I wish government employees got prosecuted for breaking the law

@Captainkirk88410

2 жыл бұрын

They should be! This crap has gotten out of hand..

@SirBrass

2 жыл бұрын

There actually are laws that allow for just that. It's just that it's not used.

@dirtystockcardriver

2 жыл бұрын

Rules for thee, not for me. I assume your not a dem? Lmo

@davidh9638

2 жыл бұрын

How is that supposed to happen when prosecutor is a government employee?

@SirBrass

2 жыл бұрын

@@davidh9638 when there's a conflict of interest, a special prosecutor is assigned

Back in the late '70s Marin County, Ca. was very aggressive about looking for improvements done without permits to avoid increased property taxes. One homeowner got his annual tax bill with a large increase. He questioned the reason and the county responded it was due to his new pool. "I don't have a pool." "Here's the picture of your back yard with a pool." "Where?" "This blue area." "How'd you get this picture?" "We flew a plane over and photographed the whole neighborhood." "That's not a pool, I painted my patio blue."

@johnallen9819

2 жыл бұрын

Funny

@HappilyHomicidalHooligan

2 жыл бұрын

Then the County uses the neighborhood photo as Probable Cause for a Search Warrant and walks into the back yard and looks at the blue area to see if it's painted concrete or a pool...

@Errr717

2 жыл бұрын

LOL True story?

@NunYaO

Жыл бұрын

Did they adjust their assessment -$10 and refer him to the HOA for fines on the unapproved paint color...cause that'd be about par for Marion Co...

@RealPackCat

Жыл бұрын

@@NunYaO I had an HOA charge me $300 per month for flowers in the garden. I stopped paying it and gave the home back to the bank. let the bank pay the HOA fees.

The best analogy here is the use of a telephoto lens to look into a window. If it's not ordinarily visible to the unaided eye from a public place, then it's an invasion. A low-flying drone with a camera gives a view that is unavailable to the naked eye and thus constitutes an intentional search.

@dorbie

2 жыл бұрын

In that case what is observed would matter too. They spotted junkers, you don't need a telephoto lens or a low flying drone to spot piles of junk vehicles. If it would have been visible to the naked eye from an aircraft at 1000 ft then being visible to a drone flying at 400 ft only because regulations demand it cannot fly higher is not a helpful distinction. If the drone were used to peer into a window this would be a better analogy.

@valentinius62

2 жыл бұрын

That's what blinds and curtains are for. We have the responsibility to create and maintain our own privacy. If your windows aren't blocked, then by default you're an exhibitionist. Also, I am at a loss to know how much more can be seen from a nearby public vantage point with a telephoto lense than with the naked eye? If your house is recessed on your own acreage, then a telephoto lense isn't going to be able to see much into that house (if anything) to begin with. It is interesting to see how at least in America, people's attitudes about privacy have changed. Was a time where most people would keep their picture windows wide open. They _wanted_ folks to see inside...their big color TV, nice furniture, lamps... And, Americans wanted others to know what they did for a living, how much they made a year, how successful they were. Now we live like scared moles.

@geoffstrickler

2 жыл бұрын

@@dorbie Had they actually done that, they would have had a much stronger case. But they didn’t, they went to court with evidence that may have been obtained illegally. As Steve pointed out, the city failed to include any monitoring/inspection clause in their previous consent agreement with the property owners, which is their own fault. However, this being a civil case, the exclusionary rule might not apply. In civil cases, illegally obtained evidence may sometimes be allowed. However, with one party being a government entity, the courts might rule that evidence was illegally obtained and exclude it. Of course, there are some exceptions to the exclusionary rule such as “inevitable discovery” that might also be applied. Bottom line, it’s an interesting case.

@jeremykothe2847

2 жыл бұрын

To quote an intelligence officer pre-Iraq-war: "We don't know where the WMDs are, sir, but we do know they're not on the roof".

@danamoore1788

2 жыл бұрын

@@valentinius62 This comes to some things I have heard in two different directions. Man stands right at his ground floor window facing the street, buck naked. At times that children are going to school. He is/was being public with his nudity. The part I have heard go both ways. Person is in their second floor apartment. The windows do not face a public road or sidewalk. The person in another apartment sees them with a telescope pointed at that window. Is that public indecency? Now to me the first one is the guy was trying to be seen. In the second the viewer is actively trying to see through a window that normally could not be seen through. A drone can use lenses more powerful than the naked eye. The law says below 400ft. So level with the window? The window faces woods or a lake. Who do you expect to be looking in your window? So just saying that is what blinds and curtains are for. Then why have windows if they must be covered to have privacy at all.

I live in rural area, literally my first neighbor is 1 mile away. I own 41.5 acres and in 2000 I built a new home on it. I pulled all the permits for eveything with the township. Submitted my drawings to the township of my new home which included a huge 30x45 deck. At the time of final inspections it was winter and at the end of the year. The tax accessor and building inspector showed up at my door on Dec 29 and wanted to close out my permit before the end of the year. They said as long as I had all my finishes on site they would grant me my certificate of occupancy. All my finishes were on site, carpet, final plumbing, wood flooring, I was actually installing all the wood trim throughout the home when they showed up. I also had all the lumber for my deck in the garage $15,000.00 in cedar. They looked in my garage as part of the final inspection and I told them that was the material was for my deck. So 5 years go by. I get a letter in the mail stating the deck on my home had no permits pulled for it and it needed to be removed. They stated they caught me by comparrison aerial photos of the township. The photos were taken five years apart. Just so happened the photo was taken during the early spring 2001 while the leaves were not on the trees so they could see more detail of eveyone s property. I didn't install my deck until late spring 2001 due to rainy weather and longer nights to work on it. I asked at a township meeting how can they take photos of my private property and then simply send a letter out and make demands without talking to the individuals first. I told them my township approved drawings included a deck on the bck of my home and that I did them a favor by letting them close my permit before the years end and my taxable property with my new home started from that day on Jan 1,2001 that's why the tax accessor was there on Dec 29, 2000. I told them I thought they violated my privacy, acted illegally by showing up at my doorstep to give me a certificate of occupancy so they could collect their taxes from me without living in the home yet, and reminded them my deck was on the original documents submitted to them, and I had time stamped photos as I built the home that would show they gave me my occupancy before my home was complete. Photos included the lumber for the deck in the garage. 22 years later not another peep about it and the deck is still on the back of my home. Township tried but failed.

we had a drug case in Dallas where officers came to a house, one walked to the rear of the house, climbed up to look over the fence saw drugs on the kitchen table, and they then broke in and charged the owner. The judge threw out the case saying they did not have probable cause, or a warrant and the drugs were not in plain sight as claimed by the police officer who climbed over the fence.

@nowthatsjustducky

2 жыл бұрын

That brings up a Q for Steve... In a case like lester's above, now that the guy is on the cops' RADAR, how would they ever be able to pursue any action against the home owner, since the entire case and investigation would be forever tainted by the reason the case was dismissed in the first place?

