4 ms·
I just looked up the US Department of the Interior (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_the_Interior https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_the_Int
by mcintyre1994 12y ago
I just looked up the US Department of the Interior (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_the_Interior https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_the_Interior) and I'm confused about what they were doing - the war on drugs seems way outside their stated purposes. The article on the ruling doesn't seem to mention it though, would it have been fine if they'd had a warrant? I don't even see why they are able to get search warrants for a home from their stated purpose.
Interesting and recent precedent though. I wonder if it would hold for a normal camera if a drone flew past a house at human walking height and took pictures of what's inside. I'm guessing a police officer can act on seeing something in a house they're walking past, if that's the case then what if a drone took a picture and an officer later or immediately saw it?
- jevinskie 12y agoThe recorded oral argument is very interesting to listen to. http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_99_8508 http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2000/2000_99_8508
- yashosky 12y agoThat is very interesting. I was surprised at how easily the discussion was getting off-track at first (flashlight), but it does pick up in the end. It seems the judges try to distill the issue by a process of adversarial questioning and taking things to extremes. Also, Justice Souter is killing it.
- maxerickson 12y ago48% of the land in that county is owned by the federal government. It hammers the tax base: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lane_County,_Oregon#Economy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lane_County,_Oregon#Economy