14 ms·

I really hope SCOTUS smacks down the cops; "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and se

I really hope SCOTUS smacks down the cops; "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" is pretty clear, and it doesn't matter that the Fourth Amendment was written in a time without electronics. Also, this should apply to manual police surveillance of homes as well: there should be a warrant.

pstuart 4y ago
This case was about somebody selling illegal drugs (and firearms but only skimmed). The War on Drugs has legitimized excessive policing to an insane degree (only eclipsed by the War on Terror). People continue to support this because "drugs are bad, m'kay?", which can be true, but doesn't warrant this madness. The US should have learned its lesson with alcohol prohibition but apparently too many people profit off the current scheme for it to meaningfully change. We could collectively remedy this promptly if enough of the population recognized and demanded that the better path is education, regulation, and taxation.
- cwillu 4y ago
  Sounds like the lesson was learned quite well.
  - pstuart 4y ago
    I get the snark, but no, it hasn't.
modriano 4y ago
Imagine you have a largish property (say 5 acres) and you had a greenhouse that was not visible from any adjacent public land, and police suspect you're growing some marijuana in that greenhouse. Would it be unreasonable for cops to get a helicopter, fly high enough to see over the things hiding the greenhouse, claim they saw marijuana from a distance of over 400 feet with just their eyes, and used that as probable cause to then get a search warrant for the property? In Florida v Riley, "The Court held that Riley had no reasonable expectation of privacy in this case because anyone could view Riley’s property from a helicopter flying in navigable airspace and figure out what was inside. The police officer did not enter Riley’s land or interfere with it in any way. Furthermore, the manner in which he was flying the helicopter was well within the law; therefore, the police officer was within his rights to view Riley’s property from the air. The Court determined that the police action in this case did not violate Riley’s Fourth Amendment rights." [0] That case was in 1988, and it is not out of line with the 4th Amendment decisions over the ~50+ years since the Warren court that made good 4A decisions (like Katz vs US [1]). So expect this case to fly through 6 to 3. [0] https://www.oyez.org/cases/1988/87-764 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1988/87-764 [1] https://www.oyez.org/cases/1967/35 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1967/35
- scarface74 4y ago
  >… you're growing some marijuana in that greenhouse Your entire argument is based on the flawed premise that government should have any right to stop you from growing, selling or consuming marijuana.
- ghoward 4y ago
  I think you're right about the end result, and I do not like it. I also disagree with the Riley case: unless you have REALLY good binoculars, there isn't any way someone could tell what kind of plants are in a greenhouse at 400 feet.
  - mkl95 4y ago
    It's a known fact that cops struggle to distinguish hemp from marijuana. If they can't do it when it's in front of their faces, there's no way they will at 400 feet.
    - aerostable_slug 4y ago
      Even better: outdoor grows have been located via their heat signature at night (I have a relative who was a national guard pilot and did this). There's no way to know what's there, just that it's a different temp than the native greenery. Generally this is done on public / state land, but I imagine more than one raid on private land was cued by this technique.
    - dehrmann 4y ago
      They're literally the same species. You might still need a license to produce hemp, so they could plausibly consult the license list, notice your cannabis, see you're not on the list, and get a warrant either way.
      - Melting_Harps 4y ago
        > You might still need a license to produce hemp, so they could plausibly consult the license list, notice your cannabis, see you're not on the list, and get a warrant either way. You;ll only appear on that list if you do so for commercial purposes and are required to get a license, furthermore you can legally grow MJ or Hemp without one provided you live in a legal state: where you are allowed up to 6 plants per Adult resident of your home above the age of 21. So you can legally have a large compliant grow if you live in a CO-OP as is common in several legalized States. And this very thing was disputed in CO in the early phases of Amendment 64 (legalizing recreational MJ and Industrial hemp in 2012), and then was made law of the land after the Farm bill of 2018 wherein hemp could be grown in all 50 stares as it was codified as a matter that was to be handled by their respective Department of Ag in their state/city. In short, their is nothing stopping anyone growing Industrial hemp as a crop for their own usage in a legal state if it is not used for commercial purposes, it is however, not wise to do so because the DEA can get a warrant and sill do a search and seizure and continue to use things like asset forfeiture to ruin your life in the process so it's best to limit such grows not because the Law doesn't allow it, but for the sheer fear of having an agency that is growing in irrelevance to come inot your Life when a rather easy to get license/permit will do--some States even distinguish between commercial and R/D for this very purpose and to skirt around Laws where Federal funding can be threatened as was the case with CU Boulder/Denver. > They're getting a warrant, not a conviction. While true, you can still have your Life ruined in the process of said search warrant and be subject to asset forfeiture. Personally speaking, i think that is a direct violation of one's 4th Amendment Right, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen and it's best to be avoided. Source: My startup was providing financial services and payment processing to the Legal Hemp Industry (2015-2018), and my co-founder was one of the first to legally do so under the seed/breeding program in CO.
jjulius 4y ago
This is mostly tongue-in-cheek, but: >... to be secure in their... houses... The cameras are outside, so teeeeeechnically...
- ghoward 4y ago
  I presume you are being tongue-in-cheek, and I agree, so it will probably be ruled for the cops. But why would police treat a peeping tom differently when they do the same thing? It's so hypocritical.
  - krapp 4y ago
    > But why would police treat a peeping tom differently when they do the same thing? It's so hypocritical. For the same reason that, when the police restrain you against your will and lock you in a cage, it's an arrest, but if you do it, it's assault and kidnapping.
    - cnelsenmilt 4y ago
      It can still be assault and kidnapping when the police do it, if they don't have a good reason and follow the rules. Same applies to surveillance. The question is not cops vs. non-cops: it's what the valid reasons and rules for the cops are.
      - pdntspa 4y ago
        It is still assault and kidnapping, just legally sanctioned, and for some reason we feel compelled to call it an "arrest". Just because its LEO performing the assault doesn't make it any less of an assault.
    - paulryanrogers 4y ago
      Police have a monopoly on violence. Which requires holding them to a higher standard. The 4th amendment means the courts should err on the side of privacy, not surveillance.
rychco 4y ago
The current SCOTUS? Respecting your rights? I wouldn’t count on it, friend.
- koolba 4y ago
  They did a great job respecting the right to bear arms.

