National US Supreme Court asked if cops can plant spy cams around homes

[ob1]

There is a difference between seeing a van or person hanging around, and a small disguised cam on a utility pole.

That said, I live on a private road. With the exception that LEOs and other first responders have an easement to travel it for emergencies, if the gov plants surveillance equipment on the private property without our permission (the whole neighborhood would need to vote on it), I am going to be ripping it down/out/off the private property. Moreover, my house is barely visible from the private road - you cannot look into my house or shop, without trespassing onto my property.

Public thoroughfare. Anyone one can use it for a legally allowed endeavor..no permisso required.
As for your situation Heretic, if it's a public rightaway...fair game.

If your driveway is your property, they can't park on it without YOUR permission, or at least until you tell them to get off, which they probably would do.
They get itchy when they know you know. Knowing that, have fun on your property. Do an Indian rain dance and turn around and give em the Southern exposure. What they gonna do ? Arrest you for felonious booty exposure ? They aren't there remember ? Set up a camera to document them watching you...but have fun doing it.

 

[Cavedweller]

I didn't see any mention in the article that the utility pole was on private property. Seems completely different from the North Carolina case, which was clearly a case of invasion of privacy, as well as trespassing.

 

[The Heretic]

As for your situation Heretic, if it's it a public rightaway...fair game.

Not public. The only entities that have a legal easement is the TVFD and maybe the sheriff. There has been some talk of putting in a gate, but it was voted down because it would be too much hassle to deal with it.

If your driveway is your property, they can't park on it withoit your permission, or at least when you tell them to get off, which they probably would do. They get itchy when they know you know.

Not only is the driveway on my property, the road is too.

Plant some trees at your driveway

I don't have to plant trees - view from the road:

View from the house towards the private road:

 

[bbbass]

It's germane to the topic. Basically.. if felony can cause loss of one specific Constitutional right; then by the same token, it can also cause loss of any other Constitutional right.

And what better way to promote the concept of a 2nd class citizenry than to bar whole group from having rights restored due to criminal history, convicted or otherwise?

Disagree, I don't normally harp on off-topic, but please explain to me IN DETAIL, what having rights restored has to do with spy cameras???

 

[bbbass]

Two cases. One where the ATF put the surveillance up to investigate gun trafficking (which should not be illegal), the other had to do with hunting (albeit a hunting law violator) and more disturbing where the wildlife agency trespassed onto his land and planted a camera - a clear 4th amendment violation.

It is more dangerous that even a guilty person should be punished without the forms of law than that he should escape. Thomas Jefferson

"It is more important that innocence be protected than it is that guilt be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world that they cannot all be punished.

But if innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, perhaps to die, then the citizen will say, 'whether I do good or whether I do evil is immaterial, for innocence itself is no protection,' and if such an idea as that were to take hold in the mind of the citizen that would be the end of security whatsoever."

― John Adams

Well that was obnoxious and uncalled for: Why the yelling?????????

You quoted my post regarding discussing poor poor felons losing their rights and then made a post that has nothing to do with placing cameras on phone poles... making my point exactly!!!

If I'm not being clear, then let me say it another way.... there is a lot of passion, feelings, and previous discussion on this board regarding felons loss and restoration of gun rights. Bringing it up in a discussion about SURVEILLANCE has a high probability of engaging emotional responses. I'd prefer we don't do it. Just sayin'.

Sides, I'm real tired of hearing/reading about it. Mi dos centavos.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Disagree, I don't normally harp on off-topic, but please explain to me IN DETAIL, what having rights restored has to do with spy cameras???

One lost right to guns due to criminal activity. Very easily goes to losing all expectations of privacy, and having no 4th nor 5th Amendnent rights as a criminal. The case is related to a criminal case, in such that the persons of interest are suspected of "illegal gun tradficking" and of selling guns without BG checks or having FFLs. The case is an ATF case; and as such, the relation to convicted felons restoring rights is still there. In other cases the Courts have said that ex-convicts have certain civil rights to be protected; but as this is an ATF case relating to the 4th and 5th Amendment; it is something to consider. The persons of interests; to my knowledge are not convicted; but the suspicion of illegal activities may or may not be "probable cause" enough to employ spy cameras looking farther than human eyes, and having more surveillance powers than human eyes. This is also where plain sight and curtilage doctrines comes into play. As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, most LEOs have to get a warrant to fly a drone over private property, or to install a camera with zoom or thermal or some other advantage over eyeballs to survey past curtilage.

If the ATF argues (and it has in the past) that "reasonable suspicions" are enough to violate suspects' civil rights, then the doctrine of "once a criminal, always a criminal", and "Rights forfeited are rights never regained for certain felonies" would be called into play and be a subject to a civil case.

 

[po18guy]

Beware the Stingray!

 

[bbbass]

One lost right to guns due to criminal activity. Very easily goes to losing all expectations of privacy, and having no 4th nor 5th Amendnent rights as a criminal. The case is related to a criminal case, in such that the persons of interest are suspected of "illegal gun tradficking" and of selling guns without BG checks or having FFLs. The case is an ATF case; and as such, the relation to convicted felons restoring rights is still there. In other cases the Courts have said that ex-convicts have certain civil rights to be protected; but as this is an ATF case relating to the 4th and 5th Amendment; it is something to consider. The persons of interests; to my knowledge are not convicted; but the suspicion of illegal activities may or may not be "probable cause" enough to employ spy cameras looking farther than human eyes, and having more surveillance powers than human eyes. This is also where plain sight and curtilage doctrines comes into play. As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, most LEOs have to get a warrant to fly a drone over private property, or to install a camera with zoom or thermal or some other advantage over eyeballs to survey past curtilage.

