3 ms·
This isn't a very good argument. A naked eye assessment from water is no different than from land. You won't see over walls or between land features, you also c
by ch4s3 4y ago
This isn't a very good argument. A naked eye assessment from water is no different than from land. You won't see over walls or between land features, you also can't go within 400 ft of any arbitrary point in a piece of property from the water. Furthermore the 400 ft rule is totally arbitrary, and enforcing it relies entirely on the word of the police who are 100% incentivized to lie about both altitude and use of "the naked eye". The whole think stinks of authoritarianism.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago> the 400 ft rule is totally arbitrary, and enforcing it relies entirely on the word of the police I mean, any distance is going to be arbitrary. And “people might lie” is a bad reason to reject a rule. (It’s a good reason to raise the burden of evidence.)
- ch4s3 4y agoThe decision set no burden for evidence, and the dissents specifically pointed out that no reasonable civilian pilot would be flying so low. The court invented this shit whole cloth to justify the drug war fashion of the day, it’s horrifying overreach. Imagine saying out loud with a straight face that it’s not a search because you’re in the sky.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago> decision set no burden for evidence Defence didn’t allege the cops lied. This case wasn’t about lying cops. > no reasonable civilian pilot would be flying so low This argument has merit. That said, civilians don’t slowly patrol neighbourhoods either. So I’m not sure where the threshold is for what cops can do on patrol.