3 ms·

Ohhhhhhhhhhh. OK, I get it. So the law is irrelevant as long as everyone is acting in good faith and a good outcome occurs. Wow, that's really useful. It's a

Ohhhhhhhhhhh. OK, I get it. So the law is irrelevant as long as everyone is acting in good faith and a good outcome occurs. Wow, that's really useful. It's a shame it doesn't apply to subjects, errrr, citizens.

cpncrunch 13y ago
Which law did they break?
- lotso 13y ago
  None. "Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989), was a United States Supreme Court decision which held that police officials do not need a warrant to observe an individual's property from public airspace." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._Riley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._Riley
  - nknighthb 13y ago
    The judgement in Riley was very fact-specific and was reached only because O'Connor felt the respondent failed to meet what she viewed as the proper burden of proof. There was no majority opinion, and no support by a majority of justices for the sweeping conclusion you draw from it.
    - diminoten 13y ago
      What sweeping conclusion? That no law was broken? That's hardly a sweeping conclusion, considering that's exactly what happened.
    - lotso 13y ago
      Honestly curious, but the "sweeping conclusion" I'm drawing is either that this i legal. According to this ruling (regardless of the fact that there was no majority opinion), am is it true that what the FBI is doing is legal?
- logn 13y ago
  I think the following amendments apply here: 1st (discourages free assembly), 4th (reasonable expectation of privacy on private property, and backed by many state laws regarding this for CCTV), 9th & 10th (the right to aerial surveillance of all land was never granted to the gov't).
abalone 13y ago
We don't know if any laws were broken without more specifics. The FBI doesn't need a warrant to tail someone in a car, for example. If they're peering into windows with binoculars or planting GPS devices, then yes.
diminoten 13y ago
Except that it usually does. The system of justice is run by people, and a guy who kills his six year old daughter's rapist is not going to get the same treatment the murderer of a six year old girl will get.

cpncrunch 13y ago

Which law did they break?

lotso 13y ago
None. "Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989), was a United States Supreme Court decision which held that police officials do not need a warrant to observe an individual's property from public airspace." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._Riley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._Riley
- nknighthb 13y ago
  The judgement in Riley was very fact-specific and was reached only because O'Connor felt the respondent failed to meet what she viewed as the proper burden of proof. There was no majority opinion, and no support by a majority of justices for the sweeping conclusion you draw from it.
  - diminoten 13y ago
    What sweeping conclusion? That no law was broken? That's hardly a sweeping conclusion, considering that's exactly what happened.
  - lotso 13y ago
    Honestly curious, but the "sweeping conclusion" I'm drawing is either that this i legal. According to this ruling (regardless of the fact that there was no majority opinion), am is it true that what the FBI is doing is legal?
logn 13y ago
I think the following amendments apply here: 1st (discourages free assembly), 4th (reasonable expectation of privacy on private property, and backed by many state laws regarding this for CCTV), 9th & 10th (the right to aerial surveillance of all land was never granted to the gov't).

abalone 13y ago

We don't know if any laws were broken without more specifics. The FBI doesn't need a warrant to tail someone in a car, for example. If they're peering into windows with binoculars or planting GPS devices, then yes.

diminoten 13y ago

Except that it usually does. The system of justice is run by people, and a guy who kills his six year old daughter's rapist is not going to get the same treatment the murderer of a six year old girl will get.