If the ATF argues (and it has in the past) that "reasonable suspicions" are enough to violate suspects' civil rights, then the doctrine of "once a criminal, always a criminal", and "Rights forfeited are rights never regained for certain felonies" would be called into play and be a subject to a civil case.

That's a stretch.


Six steps to Kevin Bacon.

 

[CamoDeafie]

That's a stretch.


Six steps to Kevin Bacon.

If you say so. I'm of the opinion that civil rights of all are to be protected. Else why have "All men(people) are created equally with certain unalienable Rights"?

To me it's not much of a stretch to equate violating a felons civil rights and violating a "suspected" but not convicted person's civil rights; and using one to cause the other to result (conviction of the suspected person, that person further lose other civil rights, may never get back depending on what the black robe says)

 

[bbbass]

If you say so. I'm of the opinion that civil rights of all are to be protected. Else why have "All men(people) are created equally with certain unalienable Rights"?

To me it's not much of a stretch to equate violating a felons civil rights and violating a "suspected" but not convicted person's civil rights; and using one to cause the other to result (conviction of the suspected person, that person further lose other civil rights, may never get back depending on what the black robe says)

The crux of the matter is whether placing surveillance on a public utility pole is legal and constitutional, not whether the reason for doing the surveillance is valid. Members are whiffing on what the issue is.

If we want to discuss cases similar to how Ruby Ridge was a setup, that is a whole diff thread.

If we want to discuss whether felons should lose their rights, that is a whole diff thread and a question for society at large to address and effect change, if they want to. IMO members should start yet another thread on the subject if they still feel a need to expound and exercise their feelings on it.

 

[The Heretic]

Well that was obnoxious and uncalled for: Why the yelling?????????

copy pasted format and i was lazy

 

[The Heretic]

That's a stretch.

I don't believe so and if you are not familiar with the concept of slippery slopes, especially when it comes to government and guns, then I am wasting my time.

 

[bbbass]

copy pasted format and i was lazy

 

[bbbass]

I don't believe so and if you are not familiar with the concept of slippery slopes, especially when it comes to government and guns, then I am wasting my time.

ROFLMAO... yah, revert to ad hominem. And a ridiculous supposition/accusation at that. That's gonna convince me to support your argument. HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

Once again, the OP was about the legality of placing surveillance on a public utility pole and not about the reason for doing so.. All other discussion is superflous.

See what opening the emotionally fraught tangential subject matter brings?

I think I'm wasting my time.

 

[The Heretic]

The crux of the matter is whether placing surveillance on a public utility pole is legal and constitutional, not whether the reason for doing the surveillance is valid. Members are whiffing on what the issue is.

If we want to discuss cases similar to how Ruby Ridge was a setup, that is a whole diff thread.

If we want to discuss whether felons should lose their rights, that is a whole diff thread and a question for society at large to address and effect change, if they want to. IMO members should start yet another thread on the subject if they still feel a need to expound and exercise their feelings on it.

Parsing it out might be okay in theory, but in real life these issues are complex and inter-related.

Being a Libertarian, the guns & drugs case are all about unconstitutional laws - neither genre of laws should be in place. There should be no DEA and no ATF at all.

I posted the link to the articles because of the ATF involvement and it starting as an investigation into guns. My intention was to show just how far the government will go to intrude into our privacy in order to throw us in prison for the things it thinks we shouldn't have, but are none of its business. Also, to make others aware of the surveillance tech they are using and to be wary about same. There is more to it than cams on poles:

Amazon gave Ring videos to police without owners’ permission

The revelation highlights the many ways that police can get footage from Ring doorbells, and how often it happens without consent.

www.politico.com

Blink and Ring are owned by Amazon

 

[bbbass]

Parsing it out might be okay in theory, but in real life these issues are complex and inter-related.

Being a Libertarian, the guns & drugs case are all about unconstitutional laws - neither genre of laws should be in place. There should be no DEA and no ATF at all.

I posted the link to the articles because of the ATF involvement and it starting as an investigation into guns. My intention was to show just how far the government will go to intrude into our privacy in order to throw us in prison for the things it thinks we shouldn't have, but are none of its business. Also, to make others aware of the surveillance tech they are using and to be wary about same. There is more to it than cams on poles:

Amazon gave Ring videos to police without owners’ permission

The revelation highlights the many ways that police can get footage from Ring doorbells, and how often it happens without consent.

www.politico.com

Blink and Ring are owned by Amazon

Then why didn't you say so???

 

[The Heretic]

Then why didn't you say so???

Generally, I post article/etc. links I think are of interest and let people comment before I comment.

Basically, "I am going to drop this here - discuss among yourselves and I will join in later"

 

[bbbass]

Generally, I post article/etc. links I think are of interest and let people comment before I comment.

Basically, "I am going to drop this here - discuss among yourselves and I will join in later"

Sort of a sneak attack, no?

I can appreciate letting people form their own opinions w/o coloring them ahead of time, but I never put any weight into yours anyway.

 

[The Heretic]

Sort of a sneak attack, no?

Not really, like you say, I usually try to let people post their own opinions - more interesting and in a way "fair".

Being a Heretic, I of course have my own opinions too, and they often don't jive with the majority.

 

[Stomper]

Deleted: duplicate