@alanmcentee9457

2 жыл бұрын

@@nowthatsjustducky That case might be tainted but if they run his plates they would have a reason to pull him over later. Then, they may get a more lenient judge.

@juliebarnett9812

2 жыл бұрын

I'm wondering where they found a lawyer who would actually fight this case for them instead of telling them to "just take a plea bargain."

@chetmyers7041

2 жыл бұрын

​@@nowthatsjustducky What was the original suspicion that brought the cops to the house? Police do not usually visit neighborhoods and climb over back fences for no reason.

@fehlrock

Жыл бұрын

It's does not matter.

The alternative remedy which could substitute for the Exclusionary Rule would be the personal liability of government actors for violations of rights. A cop breaks into your home to seize evidence, but didn't bother getting a warrant? That cop gets charged with criminal trespass, break&enter, burglary, etc..

@davidh9638

2 жыл бұрын

Not alternative, but additional, in my opinion.

@dangeary2134

2 жыл бұрын

Nearly all DA’s won’t charge them, and judges won’t convict them. That pretty much makes them complicit, and therefore a part of the problem.

@quintrankid8045

2 жыл бұрын

I wonder how many juries would actually convict a cop who broke into the home of someone doing something that is almost universally reviled. Particularly if the cop testilies that he smelt a gas leak. Better safe than sorry, right jurors?

@quintrankid8045

2 жыл бұрын

@@davidh9638 Yes, but I wonder how many of these sorts of cases are actually prosecuted when the prosecutors want to maintain good relationships with the cops.

@adaml2932

2 жыл бұрын

@@davidh9638 took the word right out of my mouth.

Advice to the police: "When in doubt, get a warrant."

@bergmanoswell879

2 жыл бұрын

Addendum: You should doubt yourself more often.

@Shiro_Amada

2 жыл бұрын

FISA courts have proven they rubberstamp approve regardless and defend it after the fact, if at all challenged.

@ergovega1

2 жыл бұрын

@@Shiro_Amada exactly. That's why with nearly any case. A good lawyer can get it dismissed. They very rarely flow their own rules. He'll you even let them know they violating their rules and they play dumb or simply don't care. People always try and take the easy route.

@russhamilton3800

2 жыл бұрын

Where is it that you see the police involved in the operation of the drone? Maybe you should watch the video?

@russhamilton3800

2 жыл бұрын

@@Shiro_Amada not even vaguely related.

This reminds me of a man who got in trouble for shooting down a drone photographing his daughter sunbathing in their back yard, and frightening her. I don't know how it ended, but it made me very angry that the law punished him for defending his property and family. The FAA said he shot down an "aircraft"? It is time for there to be more specific privacy legislation about drones.

“Not a criminal matter “ sounds like a devious way for government to stretch a loophole so as to get around hard won limitations on authority.

@kerwinbrown4180

2 жыл бұрын

It is not a constitutional loophole so it must be practical law, i.e the federal courts decided it was law. He didn't mention the ruling.

@ScottGrammer

2 жыл бұрын

Kind of like "CIVIL" asset forfeiture, "CIVIL" commitment, and so on?

@robertthomas5906

2 жыл бұрын

Red light cameras, speed cameras. It's "civil." No, it's more like armed extortion. Give us $80 or else.

@kerwinbrown4180

2 жыл бұрын

@@robertthomas5906 How much do those cameras cost to purchase, operate, and maintain. It doesn't make money but it does employ people.

@robertthomas5906

2 жыл бұрын

@@kerwinbrown4180 Have you ever looked into those cameras? If you have you wouldn't say that. They make *MILLIONS* off them. Florida for 2012 made over 100 million on them. Even small municipal cities make a lot of money. People just pay rather than go to court. $80 or go to court? A lot of places you have to pay to park, so $30 or so. Then the time off, and so on. It's extortion. They short time lights and you have to prove it's short timed. I've seen people do that and win their case. Does anything happen to them for that? Nope. They get away with it.

It should be a simple matter to resolve, if it's not in public or a public area then you should need a warrant else be dismissed.

@307living3

2 жыл бұрын

💯

@Captainkirk88410

2 жыл бұрын

100 percent agree!

@jaykoerner

2 жыл бұрын

I'm wondering if they used Google maps it would need a warrant?

@evilrobots

2 жыл бұрын

How about visible from a public area? Because that's what this case is kind of about.

@Voltaic_Fire

2 жыл бұрын

@@evilrobots I knew this question would come up. You can stand outside a house on the street with a camera and look in through the windows, you can have a long distance microphone to listen in, you can get a ladder and look over fences from the street, they're all violations of privacy in place where people can rightly expect to have their privacy respected, and so is a drone.

Nice shirt. Can't belief no one commented on the shirt. "My cousin Vinny" forever a classic.

@bgold2007

22 күн бұрын

I just did. It's Yours not yutes

Even ignoring the 4th Amendment Issue, just the Fact that the Drone Flight violated both FAA Rules AND Michigan Law should have made everything seen by the Drone Inadmissible in Court... The Authorities should NEVER be allowed to benefit from Breaking the Law during a Court Case (or ever for that mater)...

@107drones

2 жыл бұрын

The drone pilot did NOT violate FAA rules and Steve clearly stated that earlier in this video. If challenged, the Michigan law would likely be overturned because it usurps federal law.

@someperson7

2 жыл бұрын

@@ScottGrammer well that guy should be disbarred

@jerseyshoredroneservices225

2 жыл бұрын

I think you misunderstood. The FAA regulations were followed perfectly. The Michigan law sounds very similar to a Texas law which was just struck down as unconstitutional. You can read up on it if you search. Unfortunately I can't post links on KZread but here's a couple paragraphs that'll get you started... U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman struck down a Texas drone law (one of the most restrictive in the U.S.), for violating the First Amendment’s protections of freedom of speech and the press. While there have been other cases in which the court has struck down similar laws in municipalities, this is the first time that a state law regulating drone operations has been struck down as unconstitutional. The law, Chapter 423 of the Texas Government Code, was challenged by the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA), the Texas Press Association (TPA), and three Texas-based photojournalists. The parties argued that the

@suedenim9208

2 жыл бұрын

@@ScottGrammer That quote is pretty meaningless, and probably (wildly) misleading, without the context, . The US government being a significant source of kiddie porn is problematic, but even if their offer and delivery of kiddie porn was illegal it was legally irrelevant to the defendants crimes. In this case (and many similar ones) the government conduct was essentially analogous to an undercover cop posing as a prostitute or drug dealer and simply letting somebody solicit them. That the government actually delivered kiddie porn that was illegal to produce/distribute/possess may be morally questionable, but there's no re legal issue in terms of prosecuting those who searched out and bought the kiddie porn.

