Interesting)
Being able to perform that level of surveillance without a warrant is concerning without a doubt for privacy and targeting people for political reasons.
However, this line here
a lawyer, respected judicial clerk, devoted church member, and a grandmother raising her grandkids
sounds like absolute fluff of a political agenda. "They targeted this innocent grandma and kids, super hero to the community, who eats lots of fiber, and always gives to the poor, while helping elderly people across the street to deliver their home cooked meals and baked cookies to the food shelter, while stopping to give people on the street a blanket on the way by"
It sounds like my exaggerated example there trying to compel people to think of innocence of this person. I guess that's the biggest threat these days is a lot of the population is picking up on these dirty tricks.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, those items you mentioned are straight up part of why I find it definitely concerning. I'm not trying to advocate that they should be able to do this without a warrant. Villains who twirl their moustaches are easy to spot. Those who clothe themselves in good deeds are well camouflaged. The way they worded the story with the frame of innocence leaves the impression there is more to this story.
Re: It's concerning but can't be the whole story (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While it's true that the laws should also protect bad people, it doesn't make sense to use one as your lead plaintiff.
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."
H. L. Mencken
So you know how I can tell that line is right? (Score:2, Insightful)
As for why the cops went after him, the cops aren't there to protect you they're there to get convictions. They thought they had one and they were wrong. They do that a lot and normally we have judicial oversight to try and keep an eye on them. But de
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But decades of Court packing by right wing tough on crime extremists
Ask how Chicago and Oregon feels the opposite of those policies are working for them, like the wallmarts who closed shop because of losing millions to theft, in large part due to people electing 'not tough on crime extremists'. In fact, I recommend you fund and open a business in this area, I'm confident you'll prosper well since they don't have tough on crime right handed extremists. (This is where a lot of hypocrisy will come out "Police bad! Tough on crime bad!, okay, go live where they are not like that
Re: (Score:2)
Ask how Chicago and Oregon feels the opposite of those policies are working for them, like the wallmarts who closed shop because of losing millions to theft
Every Wal-Mart in the country deserves to be put out of business for paying so little that their employees have to be on public assistance. That represents a theft from The People. They also engage in a large amount of wage theft (wage theft exceeds all other theft combined in America) and other fuckery [goodjobsfirst.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Although I agree that I want policies that are tough on crime, please note that Chicago doesn't even make it into the top 75 [populationu.com] US cities for violent crimes per 1,000 people, and that of the top 10 counties [police1.com] for murder, about half of them are rural or small town counties.
Re: (Score:2)
Please note that the conversation in my post specifically said theft and violent assaults were not part of that discussion implied or otherwise.
Statements like
right wing tough on crime extremists
typically are applied when people whine about 'tough on crime' responses for things they would like to get away with, software crimes like theft.
Although I agree that I want policies that are tough on crime, please note that Chicago doesn't even make it into the top 75 [populationu.com] US cities for violent crimes per 1,000 people,
I'm not sure what you're trying to point out with that. Or how other locations matter. In this context, strictly chicago has elected people who are in opposition to tough on crime approaches, and theft con
Re: (Score:3)
> sounds like absolute fluff of a political agenda. "They targeted this innocent grandma and kids, super hero to the community, who eats lots of fiber, and always gives to the poor, while helping elderly people across the street to deliver their home cooked meals and baked cookies to the food shelter, while stopping to give people on the street a blanket on the way by"
I thought something similar and went to look up why they put up those cameras. Apparently, this person was charged with defrauding the VA
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Stands to reason... (Score:5, Funny)
So then there's no problem with the public doing the same to the police, judges, and politicians at home and at work as well, right? Right?
Re:Stands to reason... (Score:4, Insightful)
So then there's no problem with the public doing the same to the police, judges, and politicians at home and at work as well, right? Right?
Actually, I'd like to see the law changed that public officials (politicians, police, etc.) have no expectations of privacy or privacy protections while in the act of performing their duty. (To be clear, this shouldn't give you the right to interfere, only observe from a distance). Cops and politicians should be held to a much higher level than an ordinary citizen and should therefore be observed and scrutinized at much more closely.
Re:Stands to reason... (Score:4, Insightful)
Public officials, particularly police, should also face more severe penalties for the same crimes committed. And they should face loss of their careers like all other governments employees and most of the rest of us as well. Law enforcement is dominated by police unions, though, so the opposite happens.
Re: (Score:2)
Ex: if John (a nobody) steals a loaf of bread, give him whatever the minimum the law allows (subject to the details of the case).. but if a police officer/elected official does it.. the
Add an automated license plate reader as well (Score:2)
So? (Score:2)
Isn't this the same as having an officer parked in a car watching the place? Except it saves taxpayers the cost of donuts.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't this the same as having an officer parked in a car watching the place? Except it saves taxpayers the cost of donuts.
