6 ms·

Why, yes, they used one to find a cattle rustler in ND http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpeck/2014/01/27/predator-drone-sends-north-dakota-man-to-jail/#6f1f457

Why, yes, they used one to find a cattle rustler in ND http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpeck/2014/01/27/predator-drone-sends-north-dakota-man-to-jail/#6f1f45735853 http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpeck/2014/01/27/predator-... I still believe this should have illegal as they had no warrant and it violates the Posse Comitatus Act.

jngreenlee 11y ago
Not illegal in this case, because the Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) is a department of the Department of Homeland Security, is not covered by the Posse Comitatus Act. Although the CBP is an armed service, it has a federal regulatory agency mission. The Act only specifically applies to the United States Army and, as amended in 1956, the United States Air Force.
- protomyth 11y ago
  CBP in name, but its serviced and housed at the Air Force base. Its still outside their mission (CBP does not have a charter to deal with cattle rustlers). Also, the fact Customs and Border Patrol is doing anything away from the border (that 100 mile thing is pure BS) is still troubling.
  - fosco 11y ago
    it is Customs and Border Protection, their responsibilities are a lot more than you think. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Customs_and_Border_Protection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Customs_and_Border_Protec... http://www.cbp.gov/about http://www.cbp.gov/about
    - protomyth 11y ago
      Every one of their powers and directives is worded against foreign threats, not people inside the border. The mission creep is similar to how anti-terrorist laws are used for drug enforcement.
      - deciplex 11y ago
        > The mission creep is similar to how anti-terrorist laws are used for drug enforcement. So, totally legal, then.
    - nefitty 11y ago
      "While its primary mission is preventing terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the United States, CBP is also responsible for... protecting American businesses from intellectual property theft." That's news to me!
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
tzs 11y ago
Looking at several stories on this, it seems that the drone was used to aid in executing a lawful arrest, not to gather evidence. The exact timeline is unclear, but many of the stories indicate that the drone was brought in after the arrest turned into an armed standoff, with the drone being used to figure out where the armed people were so that the arrests could be made safely. Under those circumstances, I don't see how using the drone would require a warrant.
- protomyth 11y ago
  The account I saw at the time it happened (I am in ND) said the drone was used to find the cows which would be an illegal search without a warrant. The reporting is very, very poor on the chain, but that's what I remember from the initial reports.
  - gohrt 11y ago
    Do visual inspections of outdoors require search warrants?
    - protomyth 11y ago
      Doing a visual inspection of someone's land does.
      - CIPHERSTONE 11y ago
        How about from a hot air baloon? I'd like to visually inspect the Playboy Mansion pool.
        protomyth 11y ago
        If your law enforcement, in addition to being a peeping tom, you still need a warrant. Check out the use of infra-red from the street to check houses.
    - slapshot 11y ago
slapshot 11y ago
It's pretty bright line that no warrant is required under current law. Like it or not, since the 1980s it has been the law that from "public airspace" police can use any visual technology to look at the outside of your property. Right or wrong, it's pretty settled law that if the public can fly somewhere then law enforcement can also fly there without a warrant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._Riley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._Riley Ciraolo is another case where police, without a warrant, intentionally flew over a backyard that was enclosed by a fence. In that case, the police found marijuana plants growing. The court upheld the conviction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_v._Ciraolo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_v._Ciraolo The interesting question is what about infrared and other "through the wall" technologies that give an indication as to what's inside a structure. In Kyllo, the Supreme Court decided 5-4 (with Scalia writing the majority opinion) that using a thermal imaging camera to investigate heat emitted from the wall of a house was a "search" that required a warrant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States

jngreenlee 11y ago

Not illegal in this case, because the Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) is a department of the Department of Homeland Security, is not covered by the Posse Comitatus Act. Although the CBP is an armed service, it has a federal regulatory agency mission. The Act only specifically applies to the United States Army and, as amended in 1956, the United States Air Force.

protomyth 11y ago
CBP in name, but its serviced and housed at the Air Force base. Its still outside their mission (CBP does not have a charter to deal with cattle rustlers). Also, the fact Customs and Border Patrol is doing anything away from the border (that 100 mile thing is pure BS) is still troubling.
- fosco 11y ago
  it is Customs and Border Protection, their responsibilities are a lot more than you think. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Customs_and_Border_Protection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Customs_and_Border_Protec... http://www.cbp.gov/about http://www.cbp.gov/about
  - protomyth 11y ago
    Every one of their powers and directives is worded against foreign threats, not people inside the border. The mission creep is similar to how anti-terrorist laws are used for drug enforcement.
    - deciplex 11y ago
      > The mission creep is similar to how anti-terrorist laws are used for drug enforcement. So, totally legal, then.
  - nefitty 11y ago
    "While its primary mission is preventing terrorists and terrorist weapons from entering the United States, CBP is also responsible for... protecting American businesses from intellectual property theft." That's news to me!
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

tzs 11y ago

Looking at several stories on this, it seems that the drone was used to aid in executing a lawful arrest, not to gather evidence. The exact timeline is unclear, but many of the stories indicate that the drone was brought in after the arrest turned into an armed standoff, with the drone being used to figure out where the armed people were so that the arrests could be made safely. Under those circumstances, I don't see how using the drone would require a warrant.

protomyth 11y ago
The account I saw at the time it happened (I am in ND) said the drone was used to find the cows which would be an illegal search without a warrant. The reporting is very, very poor on the chain, but that's what I remember from the initial reports.
- gohrt 11y ago
  Do visual inspections of outdoors require search warrants?
  - protomyth 11y ago
    Doing a visual inspection of someone's land does.
    - CIPHERSTONE 11y ago
      How about from a hot air baloon? I'd like to visually inspect the Playboy Mansion pool.
      - protomyth 11y ago
        If your law enforcement, in addition to being a peeping tom, you still need a warrant. Check out the use of infra-red from the street to check houses.
  - slapshot 11y ago

slapshot 11y ago

It's pretty bright line that no warrant is required under current law. Like it or not, since the 1980s it has been the law that from "public airspace" police can use any visual technology to look at the outside of your property. Right or wrong, it's pretty settled law that if the public can fly somewhere then law enforcement can also fly there without a warrant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._Riley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._Riley Ciraolo is another case where police, without a warrant, intentionally flew over a backyard that was enclosed by a fence. In that case, the police found marijuana plants growing. The court upheld the conviction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_v._Ciraolo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_v._Ciraolo The interesting question is what about infrared and other "through the wall" technologies that give an indication as to what's inside a structure. In Kyllo, the Supreme Court decided 5-4 (with Scalia writing the majority opinion) that using a thermal imaging camera to investigate heat emitted from the wall of a house was a "search" that required a warrant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States