@r3beatty

2 жыл бұрын

Nah. FAA controls all airspace- state rules don't apply. The old adage is FAA controls from the lowest blade of grass to 80,000ft. As a drone operator, i can say the rule of thumb (there has never been an explicit ruling but the FAA has made a recommendation) is to stay 100ft above the tallest structure as an 'acceptable' altitude to avoid privacy/legal issues.

This kind of stuff is why I follow Mr. Lehto :) As a finn I know near to nothing 'bout US law, but decades of seeing US court dramas on TV have made me curious and here I am.

@DeronJ

2 жыл бұрын

As an American who likes learning more about US law, I really enjoy this kind of video too.

@muninrob

2 жыл бұрын

As an American, the more I learn about laws outside my own state, the more I realize just how little I actually know about US law.

@loismiller2830

2 жыл бұрын

I always liked Pekka Rinne. Great goalie, big guy who used a small stick. I know it's off topic, but I just noticed your name. Must be a Finnish thing :)

@pekkakoski6595

2 жыл бұрын

@@loismiller2830 Well I do not know much about icehockey and especially those dudes who made it to NHL. To be frank :) But Pekka Rinne sounds familiar, just can not remember why I remember that name.

I had a similar thing happen with a township... code enforcement is supposed to be done from a street view. Also, using a drone for a "commercial" purpose has to have a commercial license to do so. I turned them in to the FAA for investigation... I heard the township was fined, and was not happy. Fines for this can be upwards of 100K!

@RyanLatourette

2 жыл бұрын

I'll call BS. FAA fines are all open to FOIA. No township has yet been fined for drone use and fines don't have a cut-off of 100K and a single offense fine does not reach 6 figures. Nice try though.

Back in the day we go to extreme measures to protect our grow ops from IR observation (allegedly). I was a contractor with an above average knowledge of HVAC systems & waste heat management. We only used locations with pools to dump the heat into & we would add 12 inches of insulation to the whole building. The pool also covered our high energy bills, we just heated the water with grow lights (grin). 40 years, no knocks on any of ourthe doors.

If a tree falls in the woods an no one is there to hear it --- except for a drone... How can something be a nuisance if no one can see it? Why is someone so very eager to enforce laws/statutes that affect no one?

@katiekane5247

2 жыл бұрын

Because there's a determined effort to monitor & control every aspect of our lives. Listen to some clips from Davos, it's their main focus.

@ace-kz9id

2 жыл бұрын

so you dont care if the goverment flys a drone around your yard to monitor every thing you do.

@billh.1940

2 жыл бұрын

Try fines.

@Rhaspun

2 жыл бұрын

Because they're busy bodies with too much time on their hands.

@Pheonixco

2 жыл бұрын

Money, its always money. Same thing with HOA's

Should had been very simple: the main purpose of that drone flight(s) was to surveil and gather evidence.

@ArkansasRay

2 жыл бұрын

In Arkansas, we have laws that allow us to fly over private property, but not to do surveillance over private property.

@katiekane5247

2 жыл бұрын

@@ArkansasRay could be a matter of opinion between the two.

@safetyfirstintexas

2 жыл бұрын

@@katiekane5247 the government can not operate on matters of opinion. must use evidence. Cf. west virginia board of education vs barnett s.ct 1943. search term "matters of opinion" in the body of the decision not the assents and descents.

@Axctal

2 жыл бұрын

@@katiekane5247 easily resolvable: whoever-city-hired --> testify to "what was the purpose of your being hired" ... so, you was not just strolling around having fun, you were hired to fly over specific property to specifically take pictures/video, is that correct?

@ArkansasRay

2 жыл бұрын

@@Axctal now you’re on the right path. A pilot’s flight path and photographs/video can actually be subpoenaed in a surveillance/voyeurism case.

Steve, you asked about what other remedies would be available without the exclusionary rule. Taking away qualified immunity and allow either or both criminal or civil penalties against the individuals who violate the law would be a start.

Always amazing how the supreme court just always seems to manage to stop short of anything that might potentially, theoretically, possibly ever conceivably limit government power beyond the absolute minimum of what they are dealing with at that exact moment in that specific case yet will do summersaulting backflips in logic through spaghettis loopholes to rationalize why every other case is somehow different whenever they are backed into a corner to admit in another case that the government was wrong. It is almost like their interpretation of the law is for their own benefit rather than that of the people they supposedly serve.

@eltorocal

2 жыл бұрын

Xlarence and Ginni "Cult" Thomas... Boof Kavanaugh... Neil Gorsuck... Amy Conehead Ferret.

@tvc184

2 жыл бұрын

Have you ever actually read any cases or just trying to see how many humorous words you could fit into a run on sentence. From this video, Katz v. US in a 7-1 decision said that the government even in a public phone booth on a public sidewalk could not listen in on your conversation without a warrant. In Florida v. JL the SC ruled 9-0 that the police could not detain a person on a very detailed tip (which turned out to be 100% correct) that was anonymous even if it was for a firearm and public safety. In Mincey v. Arizona the police were on scene with a valid search warrant for drugs. An officer was killed and the police stayed at the crime scene for which they had a valid warranty. A unanimous SC again voted 9-0 to throw out the evidence because even though they were legally at the scene, the police needed a separate warrant to look for evidence in the officer’s death. So far we are not only limiting the government’s authority but by a collective 25-1 in votes. Let’s see, in cases of a firearm felony in public, listening to a conversation from a public phone on a public sidearm and even from the murder of a police officer where the police were lawfully on scene, the US Supreme Court has ruled almost unanimously against its own interests. Do you want further cases?

@additudeobx

2 жыл бұрын

You know it's on purpose, right?

@braddl9442

2 жыл бұрын

right

@davidgoodnow269

2 жыл бұрын

@@tvc184 Wow. All three of those sound like super-crap decisions!

It's always a good thing when citizens rights expand, great video!

Ben behind the Coast Guard plaque.

However, a drone is not "the naked eye". It's a flying camera. Presumably with zoom capabilities and night vision (my $60 handheld can do that).

@ravengrey6874

2 жыл бұрын

given the resources that even a local government can leverage, it probably also is ultra high def and thermal imaging as well, with memory for hours of video

@jenniferstewarts4851

2 жыл бұрын

@@ravengrey6874 given the budget of some townerships, they likely didn't own it they rented it from someone LOL.

@davidh9638

2 жыл бұрын

Maybe they borrowed it with permission from Karen.

@clydewmorgan

2 жыл бұрын

it’s a flying camera

@DiffEQ

2 жыл бұрын

@@ravengrey6874 Why would it need memory for "hours of video" since it can only fly for a few minutes? SMH

Steve nonchalantly says "we're going to cover a lot of ground" about a case regarding drone footage... Love it!

Another excellent video! Thanks for breaking this important topic down for us non lawyer types. Your humor is on point too!

This is going to be really interesting with the Supreme Court that is currently in place.

@mikezupancic2182

2 жыл бұрын

The current Supreme Court should rule the same as the appeals court given the adherence to the constitution.