I assume they have a ready supply of donuts even when they're sitting in their precinct headquarters, watching the camera feed.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it is not. Cameras are capable of far more than human eyesight and an officer cannot watch continuously for months or years while providing a complete photographic record. Human eyes do not have zoom lenses either.
OTOH, if the camera observes the same scene that a person can legally observe without permission...
Camera on a utility pole? (Score:2)
does it matter that the summary is in fact a lie? (Score:5, Informative)
"As a result, the government targeted the home of a community pillar -- a lawyer, respected judicial clerk, devoted church member, and a grandmother raising her grandkids -- to cherry-pick images from months of unceasing surveillance in an effort to support unwarranted criminal charges against an innocent person. "
https://fedsoc.org/events/liti... [fedsoc.org]
This "community pillar" had a daughter dealing drugs and guns. Should a criminal be safe from surveillance as long as they shack up with an innocent?
"The case involved Daphne Moore, a former assistant clerk-magistrate with the Springfield, Massachusetts, court system, as well as her daughter and son-in-law. Police charged members of the family with trafficking drugs from Springfield to Vermont where they would exchange them for cash and firearms."
"...(Police) suspected Mooreâ(TM)s daughter of dealing drugs and guns. They watched the house for eight months until they obtained enough evidence to get a warrant. The warrant led to a prosecution."
So:
1) they DID eventually get a warrant
2) there was a prosecution as a result.
https://www.courthousenews.com... [courthousenews.com]
So...how can the ACLU assert that the charges were unwarranted?
And yes, I guess, technically DAPHNE was innocent but her daughter and son-in-law were not.
Re: (Score:2)
You have no expectation of privacy in public, and anything viewable from the public is defacto public
SCOTUS most likely declined to hear this case because such privacy concerns are well established.
What has me upset about this, not the privacy issue, is the fact that the police conducted such a lengthy "investigation" without any evidence of wrongdoing until eventually stringing toge
Re: (Score:2)
1) they DID eventually get a warrant
If they had gotten a warrant to begin with, we wouldn't even be discussing this. The warrant they asked for was too late in the process.
Did they not have enough evidence to support an initial warrant for the surveillance? If not, then why were they surveilling? If so, why didn't they just go get the warrant?
This is bad policing despite the excellent outcome.
More garbage (Score:2, Troll)
from the most corrupt Supreme Court in US history.
Re: (Score:2)
1) Utter nonsense
2) You must have never studied actual history.
Re: (Score:2)
The Lesson for Jurrors (Score:2)
What if... (Score:3)
And the homeowner called the police?
Technically, you're not subject to "Peeping Tom" ordinances as you are not on the homeowner's property.
But would the police stop you?
And how would this be different from a warrantless surveillance?
So get your local government to ban it (Score:2)
Depending on the courts to do the right thing is a gamble. So write to your local state legislator. And make sure the law has teeth: criminal liability with imprisonment for the police officers installing or using the camera; the fact the FBI can ignore the law on interceptions needs to be learnt from.
There is a Difference (Score:2)
There is general difference between an expectation of privacy from the nosy general public, and privacy from armed state actors who can lock you in a cage for 50 years. With such power generally comes tighter constraints on their ability to act in certain manners,
The latter can cherry-pick the images it retains to tell a story about you which may or may not be completely accurate.
Oh look, she received deliveries at night on 4 separate occasions, without mention that she also received them throughout the da
Re: (Score:3)
>"There is general difference between an expectation of privacy from the nosy general public, and privacy from armed state actors who can lock you in a cage for 50 years. With such power generally comes tighter constraints on their ability to act in certain manners"
I am torn on the subject, but that is compelling. Also compelling is that the "no expectation of privacy" concept stretches way back before audio recording, cameras, video, recording, facial recognition, searchable video, computers, networks,
The US Supreme Court is effectively defunct. (Score:2)
Can *I* do that? (Score:2)
I'm not a cop. Would it be a violation of any laws, if I were to do that? (I mean, actually going outside to peek through the bedroom curtains at innocent, vulnerable, nubile young ladies, after waiting for hours until just the right time when she -- you know -- is kind of a pain in the ass. Can't a robot do that for me?)
If people are ok with me doing that and would protect my right to do such things, then I don't think cops in this case are doing anything unreasonable, such that it would require a warrant.
Re: (Score:2)
Plain sight is plain sight, and you can't expect people not to see just because you don't like it.
one side (Score:2)
The article is only one side of the story. These days anything the ACLU supports is suspect, and anything they say is likely not the whole truth, and sometimes not any of the truth. This is not your grandfather's ACLU.
I would like to hear the other side of the story -- for example why it's likely that scotus did not want to hear it, and any nontrivial arguments for why they made the right decision.