pstuart 4y ago

This case was about somebody selling illegal drugs (and firearms but only skimmed). The War on Drugs has legitimized excessive policing to an insane degree (only eclipsed by the War on Terror). People continue to support this because "drugs are bad, m'kay?", which can be true, but doesn't warrant this madness. The US should have learned its lesson with alcohol prohibition but apparently too many people profit off the current scheme for it to meaningfully change. We could collectively remedy this promptly if enough of the population recognized and demanded that the better path is education, regulation, and taxation.

cwillu 4y ago
Sounds like the lesson was learned quite well.
- pstuart 4y ago
  I get the snark, but no, it hasn't.

modriano 4y ago

Imagine you have a largish property (say 5 acres) and you had a greenhouse that was not visible from any adjacent public land, and police suspect you're growing some marijuana in that greenhouse. Would it be unreasonable for cops to get a helicopter, fly high enough to see over the things hiding the greenhouse, claim they saw marijuana from a distance of over 400 feet with just their eyes, and used that as probable cause to then get a search warrant for the property? In Florida v Riley, "The Court held that Riley had no reasonable expectation of privacy in this case because anyone could view Riley’s property from a helicopter flying in navigable airspace and figure out what was inside. The police officer did not enter Riley’s land or interfere with it in any way. Furthermore, the manner in which he was flying the helicopter was well within the law; therefore, the police officer was within his rights to view Riley’s property from the air. The Court determined that the police action in this case did not violate Riley’s Fourth Amendment rights." [0] That case was in 1988, and it is not out of line with the 4th Amendment decisions over the ~50+ years since the Warren court that made good 4A decisions (like Katz vs US [1]). So expect this case to fly through 6 to 3. [0] https://www.oyez.org/cases/1988/87-764 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1988/87-764 [1] https://www.oyez.org/cases/1967/35 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1967/35