@suedenim9208

2 жыл бұрын

@@mikezupancic2182 SCOTUS already issued a ruling that says flying a helicopter over property at 400' is okay because it's public airspace. The current court is anti-federal government to some extent, but mostly anti-criminal and pro-law enforcement. I'd bet good money that the new rule would be drones flying legally at something above 200 or 300' is okay because that's the new public airspace.

@kellyalvarado6533

12 күн бұрын

​@@mikezupancic2182 Well, this didn't age well.

I've commented that I had an insurance company fly a drone over and cited us for debris, told to clean up or they could drop coverage. Feel violated and threatened. Granted it could have been seen from street but they didn't do that. I've since cleaned up but they give 30 days and it was in late winter. Thank you Steve. We just don't need to be threatened with lawsuits or actions. We can work on it.

@sunchips5

9 ай бұрын

Something like that could be the terms of your policy that u agreed to, i.e. the carrier or one of its agents has the right to use a drone to inspect your property for its insurability.

The township attempted to get rid an eyesore that isn't visible. Authoritarians don't have to make sense, they just demand compliance.

I so enjoy your discussions of law. Thank you for posting Steve.

I wonder if malicious prosecution lawsuit against govt would apply?

The whole purpose in having a large tract of land, is predominantly for PRIVACY! They need to change the definition of a drone as an "aircraft" and allow people to blow them out of the sky if they are over your property, which does constitute trespassing. You own the airspace over your property, up to commercial altitudes. If a drone is violating that airspace below, it is trespassing. I have a reasonable expectation of privacy on my land from ANY angle.

@suedenim9208

2 жыл бұрын

I was under the impression that the law was still unsettled, but since you know that you own airspace to "commercial altitudes" maybe you'd be kind enough to cite the relevant law or SCOTUS ruling.

@absalomdraconis

2 жыл бұрын

The problem with that is that the bullets or pellets you fire have an unalienable lack of interest in the consequences of their own actions, and thus can (and will) do things that you never foresaw and would have restrained yourself because of. Some meaningful remedy (preferably proactive) needs to be instituted for drone trespass, but shooting them is not an good option.

@absalomdraconis

2 жыл бұрын

@@suedenim9208 : Above-ground houses strictly depend on some binding resemblance to ownership of the airspace above your land... and if it looks like a duck (very relevant to ducks, since they, geese, and swans are distinguished by neck length), quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, and swims like a duck, then it's a duck. The exact altitude to which you own your airspace may not be clear (incidentally, it should realistically be to the legal limit of space- airplanes can travel through airspace by _regulation,_ not by governmental ownership of the airspace), but de-facto you own it, and by legally binding right of adverse possession any building whose construction isn't blocked by the government (or protested within the legally mandated period) would give it's owner legally binding claim to the airspace that it occupied.

@indykurt

2 жыл бұрын

if a 107 licenced drone pilot is doing a strait line, point A to B and your property in under that line then the FAA gives him that right as long as he is focused on his shot and you or anything you own aren't a point of focus then you shoot it down, the court will look at the evidence, footage, and other factors and you will be buying a $10K drone. If you see the drone stop over your property and look down while hovering and you shoot it down, you'll hope that the footage is in tact to only give you a fine for dangerously discharging a firearm and the drone owner will have to replace his $200 drone. The only drones that are breaking laws are the cheap ones because they didn't get their 107 license ($97 last I checked and hours of study) and not risking a bunch of money to get a picture of your backyard swimming pool.

@suedenim9208

2 жыл бұрын

@@absalomdraconis I'm glad we agree that you only have the legal right to exclusive use up to some fairly limited altitude.

@Steve Lehto : I love the precision of your explanations, even when they appear to relate to an unresolved razor-sharp knife-edge. Respect!

One of your more interesting law-heavy discussions. Love it!

Sounds like the township just wants a reason to sue the home owner for having cars and other stuff on their property that they feel they dont like to look at. But overreach to violate the home owners rights and property

@fs127

2 жыл бұрын

Funny part is they don't have to look at it by the sounds of the lawsuit.

@ronblack7870

2 жыл бұрын

sounds maybe more like he is running a mini salvage yard without a license. say your neighbor with a big yard starts taking apart cars and selling parts . how would you like that? living next to a salvage yard?

@fs127

2 жыл бұрын

@@ronblack7870 If that's the case it seems like a pretty easy fix through other means. 3:47 I can't say I'd care if the only indications that they are operating a salvage yard is that it is visible from the sky. I didn't buy the property they're on and I'm not going to care about what they're doing on it until it starts affecting my rights or rights of others.

@Hawkeye2001

2 жыл бұрын

@@ronblack7870 I live in a rural area. I have neighbors that have tracts of land - fenced in and private, surrounded by trees. If they want to sell old car fenders and such that's okay. If they want to lay out naked, the yard is fenced and surrounded by trees. Its their yard.

Very interesting and well presented. I used to work in both zoning administration and air pollution control, so this case is of particular interest to me. I am retired now, but planning to send the link to former collezgues.

Mr lehto, congrats on a great channel. I had to take a minute to comment on the awesome shirt. Vincent Gambini. Just awesome.

Love the Tshirt all time favorite movie and glad you posted about unlawful drone pictures and a win for the 4th Amendment

To the question "does it mater that it's a law suit vs criminal proceedings", I argue that it should not matter. Government should not be able to subvert 4th amendment protections by veiling the proceedings to punish citizens with lawsuits vs criminal proceedings. For example take the case cited were the court ruled in favor of the defendant, where the government flew a drone 1000 feet in the air and discovered marijuana on the defendant's property, and the evidence was excluded. It is arguable improper to have the government reconstruct law that would allow it to circumvent 4th amendment protections by directing cases through civil lawsuits. We certainly don't want policemen entering a property and the government sue individuals based on evidence gained in a blatant attempt to circumvent 4th amendment protections.

There's a pen-and-paper role-playing game that was designed by a lawyer (Hero System). In one of the supplemental books he goes over the legal implications of certain powers. Basically, if it's a device, you need a warrant. So Superman doesn't need a warrant to use his x-ray vision but Iron Man does if he uses his thermo-vision like an IR camera.

@bergmanoswell879

2 жыл бұрын

Superman might be criminally liable on a peeping tom charge though, depending on what he looks at, if his x-ray vision requires an act of volition to activate. The only way he’d be in the clear if his alternate vision modes are always on, and he just selectively ignores most kf what he sees.

I'm here for the daily "T-Shirt" updates......... the legal review and insight is great as well. Keep up the good work.

Since I started watching your channel, this is the best t-shirt.

Preserving open questions in rulings is called job security.

Any action by the government should be held in the same light given the power of government to ruin a life either through imprisonment or financial harm.

Great topic. Plz keep us posted on this evolving legal space.

Nicely done, sir. Love your shirt (Representing "Yutes"...).

