Federal court approves use of hidden surveillance cameras on private property without warrants

[Ban Hammer 13,333]

Yet again, a federal judge undermined the Constitution in a wholly disturbing fashion, this time by allowing police to install hidden surveillance cameras on private property without obtaining a search warrant.

This is especially troubling since the federal government has conducted more warrantless surveillance over the past two years than the entire previous decade. This court decision can only be expected to increase that already troubling number.

Let us not forget that the Obama administration has fought vigorously to hold on to their ability to conduct warrantless wiretapping while also claiming that cell phone location data is not protected by the Constitution and the Supreme Court recently refused to review a lawsuit challenging the warrantless surveillance program of the National Security Agency (NSA).

According to CNET, U.S. District Judge William Griesbach ruled “that it was reasonable for Drug Enforcement Administration agents to enter rural property without permission — and without a warrant — to install multiple “covert digital surveillance cameras” in hopes of uncovering evidence that 30 to 40 marijuana [plants] were being grown.”

Griesbach’s decision was actually based on a recommendation issued by U.S. Magistrate Judge William Callahan on October 9.

Callahan’s recommendation claimed that the DEA actually did not violate the Fourth Amendment by conducting warrantless surveillance.

“The Supreme Court has upheld the use of technology as a substitute for ordinary police surveillance,” wrote Callahan in his recommendation.

The case surrounds Manuel Mendoza and Marco Magana of Green Bay, Wis. Both Mendoza and Magana have been charged with federal drug crimes that carry potential fines of up to $10 million along with life in prison.

Steven Curran, a DEA agent, claimed he discovered over 1,000 marijuana plants on a 22-acre heavily wooded property owned by Magana. The defendants called on Callahan to throw out the video evidence collected by the DEA based on the fact that there were “No Trespassing” signs posted throughout the property along with a locked gate, thus making the evidence collected a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Around four days after the DEA installed the surveillance cameras on Magana’s property without a warrant, a magistrate judge granted a warrant for surveillance. Mendoza and Magana’s attorneys rightfully pointed out that the surveillance took place long before the warrant was actually granted.

Callahan made his recommendation based on Oliver v. United States, a 1984 Supreme Court case in which the majority of justices ruled that “open fields” could indeed be searched without obtaining a warrant. They based this decision on their claim that open fields are not actually covered by the Fourth Amendment.

If the land is immediately surrounding a residence, on the other hand, it has greater privacy protections based on a legal concept known as curtilage.

“Placing a video camera in a location that allows law enforcement to record activities outside of a home and beyond protected curtilage does not violate the Fourth Amendment,” Department of Justice prosecutors James Santelle and William Lipscomb told Callahan.

“That one’s actions could be recorded on their own property, even if the property is not within the curtilage, is contrary to society’s concept of privacy,” argued Magana’s attorney Brett Reetz in a legal filing.

“The owner and his guest… had reason to believe that their activities on the property were not subject to video surveillance as it would constitute a violation of privacy,” Reetz added in last month’s legal filing.

Writing for CNET, Declan McCullagh paints a quite disturbing picture of where this precedent could lead.

“As digital sensors become cheaper and wireless connections become more powerful, the Justice Department’s argument would allow police to install cameras on private property without court oversight — subject only to budgetary limits and political pressure,” McCullagh writes.

The ugly reality is that legal precedents such as these serve to reinforce the constant erosion of our most essential rights. So long as judges continue to support the consistent undermining of our Constitutional rights, this disturbing trend will undoubtedly continue and will likely get significantly worse.

link

[X Factor 1,112]

Yikes!

[^_^ 5,021]

It's odd that every story I've seen on this uses the cnet story as the source.

[^_^ 5,021]

And I learned a new word today - curtilage! Thanks charles.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Yet again, a federal judge undermined the Constitution in a wholly disturbing fashion, this time by allowing police to install hidden surveillance cameras on private property without obtaining a search warrant.

This is especially troubling since the federal government has conducted more warrantless surveillance over the past two years than the entire previous decade. This court decision can only be expected to increase that already troubling number.

Let us not forget that the Obama administration has fought vigorously to hold on to their ability to conduct warrantless wiretapping while also claiming that cell phone location data is not protected by the Constitution and the Supreme Court recently refused to review a lawsuit challenging the warrantless surveillance program of the National Security Agency (NSA).

According to CNET, U.S. District Judge William Griesbach ruled "that it was reasonable for Drug Enforcement Administration agents to enter rural property without permission — and without a warrant — to install multiple "covert digital surveillance cameras" in hopes of uncovering evidence that 30 to 40 marijuana [plants] were being grown."

Griesbach's decision was actually based on a recommendation issued by U.S. Magistrate Judge William Callahan on October 9.

Callahan's recommendation claimed that the DEA actually did not violate the Fourth Amendment by conducting warrantless surveillance.

"The Supreme Court has upheld the use of technology as a substitute for ordinary police surveillance," wrote Callahan in his recommendation.

The case surrounds Manuel Mendoza and Marco Magana of Green Bay, Wis. Both Mendoza and Magana have been charged with federal drug crimes that carry potential fines of up to $10 million along with life in prison.

