5 ms·

Camera Spying Violated Fourth Amendment, Colorado Supreme Court Rules

26 points by brk 5y ago

colejohnson66 5y ago
The issue at hand (it seems) was the lack of a warrant. In 2012, the US Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in US v. Jones that a GPS tracker attached to a car was a “search” and would require a warrant. This seems like the same idea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones
tinalumfoil 5y ago
Doesn't this rub pretty strongly against Florida v. Riley, which ruled overhead surveillance is legal as long as the viewer was somewhere a person could've reasonably been?
- tssva 5y ago
  Is standing on a pole for 3 months somewhere a person could have reasonably been?
  - whythre 5y ago
    Yeah, a stylite could reasonably have done it, obviously /s
fosshogg 5y ago
Interesting if this gets to the SCOTUS. Is it "reasonable" for your neighbor to film your backyard with a drone?
- RattleyCooper 5y ago
  For 3 months, uninterrupted? Yeah, I don't think that's reasonable at all.
- ttyprintk 5y ago
  I think this is a different case, though. The police didn’t succeed or didn’t try to get a warrant before pointing a camera at one guy. Then, tried to argue that they could mount it anywhere because his fence had gaps and was only 6’ high.
HomeDeLaPot 5y ago
This seems pretty open and shut. Drug dealer though he may be, we can't allow such a blatant invasion of privacy to set the standard. The dude had a 6 foot tall fence around his yard and the police think it's okay to put a camera up on a pole to surveil him without a warrant? And they did it around the clock for 3 months...
- throwaway81523 5y ago
  If I point a camera into my neighbor's yard and run it 24/7 for 3 months, I'm probably in deep doo-doo even if he has no fence at all. With a fence, I'd refer to Kyllo v. US, though that disturbingly was a 5-4 decision rather than 9-0 :(. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States

26 points by brk 5y ago

The issue at hand (it seems) was the lack of a warrant. In 2012, the US Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in US v. Jones that a GPS tracker attached to a car was a “search” and would require a warrant. This seems like the same idea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones

tinalumfoil 5y ago

Doesn't this rub pretty strongly against Florida v. Riley, which ruled overhead surveillance is legal as long as the viewer was somewhere a person could've reasonably been?

tssva 5y ago
Is standing on a pole for 3 months somewhere a person could have reasonably been?
- whythre 5y ago
  Yeah, a stylite could reasonably have done it, obviously /s

fosshogg 5y ago

Interesting if this gets to the SCOTUS. Is it "reasonable" for your neighbor to film your backyard with a drone?

RattleyCooper 5y ago
For 3 months, uninterrupted? Yeah, I don't think that's reasonable at all.
ttyprintk 5y ago
I think this is a different case, though. The police didn’t succeed or didn’t try to get a warrant before pointing a camera at one guy. Then, tried to argue that they could mount it anywhere because his fence had gaps and was only 6’ high.

HomeDeLaPot 5y ago

This seems pretty open and shut. Drug dealer though he may be, we can't allow such a blatant invasion of privacy to set the standard. The dude had a 6 foot tall fence around his yard and the police think it's okay to put a camera up on a pole to surveil him without a warrant? And they did it around the clock for 3 months...

throwaway81523 5y ago
If I point a camera into my neighbor's yard and run it 24/7 for 3 months, I'm probably in deep doo-doo even if he has no fence at all. With a fence, I'd refer to Kyllo v. US, though that disturbingly was a 5-4 decision rather than 9-0 :(. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States