The ruling about "casual" visualization from an airplane applied to a SINGLE straight line flight over the proper. The same results as the drone footage can be obtained from a helicopter hovering using advanced camera equipment or a fixed wing aircraft circling the air space just outside that directly above the property in question.

@kerwinbrown4180

2 жыл бұрын

What jurisdiction was that case tried in? The level it reached in that court system is also important.

Fascinating! Good to hear that there are still people fighting for freedom in a country descending more and more into fascism.

@Forensource

2 жыл бұрын

Oh, Martha take your meds.

@rarebond8102

2 жыл бұрын

When that judge sees the numbers, they know that I've won the case. Now, it's that judges JOB, to tell the other guy...that they can win! Most, don't like an angry judge... It ain't so bad😂😁 (even getting thrown fom the premises only means you were late leaving)

Most excellent class, Professor Lehto. Bravo !

This is a good one, Steve. It will be an great ruling. Looking forward to this.

Steve, related question I hope you may discuss: When a governmental agency breaks laws in pursuing an investigation, how is it that some kind of action does not ROUTINELY ensue against the agency and/or its functionaries? I mean here where evidence is excluded because of a clear (and apparently intentional) breaking of some law, not some very questionable matter. It seems to me that numerous reported illegal searches are on the face actual criminal intrusions; were these so dealt with, the agency/officer might take care to know and do better.

@johnallen9819

2 жыл бұрын

Good question

@PWN_Nation

2 жыл бұрын

Because "qualified immunity"...

@bradcrosier1332

2 жыл бұрын

@@PWN_Nation - Or even worse in some cases, absolute immunity. Both need to be completely eliminated.

@bergmanoswell879

2 жыл бұрын

@@PWN_Nation Qualified Immunity doesn’t protect against criminal charges. Any rights violation you can sue for and win is also a federal crime, often a felony.

@PWN_Nation

2 жыл бұрын

@@bergmanoswell879 what?

What if the Township used Google maps aerial view instead of their own drone? It probably has enough resolution to determine how much junk was stored on the property. That is a matter of public record, is it not?

@SINDRIKARL1

2 жыл бұрын

pretty sure Google Maps is Google private property that they just offer to the public to use, a third party may not use it for commercial or legal use without permission. Copyright and all that.

@davidh9638

2 жыл бұрын

I guess that's good enough to get a warrant. Not good enough to be admissible in court without someone testifying to accuracy. Just a guess.

@OgamiItto70

2 жыл бұрын

Exactly! That's _just_ what _I_ was about to think!

@jerseyshoredroneservices225

2 жыл бұрын

Google maps is usually out of date but anyone can hire a satellite company to take pictures of anything at any time

@suedenim9208

2 жыл бұрын

@@SINDRIKARL1 So far you're 0 for 3, but maybe I've missed other things that you've gotten wrong.

For Steve's younger viewers: a phone booth is a public phone set up in high traffic areas like a gas or bus station, hotel lobby, airport, etc. We didn't always have phones in our pocket. Often times you would just have a bank of phones on the wall with partitions on the left and right, but in outdoor places like near a bus stop or gas station these phones were set up in "booths" that individuals could use.

Just to let you know I have learned a lot from you keep up the awesome work

The taking of photos from aircraft was only upheld for criminal case law. However the Federal Supreme Court never said you don't still have some reasonable expectation of privacy behind a fence. It has been long held that you have reasonable expectation of privacy behind a privacy fence.

The car identifies as not being junk. Much better argument these days.

Great video on an emerging area of law. Please make a follow-up video after the Court of Appeals makes its ruling.

I'm calling you the "Interesting case guy" You always present pretty interesting cases.

it seems the whole process would come down to the reason for the flight of the drone. also, while doing this flight, were any laws broken, peeping tom so to speak, maybe not looking in the house or buildings but the same principal. did the pilot have his faa certification, 107 part 14 I think it is. the reason for the 107 is the drone was not used as a hobby flier, it was used as a business manner, it wasn't out trying to save someone in the forrest even then the 107 could be enforced. even government agencies must have someone with certification to operate a drone as this would be considered as commercial use.

@davidrussell6922

2 жыл бұрын

realtors often use drones to get overviews of a piece of property. I see quite often that the drone pictures show the neighboring lots as well. this could be a "legimate" way around the rules. provided all notifications as needed by law are followed.

One thought that comes to mind, What information did the council have to take them to court in the first place, which then started this yearly surveillance and was That legal?

@kstricl

2 жыл бұрын

I posted a story that kind of covers indicators - but depending on the area, a sudden drastic increase in power and water usage beyond area average is usually an indicator of a grow op startup - or legal greenhouse. I believe most judges will issue a surveillance only (non intrusive) warrant to gather further evidence, at least in Canada.

@Bobs-Wrigles5555

2 жыл бұрын

@@kstricl Yes, I read your other post, But this guy was "rescuing" vehicles and he and the council came to an agreement that he wouldn't collect more and they then used a drone to check up on him(illegally). My question goes back to the original issue that got them into court, How did the council know Then what he had, if you can't see onto his property normally. Were they originally using drones (again illegally) to find property owners not complying with bylaws? And as an addition to this story, are there other property owners who have been illegally surveilled?

@kstricl

2 жыл бұрын

@@Bobs-Wrigles5555 To the last two questions, most likely.

@MonkeyJedi99

2 жыл бұрын

@@Bobs-Wrigles5555 Way back in the 1990's I was chatting with a town's code enforcement manager who told me that the town select board wanted him to rent a helicopter to fly over neighborhoods to try and find cars "hidden from plain view" in back yards and behind fences so that "the junk could be cleaned up to make the town nicer". He showed them the town bylaws about abandoned cars, the state laws about abandoned cars, and told them to stuff it. The Town could only fine for unlicensed cars in plain view from ground level while on public right-of-way (road and sidewalk). The state backed up that limitation.

@absalomdraconis

2 жыл бұрын

@@Bobs-Wrigles5555 : I'd hazard a guess that the neighbors complained/reported that the owner was bringing in more vehicles, or maybe even bragging about it.

Love the shirt bro...!!!! Great freaking movie! One of my favorite of all time...

Good work Steve.

Question Steve. What recourse would a home owner/person have if a judge allowed a warrant for a fly over and nothing was found. Lets take this out in the country, gated, no trespassing signs, fenced 200 acre farm that a family lives on. No one in or out without a pass code at the gate.

@dangeary2134

2 жыл бұрын

Ask the guy that was dragged into court for speeding in his own gated property in Texas, I believe.

@bergmanoswell879

2 жыл бұрын

If the warrant was properly issued and the applicant didn’t lie? No recourse whatsoever. Warrants operate on likelihood of finding wrongdoing, not the certainty of it - they’re an investigative tool. If certainty was required before investigating, most crimes would be completely unsolvable, even if the criminal was caught red handed.

