4 ms·

No. 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 p

No. 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 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

slapshot 11y ago
Edit: I forgot about Ciraolo, which 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 of the homeowner despite the lack of a warrant. Again, right or wrong, it's pretty settled that the police can use visual observation without a warrant, even if you fence in your yard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_v._Ciraolo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_v._Ciraolo
protomyth 11y ago
"However, the Court stopped short of allowing all aerial inspections of private property, noting that it was "of obvious importance" that a private citizen could have legally flown in the same airspace:" "Any member of the public could legally have been flying over Riley's property in a helicopter at the altitude of 400 feet and could have observed Riley's greenhouse. The police officer did no more." They targeted a specific farmer and used a high power camera in a drone to check the cows. So, they did quite a lot more than the general public could have done. This was closer to Kyllo than Riley. Beyond that, the legality of using a drone over other people's property is going through the courts now.
- slapshot 11y ago
  Right or wrong, the problem that the court had in Kyllo was that the infrared scope gave an indication as to what was going on inside the home. The Supreme Court reasoned that the inside of the home was entitled to more privacy protection than a yard. The fear was that future infrared scopes would give the ability to see individual people moving around, or otherwise invade the privacy of the inside of the house. This case is more like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_v._Ciraolo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_v._Ciraolo , where the police intentionally targeted a suspected marijuana farmer with a flyover (without a warrant). The farmer lost. I can't imagine the court would think that a ranch with cattle is entitled to more privacy protection than a fenced-in backyard growing pot. To my knowledge, no Supreme Court case has ever said that advanced visual optics can't be used outside the home.
  - walshemj 11y ago
    and would noticing that snow/frost melts quicker on a house used for pot growing would also fall under this?
    - rtkwe 11y ago
      Probably, it's just noticing something visible through a normal camera from outside the house and doesn't use any thing like thermal cameras that have been ruled to cross the line. It's a really thin thing to hang a warrant on but it doesn't get immediately through out through a prior ruling.

slapshot 11y ago

Edit: I forgot about Ciraolo, which 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 of the homeowner despite the lack of a warrant. Again, right or wrong, it's pretty settled that the police can use visual observation without a warrant, even if you fence in your yard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_v._Ciraolo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_v._Ciraolo

protomyth 11y ago

"However, the Court stopped short of allowing all aerial inspections of private property, noting that it was "of obvious importance" that a private citizen could have legally flown in the same airspace:" "Any member of the public could legally have been flying over Riley's property in a helicopter at the altitude of 400 feet and could have observed Riley's greenhouse. The police officer did no more." They targeted a specific farmer and used a high power camera in a drone to check the cows. So, they did quite a lot more than the general public could have done. This was closer to Kyllo than Riley. Beyond that, the legality of using a drone over other people's property is going through the courts now.

slapshot 11y ago
Right or wrong, the problem that the court had in Kyllo was that the infrared scope gave an indication as to what was going on inside the home. The Supreme Court reasoned that the inside of the home was entitled to more privacy protection than a yard. The fear was that future infrared scopes would give the ability to see individual people moving around, or otherwise invade the privacy of the inside of the house. This case is more like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_v._Ciraolo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_v._Ciraolo , where the police intentionally targeted a suspected marijuana farmer with a flyover (without a warrant). The farmer lost. I can't imagine the court would think that a ranch with cattle is entitled to more privacy protection than a fenced-in backyard growing pot. To my knowledge, no Supreme Court case has ever said that advanced visual optics can't be used outside the home.
- walshemj 11y ago
  and would noticing that snow/frost melts quicker on a house used for pot growing would also fall under this?
  - rtkwe 11y ago
    Probably, it's just noticing something visible through a normal camera from outside the house and doesn't use any thing like thermal cameras that have been ruled to cross the line. It's a really thin thing to hang a warrant on but it doesn't get immediately through out through a prior ruling.