scarface74 4y ago
>… you're growing some marijuana in that greenhouse Your entire argument is based on the flawed premise that government should have any right to stop you from growing, selling or consuming marijuana.
ghoward 4y ago
I think you're right about the end result, and I do not like it. I also disagree with the Riley case: unless you have REALLY good binoculars, there isn't any way someone could tell what kind of plants are in a greenhouse at 400 feet.
- mkl95 4y ago
  It's a known fact that cops struggle to distinguish hemp from marijuana. If they can't do it when it's in front of their faces, there's no way they will at 400 feet.
  - aerostable_slug 4y ago
    Even better: outdoor grows have been located via their heat signature at night (I have a relative who was a national guard pilot and did this). There's no way to know what's there, just that it's a different temp than the native greenery. Generally this is done on public / state land, but I imagine more than one raid on private land was cued by this technique.
  - dehrmann 4y ago
    They're literally the same species. You might still need a license to produce hemp, so they could plausibly consult the license list, notice your cannabis, see you're not on the list, and get a warrant either way.
    - Melting_Harps 4y ago
      > You might still need a license to produce hemp, so they could plausibly consult the license list, notice your cannabis, see you're not on the list, and get a warrant either way. You;ll only appear on that list if you do so for commercial purposes and are required to get a license, furthermore you can legally grow MJ or Hemp without one provided you live in a legal state: where you are allowed up to 6 plants per Adult resident of your home above the age of 21. So you can legally have a large compliant grow if you live in a CO-OP as is common in several legalized States. And this very thing was disputed in CO in the early phases of Amendment 64 (legalizing recreational MJ and Industrial hemp in 2012), and then was made law of the land after the Farm bill of 2018 wherein hemp could be grown in all 50 stares as it was codified as a matter that was to be handled by their respective Department of Ag in their state/city. In short, their is nothing stopping anyone growing Industrial hemp as a crop for their own usage in a legal state if it is not used for commercial purposes, it is however, not wise to do so because the DEA can get a warrant and sill do a search and seizure and continue to use things like asset forfeiture to ruin your life in the process so it's best to limit such grows not because the Law doesn't allow it, but for the sheer fear of having an agency that is growing in irrelevance to come inot your Life when a rather easy to get license/permit will do--some States even distinguish between commercial and R/D for this very purpose and to skirt around Laws where Federal funding can be threatened as was the case with CU Boulder/Denver. > They're getting a warrant, not a conviction. While true, you can still have your Life ruined in the process of said search warrant and be subject to asset forfeiture. Personally speaking, i think that is a direct violation of one's 4th Amendment Right, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen and it's best to be avoided. Source: My startup was providing financial services and payment processing to the Legal Hemp Industry (2015-2018), and my co-founder was one of the first to legally do so under the seed/breeding program in CO.

jjulius 4y ago

This is mostly tongue-in-cheek, but: >... to be secure in their... houses... The cameras are outside, so teeeeeechnically...

ghoward 4y ago
I presume you are being tongue-in-cheek, and I agree, so it will probably be ruled for the cops. But why would police treat a peeping tom differently when they do the same thing? It's so hypocritical.
- krapp 4y ago
  > But why would police treat a peeping tom differently when they do the same thing? It's so hypocritical. For the same reason that, when the police restrain you against your will and lock you in a cage, it's an arrest, but if you do it, it's assault and kidnapping.
  - cnelsenmilt 4y ago
    It can still be assault and kidnapping when the police do it, if they don't have a good reason and follow the rules. Same applies to surveillance. The question is not cops vs. non-cops: it's what the valid reasons and rules for the cops are.
    - pdntspa 4y ago
      It is still assault and kidnapping, just legally sanctioned, and for some reason we feel compelled to call it an "arrest". Just because its LEO performing the assault doesn't make it any less of an assault.
  - paulryanrogers 4y ago
    Police have a monopoly on violence. Which requires holding them to a higher standard. The 4th amendment means the courts should err on the side of privacy, not surveillance.

rychco 4y ago

The current SCOTUS? Respecting your rights? I wouldn’t count on it, friend.

koolba 4y ago
They did a great job respecting the right to bear arms.