@SmittyAZ

2 жыл бұрын

Take it out of the air to where it normally happens: After the search is over and nothing is found, the people have usually been cuffed, abused and their home is thrashed and in need of repairs. It's not like the good cops on TV. In a drone case, another warrant should be very hard to get when nothing was found and the person probably never even knew there was a police drone searching their property. No harm, no foul?

@fpresley

2 жыл бұрын

@@SmittyAZ That's what I'm wondering. In the case of using a drone, the owner will never know unless he see it, should the police provide notice after the fact that they found nothing. If you can't see into the property, how was RAS established.

@fpresley

2 жыл бұрын

@@bergmanoswell879 How can RAS be established when you can not see into the property? You can not on a whim ask for a warrant to my knowledge.

My property extends all the way up to Outer Space.

@SawmillerSmith

2 жыл бұрын

That's true acourding to law.

@ArkansasRay

2 жыл бұрын

But it’s regulated by the FAA.

Great analysis… fantastic shirt!!!

Great segment and I love the t-shirt. One of my favorite comedy movies "My Cousin Vinny"

Ben can't decide which is the best transport, US Coast Guard or a Unicycle, Steve's RHS

@BenLeitch

2 жыл бұрын

I was watching a live stream from another channel... good job to you and Boikat Sapiens and Dennis Berman.

@Bobs-Wrigles5555

2 жыл бұрын

@@BenLeitch 👍

This concept is similar to a police officer looking at you on a sidewalk, versus 12 cameras photographing you doing the same thing. Or a police officer running your plates manually versus a camera running all plates it sees. Technology matters. They could just as easily flown over everyone's home, just to see what's going on. Volume matters.

@nocturnal101ravenous6

2 жыл бұрын

My biggest thing with this case would be the Criminal legality of taking photographs or video footage at 500 feet into a property that is fenced, there is an extremely large difference between a plane flying at 1000+feet versus a drone with a camera at 500, while people can see general things they cannot notice details. Even if the FAA considers it legal there is the matter of seeing in windows and women nude sun bathing or skinny dipping on private property that is clearly fenced off in a mannerism that no one could see that, so the expectation of privacy would be there as someone would have the reasonable expectation knowing a place at 3000 feet cannot see a nude persons details and Camera inside a plane like a cell phone would not have the capabilities, IT would take Professional equipment, so there is an issue regardless. A criminal action obtaining evidence should never be allowed for Civil use.

@Alverant

2 жыл бұрын

Also, when you have the cameras you can look over them slowly at your own pace with a magnifying glass instead of just having seconds.

@edixonocilis4482

2 жыл бұрын

@@nocturnal101ravenous6 The FAA's concern is primarily keeping drones out of controlled airspace to avoid collisions with aircraft, not the privacy issues involved here. Except around airports or other specific areas, controlled airspace can start as low as 500 feet above ground level, hence the 400 foot restrictions.

@tvc184

2 жыл бұрын

@@Alverant YWhy would a photograph by any different than seeing something instantly with the eyes? If a person photographs you in a public place it is lawful. If they later view the photograph and find something that is a crime, why would it matter if the crime was discovered with the eyes or a close up viewing of a photograph? I believe that the photograph being lawful is the issue, not whether something is discovered immediately with eyes or later with careful inspection of a photograph.

@bond1j89

2 жыл бұрын

@@nocturnal101ravenous6 400ft

I fly for the local sheriffs department. So far we’ve flown only for search, rescue, body recovery, and aerial crime scene photos and video. We have chosen never to fly for warrantless discovery, warranted surveillance, active criminal pursuit, or anything else.

@nobodynoone2500

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you for being ethical with your use of tech. When people overstep, we all suffer.

@TW---

2 жыл бұрын

Wow, way different than where I live. Not even for criminal pursuit? Seems like that would be a sufficient use scenario.

@kgmarcussen

2 жыл бұрын

@@TW--- Criminal pursuit generally is too fast paced and mobile to call in a drone operator. I guess if there was a hostage or barricaded situation then I could get called in but we’ve never been down that road.

@TW---

2 жыл бұрын

@@kgmarcussen ah, that makes sense. You must live in a small town. Here the sheriff uses helicopters to do everything mentioned above, including illegal warrantless discovery.

@somethingelse4424

2 жыл бұрын

Good job, so far. That's the praise you get so far... I'd like to hear "we'd made a legally enforceable commitment never to", but I get that you can't speak for whichever sheriff gets elected in the future... so nice job for now and keep it up for now.

The first few years we lived in our house, the neighbors behind us had a 6 foot tall wooden fence around a space in their backyard. It appeared to be lined on the inside with tarps. I thought this was rather odd. One day I was up in a tree doing some pruning, and I happened to glance down and saw what was within the fence. I saw the tops of tall leafy green plants, which appeared to be what my horticulture professor called "five-fingered marigolds," and he ordered us not to grow "marigolds" in our class garden plots. I was not thrilled to have potheads for neighbors. I also mentioned what I saw to my husband. After that, we referred to our neighbors as "the farmers." It turned out that the gentleman farmer was one of my husband's co-workers. One day my husband overheard the farmer telling someone that he had removed his crop plants from his yard, and stopped smoking them. That's when we learned that the Supreme Court had ruled that law enforcement could look at our backyards from the air. While I was happy that the "marigolds" were gone, I was not thrilled that the Supreme Court had ruled that way. Regarding the idea that cops could look inside your house using infrared-- Also years ago, my son and I attended a demonstration of a Los Angeles Sheriff Department helicopter. The helicopter officers showed us some footage of what their infrared cameras could see. Of course someone asked them whether they could see inside a house, because at the time there were a lot of ads for insulation companies showing infrared images of houses leaking heat, and needing insulation to save energy. The cops answered that no, they could not see inside people's houses. I didn't really believe them then, and now I hear that they were trying to look for grow lights inside houses. Creepy!

A whole lot of kerfuffle about searches could be avoided if police would just get a warrant instead of always looking for a way around it

@daleinaz1

2 жыл бұрын

Yes, but a warrant requires that you be able to articulate your reasonable suspicion to the judge. In this case, neighbor complaints about cars being towed in, or excessive traffic (from parts buyers), or something similar. I suspect they were simply "fishing" based on the owner's past.

I find that the government's ideal is the opposite of their interpretation of their prosecution of people who do exactly what they did as a criminal act. they say no one may fly a drone over or near a property that is privately owned. their law. then they do it if it fits their motives.

@screenarts

2 жыл бұрын

Wrong, anybody can fly over private property. Above the treeline is the standard, FAA regulated, no city or homeowner has a say that space is private. You would not have any aircraft if you owned the sky above. So you don't.

@davidfrederick9973

2 жыл бұрын

@@screenarts Yes and no, in that order. Yes, you own your airspace (why you can build into it) but aviation has an easement, the right to use your airspace momentarily for passage. Same sort of thing for meter readers, surveyors, the power cables overhead, pipes and cables going under your property.