Steven Curran, a DEA agent, claimed he discovered over 1,000 marijuana plants on a 22-acre heavily wooded property owned by Magana. The defendants called on Callahan to throw out the video evidence collected by the DEA based on the fact that there were "No Trespassing" signs posted throughout the property along with a locked gate, thus making the evidence collected a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Around four days after the DEA installed the surveillance cameras on Magana's property without a warrant, a magistrate judge granted a warrant for surveillance. Mendoza and Magana's attorneys rightfully pointed out that the surveillance took place long before the warrant was actually granted.

Callahan made his recommendation based on Oliver v. United States, a 1984 Supreme Court case in which the majority of justices ruled that "open fields" could indeed be searched without obtaining a warrant. They based this decision on their claim that open fields are not actually covered by the Fourth Amendment.

If the land is immediately surrounding a residence, on the other hand, it has greater privacy protections based on a legal concept known as curtilage.

"Placing a video camera in a location that allows law enforcement to record activities outside of a home and beyond protected curtilage does not violate the Fourth Amendment," Department of Justice prosecutors James Santelle and William Lipscomb told Callahan.

"That one's actions could be recorded on their own property, even if the property is not within the curtilage, is contrary to society's concept of privacy," argued Magana's attorney Brett Reetz in a legal filing.

"The owner and his guest… had reason to believe that their activities on the property were not subject to video surveillance as it would constitute a violation of privacy," Reetz added in last month's legal filing.

Writing for CNET, Declan McCullagh paints a quite disturbing picture of where this precedent could lead.

"As digital sensors become cheaper and wireless connections become more powerful, the Justice Department's argument would allow police to install cameras on private property without court oversight — subject only to budgetary limits and political pressure," McCullagh writes.

The ugly reality is that legal precedents such as these serve to reinforce the constant erosion of our most essential rights. So long as judges continue to support the consistent undermining of our Constitutional rights, this disturbing trend will undoubtedly continue and will likely get significantly worse.

link

Bush's fault

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

US law enforcement agencies are already buying their own surveillance drones to take on this burden, and it's much more convenient because there will be no concerns about needing pesky warrants. You can already buy RC helicopters equipped with HD cameras and live video transmission capability - DragonFly makes a very nice one.

[Ban Hammer 13,333]

[quote name=' timestamp='1363191135' post='6043927]

And I learned a new word today - curtilage! Thanks charles.

sounds like a honey crumpet word, eh?

[JohnR! 5,495]

Yet again, a federal judge undermined the Constitution in a wholly disturbing fashion, this time by allowing police to install hidden surveillance cameras on private property without obtaining a search warrant.

"Placing a video camera in a location that allows law enforcement to record activities outside of a home and beyond protected curtilage does not violate the Fourth Amendment," Department of Justice prosecutors James Santelle and William Lipscomb told Callahan.

"That one's actions could be recorded on their own property, even if the property is not within the curtilage, is contrary to society's concept of privacy," argued Magana's attorney Brett Reetz in a legal filing.

In essence, the cameras were not on private property, as stated at the top of the op-ed, so much as they were placed outside and beyond the areas of curtilage.

Brett Reetz should pack and set shop outside the Ivy. He would have a field day with the paparazzi!

[^_^ 5,021]

Bush's fault

Good catch. The judge is a GWB appointee.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

In essence, the cameras were not on private property, as stated at the top of the op-ed, so much as they were placed outside and beyond the areas of curtilage.

Brett Reetz should pack and set shop outside the Ivy. He would have a field day with the paparazzi!

where did it say it was not on private property

[^_^ 5,021]

where did it say it was not on private property

It sounds like it says it's on private property but not on the area of curtilage.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

[quote name=' timestamp='1363198873' post='6044284]

It sounds like it says it's on private property but not on the area of curtilage.

Yeah imagine you have a home on 40 acres with a decent length drive. In theory they can watch most of the drive and most of the land just not the immediate half acre around the structure. If you have a deer fence surrounding your home for instance, that should be the limit and no cameras should be able to observe the house itself.

Of course if you have a deer fence on the edge of the 40 acres I would have to assume they would probably need to cut into it to get through and that still must be against the law.

Edited March 13, 2013 by Usui Takumi

[JstaRebel 48]

As I read this thread and other news regarding the loss of American's constitutional rights and freedoms, I cannot help but feel relieved at my decision many years ago to leave Corporate America and see how the rest of the world lives.. There use to be an old saying.. America.. Love it or leave it.. I left because I couldn't stand to watch the country I loved go down the toilet.. Below is a photo that to me says it all..

[^_^ 5,021]

As I read this thread and other news regarding the loss of American's constitutional rights and freedoms, I cannot help but feel relieved at my decision many years ago to leave Corporate America and see how the rest of the world lives.. There use to be an old saying.. America.. Love it or leave it.. I left because I couldn't stand to watch the country I loved go down the toilet.. Below is a photo that to me says it all..

Which bastion of individual freedom do you live in now?

[Ban Hammer 13,333]

Yeah imagine you have a home on 40 acres with a decent length drive. In theory they can watch most of the drive and most of the land just not the immediate half acre around the structure. If you have a deer fence surrounding your home for instance, that should be the limit and no cameras should be able to observe the house itself.

Of course if you have a deer fence on the edge of the 40 acres I would have to assume they would probably need to cut into it to get through and that still must be against the law.

maybe that's why bro dean is always putting up fences.