I worked as a paralegal in civil cases in Illinois, I have seen the exclusionary rule upheld in statutory cases because the authority comes from an agent of the state.

using a drone without a warrant is like, fist fighting a guy in a medieval suit of armor

Go just a little further, drones that crawl up the wall on the house, looking and listening through windows.

@JPurvis10

2 жыл бұрын

Our smartphones and other electronics already do that to some degree. I’m the type to not give a shit if people listen or not, I’ll just bore them to death.

I am highly involved in this case and case without any reservation suggest that you do not comprehend how this was a victory for the drone industry. Likewise, you've missed the boat on both Florida v. Riley, US v Breza, and other such cases like Giancola v West Virginia Department of Public Safety. Had the CoA ruling stood as precedent the use of drones for overflight of private property was in jeopardy. That was the big win here.

@jerseyshoredroneservices225

2 жыл бұрын

Ryan has a lot of experience in these things and knows what he's talking about!

So great. Thank you

I have to agree with the ruling. You do own the airspace over your property. Now there has to be limits, so as to allow air traffic like planes. But drones are not normal air traffic. And it hovers at a particularly low altitude which, indeed, I would say is within the limits of the owners personal property. Making using the drone a warrentless invasion. So it is a distinction of where does the personal property rights end and airspace for aircraft begin. And drones, if I am remembering correctly, are forbidden from that higher airspace.

"Our civil case gathered evidence used in a criminal case." The usual sanction against a rogue law enforcement agency breaking the law is that the evidence gathered is not admissible in court. I speculate that the number of illegal police intrusions would dwindle to zero if police AND their civilian supervisors AND the prosecuting attorneys were tried and sentenced for felony violations. Getting a warrant is a minor inconvenience. "Your choice--get a warrant for violating privacy and do a little paperwork or go to prison for espionage on private citizens." How do I know that the police are not committing industrial espionage?

@RealPackCat

Жыл бұрын

They could be planting drugs in your house or personal property.

@dukekessler6292

Ай бұрын

They could be sending microwave messages into your brain.

@alancranford3398

Ай бұрын

@@dukekessler6292 If you lost your mind, how would you know?

@dukekessler6292

Ай бұрын

@@alancranford3398 pick it up where you left it obviously.

Here the rule is if it can be seen by the mailman on his regular route, it is visible to the public. The local government frequently attempts to violate this.

Hey Steve, Long time watcher, first time commenter. *edit* commented too soon! Great job! Keep it up.

Seems very backwards to me considering that plain view is based off of what can be seen from public. Airspace in the USA is federally defined for public use and minimum altitudes for operation can sometimes, in fact, be down to just above surface level, so long as 14 cfr 91.119 is followed. Nobody would reasonably say that they do not have an expectation of privacy from aircraft flying overhead, whether that’s a UAS or a manned aircraft. Would this be any different if they hired a helicopter and a photographer?

@highonsmog

2 жыл бұрын

4:08 discusses that

@christianjackson

2 жыл бұрын

@@highonsmog That's why I wrote the comment. I was responding to that part of the video.

Evidence gathered "innocently" in civic case pursuit can find its way into criminal inquiries quite easily, so this SHOULD be a no-brainer. If the town simply bought "scenic footage" from private drone-ographer they'd be covered [*see companies that exist to gather info cops pay for it instead of 'collecting/retaining']

@jakegarrett8109

2 жыл бұрын

Can I fly over your house, or lets say even next to your bedroom windows for "scenic footage"? No, that's just circumnavigating the laws, the constitution did not say the government can use technology at all, and we know the founders wouldn't have wanted this (they would be shooting down any spy planes over their property, then retrofitting them with weapons and have their new home security platform). It also did not say government could contract out thugs to do what would otherwise be illegal.

@ScottGrammer

2 жыл бұрын

Ask Bill Cosby about "CIVIL" evidence turning into a criminal prosecution, even when the promise was given that this would never happen. Not defending Cosby, but rather pointing out the fact that "CIVIL" matters can quickly turn criminal.

@jakegarrett8109

2 жыл бұрын

@@ScottGrammer Uh oh, your facts got sensored (I can see the notification response, but not in the thread)

@ScottGrammer

2 жыл бұрын

@@jakegarrett8109 Hmm. I can see it. I'll BRB. Checking on another computer.

@ScottGrammer

2 жыл бұрын

@@jakegarrett8109 You're right. Somebody didn't like the fact that I said, "Ask Bill Cosby about "CIVIL" evidence turning into a criminal prosecution, even when the promise was given that this would never happen. Not defending Cosby, but rather pointing out the fact that "CIVIL" matters can quickly turn criminal."

Next great leap in technology: Cloaking device that would prevent viewing a property from any height over it.

@bond1j89

2 жыл бұрын

There is a cheep way camo

Must be why the last phone booths didn't have doors on phone booths, so that if the cops wanted to record you there was no expectation of privacy.

If you are in violation of an ordinance, then you need to correct the violation as soon as possible. Good for the drones!

Drones should be considered another form of "Electronic Surveillance" and subject to the same rules as wiretaps and other forms of surveillance.

@nukarr

2 жыл бұрын

Yes especially since drones can have thermal & infrared vision & can peer into & thru walls - invading your privacy 4th amendment rights

@suedenim9208

2 жыл бұрын

Visible light and being able to see things is really confusing, isn't it? The only legal question here for federal purposes is the altitude at which the surveillance was conducted. SCOTUS has already ruled that a helicopter being flown legally at an altitude of 400' above ground level is in pubic airspace and therefore warrants are not required for such surveillance. State constitutions sometimes offer more protection so there's a chance that the federal test won't always apply, and for drones the specific question of minimum altitude hasn't been thoroughly addressed, but 400' and up is *always* public airspace that anybody is allowed to be in, and they're allowed to look at your yard while they're there.

@jerseyshoredroneservices225

2 жыл бұрын

@@suedenim9208 The FAA claims that the national airspace is from the surface and up. Some people try to eliminate drones by saying that FAA jurisdiction starts at some altitude above the ground and then passing a law that says drones aren't allowed below that level but that's not the correct way to look at it.

@suedenim9208

2 жыл бұрын

@@jerseyshoredroneservices225 I'm all in favor of a right to use drones over private property above some reasonable altitude (maybe 200' or 300', which allows plenty of operating room), but there's also no question that property ownership includes some of the airspace above your land. The ancient idea of owning airspace all the way to heaven may have been mostly theoretical in terms of practical use, but it was still valid English law when the US was founded and the takings clause was written. That makes it very problematic to take to much of a property owner's ability to exercise exclusive use. I'll presume you're at least slightly familiar with US v. Causby, and while it didn't establish firm rules it did establish that landowners are entitled to some buffer space surrounding what they can physically occupy.

@jerseyshoredroneservices225

2 жыл бұрын

@@suedenim9208 Yes, I'm aware of Causby. Mr Causby was awarded damages because the government had taken his right to enjoy his land not because the government invaded his airspace. I don't condone people using drones in a rude or dangerous manner, however there are many practical reasons why somebody would be flying over somebody's property or even hovering at times and it's not rude, invasive or illegal. There are some dopes that do rude things but laws against harassment, surveillance or reckless endangerment are the remedy for those situations. Even then it's not crystal clear. There are many cases where people have been conducting investigative reports of alleged polluting or other hazardous activity by a private landowner, for the purposes of communicating what they learned. That's protected by the first amendment.

20:10 the problem being here. They didn't have that, because there is no way to see it from the ground, and only by snooping with a camera in the air. Literally illegally searching and breaking the basic constitutional rights. And then they kept monitoring the premises with a drone, by using the justification of past illegal gathered information.

Counties all over this country use aerial and satellite images to find things to tax you on, like additions, garages, sheds, decks. A buddy of mine got a higher than normal real estate bill a few years ago, for his hunting property, where he has a small pole barn used for storage. He called the county and the lady told him that the extra $30 per year, was for the little bit of roof overhang, over the front porch. It's something like 7' x 12', and it's been there since the building was built in the '90s, but now it's costing him $30 per year to have that overhang so he doesn't have to stand in the rain when he's unlocking the door. He asked her why all of a sudden, does he have to pay extra for something that's been on the building for 25 (ish) years, and she said, "That's what I got hired to do; find anything on the satellite images that isn't being taxed, so that we can tax you for it."

@leighanneboles6609

Жыл бұрын

Wow.

I see too many local ordinance that are handled as criminal cases but are called civil .

The small town Fire Dept. I once worked at was also responsible for code enforcement. High grass, parking in the yard & junk car etc. If we could not see into a backyard form the street then we could not take any action.

@Rhaspun

2 жыл бұрын

My local city has always had the fire department drive a firetruck around looking for overgrown backyards that have dried up into a fire hazard. The city will send a notice to the homeowner that they need to trim all the dried overgrowth or the city will do it and fine the homeowner besides the cost of cutting the overgrowth. I have to agree with this action since we're in California. Fires are a dangerous hazard.

@yogibro6442

Жыл бұрын

We can build a fence around a car so you can't see it, then don't have to licence it. Like if you are slowly restoring a classic car as you can afford parts. So far anyway, next it will need a roof, then what nanobots?

This is where our tax dollars are going. Court cases like this are completely ridiculous and frivolous. People should have the right to do what they want to do on their property in a free country. There are way too many laws that prevent us from feeling free. Or if they use that time to protect us maybe we would be in a better place in this country.

@leighanneboles6609

Жыл бұрын

Absolutely!!!

Steve this video was awesome 😎

Thank You

You'd be surprised at the detail available for free to anyone just by looking up that address on Google earth. Of course they aren't necessarily the most recent images...but over time a case of continued infractions could be made...

@hellshade2

2 жыл бұрын

not sure if the town could have used google earth. it is not the same as a plane going over the property and it is not being seen by a naked eye but also a camera that can zoom in close....

@arbiter1

2 жыл бұрын

depends on area, when it comes to court likely won't be allowed to be used cause low details.

@blackhat4968

2 жыл бұрын

@@hellshade2 Google Earth Images have been allowed in courts. Also technically its NOT Google taking the pictures. They get the images from open source satellite images they stitch together to make the maps.

@blackhat4968

2 жыл бұрын

@@arbiter1 In this case, the images are of a suspected Junk yard. Google Earth images are well able to id this sort of thing. I can use it to look at my Property and I can count the number of horses in the fields. I can ID whose car is who's because I know them. (Cant read license plates so couldn't prove in a court of law with 100% certainty who's car it was, but can easily id them by shape and color.)

@tvc184

2 жыл бұрын

@@hellshade2 Why would Google Earth be unlawful to use if it is accessible by the public?

My county tax assessor says she's gonna use a drone to assess the value of all private property in the county.

@calebp2743

2 жыл бұрын

This literally just happened to me flew a drone over my house to see that I wasent paying taxes on a 35 year old POS ski boat.

@arribaficationwineho32

2 жыл бұрын

What if you shoot it down out of fear of being stalked?

@charleydan

2 жыл бұрын

Why is anyone paying property taxes in violation of article 6, section 1 that prevous agreement is private rights from creator of equal rights. Oh, well, people love democracy-public and forget their individual God given private right that requires a conscience to being judgement

@calebp2743

2 жыл бұрын

@@charleydan please enlighten me on the subject as I have a meeting with the tax office scheduled to discuss the value/ trespassing they committed

@UncleKennysPlace

2 жыл бұрын

@@charleydan There is no god, so you've got a problem right there.

Steve stated that the Courts said a Police Officer, in a Fix Winged Aircraft, can fly over a person's Property and anything they 'See' with the Naked Eye is Legal. Here's what gets me....the Cops are not going to just be using their 'Eyes', they are going to be using Cameras with Zoom Lens and Enhancing the Images (whether Digitally or Physically blowing up the Images), with both of these 'Procedures' drastically making the Images captured far in excess of what the 'Naked Eye' can see. A camera on a Drone can also be equipped that sees well past Human Eye limitations, to the point where even a Satellite in Space can see everything Perfectly within a 30 centimetre-per Pixel Resolution 'Officially' (which means they see even better than that) for 'Commercial Satellites', set by Law, which means Governmental Satellites can see even better, possibly even down to 1in x 1in blocks Resolution, and they are DRASTICALLY further away than a Drone.

I'm curious how this works when the FAA has said they hold exclusive rights to make laws involving airspace in the US. They have said they are the only ones that can make laws for airspace from 1 foot to 40,000 feet.

@jerseyshoredroneservices225

2 жыл бұрын

Airspace laws are different than laws regarding things like surveillance. Although many cities and some states have created airspace laws they are unenforceable because they preempt the federal laws (which they can't), but they can make laws against surveillance regardless of the tool used.

If and when the court of appeals addresses this issue it could very well turn into a criminal case. The person flying the drone could be charged with trespassing, it could also involve the FAA as these rules were also abused.

@jerseyshoredroneservices225

2 жыл бұрын

Steve clearly stated that the FAA rules were followed. What part did you think abused the regulations?

Hey, Steve, for those who don't know, could you please explain what a phone booth is? :)

@mamanoneyall51

2 жыл бұрын

It's where Clark kent changes into superman, or the box from Dr. Who...for the rest, a small closet size glass box containing a phone you would put money into to make a call. 😆

@jfelix3523

2 жыл бұрын

@@mamanoneyall51 And I think we can assume that Clark Kent has some expectation of privacy, even though the walls are mostly transparent?

This is in a way something similar to the discussions we all had over can you fly over someone's fence to get to land locked property.

"Win some; lose some" would have been another good slogan for that shirt.