Federal Court Nixes Weeks of Warrantless Video Surveillance

[ElNono]

The public got an early holiday gift today when a federal court agreed with us that six weeks of continually video recording the front yard of someone's home without a search warrant violates the Fourth Amendment (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/12/federal-court-agrees-eff-throws-out-six-weeks-warrantless-video-surveillance). In United States v. Vargas local police in rural Washington suspected Vargas of drug trafficking. In April 2013, police installed a camera on top of a utility pole overlooking his home. Even though police did not have a warrant, they nonetheless pointed the camera at his front door and driveway and began watching every day. A month later, police observed Vargas shoot some beer bottles with a gun and because Vargas was an undocumented immigrant, they had probable cause to believe he was illegally possessing a firearm. They used the video surveillance to obtain a warrant to search his home, which uncovered drugs and guns, leading to a federal indictment against Vargas.

[ElNono]

judge's opinion:

https://www.eff.org/files/2014/12/15/vargas_order.pdf

[FromWayDowntown]

They should have just taken him into custody and tortured him -- err, used enhanced interrogation techniques.

The ends justify the means.

[ElNono]

They should have just taken him into custody and tortured him.

The ends justify the means.

If you have a minute, check out the opinion. They recorded his property for 6 weeks straight, but when they went to do the raid, they moved the camera lens away from the property (and the raid), then moved it back to the property once the raid was complete :lol

[boutons_deux]

another ruling said if dumbfuck highschool dropout cops DONT KNOW THEIR OWN STATE/LOCAL LAW (one tail light is enough) and stop your car for an infraction (one tailout out) and search your car, you're still liable for what they find (cocaine).

solution: refuse search of car or house without a search warrant (judges hand them out like condoms)

[FromWayDowntown]

If you have a minute, check out the opinion. They recorded his property for 6 weeks straight, but when they went to do the raid, they moved the camera lens away from the property (and the raid), then moved it back to the property once the raid was complete :lol

Gosh, I wonder why there are those in this land who are suspicious of police officers and reluctant to just go along with the program when they encounter those officers?

[spurraider21]

judge's opinion:

https://www.eff.org/files/2014/12/15/vargas_order.pdf
holy shit, since when do district courts write opinions this long... i'll read it later

[boutons_deux]

and it looks like SCOTUS says "reasonable" is whatever the cops want it to mean.

who could object to "reasonable"

like, who could object to "prudent"

I prudently, reasonably feared for my life, so I shot the n!gg@ and whatever it was he had in his hand.

[FromWayDowntown]

another ruling said if dumbfuck highschool dropout cops DONT KNOW THEIR OWN STATE/LOCAL LAW (one tail light is enough) and stop your car for an infraction (one tailout out) and search your car, you're still liable for what they find (cocaine).

solution: refuse search of car or house without a search warrant (judges hand them out like condoms)


Ironically, yesterday, the Supreme Court held that a police officer's reasonable mistake of law will not cause a search to violate the Fourth Amendment. So, a police officer can accuse you of, say, a traffic violation that isn't really a traffic violation (in that case, the belief that the fact that one of your vehicle's brake lights was not functional is a violation) and cause a stop during which a search results in the discovery of contraband. Even if that violation is shown to have been non-cognizable (under the NC statute applicable to that case, the law required only one working brake light, which the driver had), if the officer can demonstrate that the mistake was a reasonable one, the fruits of the search are admissible even though there was technically no justification for the stop in the first instance.

It's an interesting notion.

[Winehole23]

Ironically, yesterday, the Supreme Court held that a police officer's reasonable mistake of law will not cause a search to violate the Fourth Amendment. So, a police officer can accuse you of, say, a traffic violation that isn't really a traffic violation (in that case, the belief that the fact that one of your vehicle's brake lights was not functional is a violation) and cause a stop during which a search results in the discovery of contraband. Even if that violation is shown to have been non-cognizable (under the NC statute applicable to that case, the law required only one working brake light, which the driver had), if the officer can demonstrate that the mistake was a reasonable one, the fruits of the search are admissible even though there was technically no justification for the stop in the first instance.

It's an interesting notion.Through the Looking Glass type stuff ...

[boutons_deux]

Ironically, yesterday, the Supreme Court held that a police officer's reasonable mistake of law will not cause a search to violate the Fourth Amendment. So, a police officer can accuse you of, say, a traffic violation that isn't really a traffic violation (in that case, the belief that the fact that one of your vehicle's brake lights was not functional is a violation) and cause a stop during which a search results in the discovery of contraband. Even if that violation is shown to have been non-cognizable (under the NC statute applicable to that case, the law required only one working brake light, which the driver had), if the officer can demonstrate that the mistake was a reasonable one, the fruits of the search are admissible even though there was technically no justification for the stop in the first instance.

It's an interesting notion.

that's the ruling that my post was referring to

[FromWayDowntown]

Through the Looking Glass type stuff ...

It's worrisome, though I actually don't think the outcome in Heien necessarily portends more egregious overreach by law enforcement on a regular basis. The use of the word "reasonable" in describing the mistakes that can be overlooked is potentially problematic, but also provides a ready mechanism to limit the rule.

[Winehole23]

it gives a ready baked rationale to cops for shifty behavior. they can just say they were unclear on the law, to justify arbitrary searches.

[FromWayDowntown]

it gives a ready baked rationale to cops for shifty behavior. they can just say they were unclear on the law, to justify arbitrary searches.

That would be the potentially problematic part of it. Of course, the mechanism to limit the rule is to judiciously limit what constitutes a "reasonable" mistake of law and confine it to circumstances involving ambiguous statutes which arguably fit the facts of a particular case. I'm not particularly optimistic that courts will necessarily choose the latter route, but it would be a sensible limitation if the rule remains in effect.

It does seem, though, that conservative fears about the "erosion of constitutional rights" are pretty much limited to the First, Second, and Tenth amendments without much regard for running roughshod over the protections of the Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, and Eighth in most instances.

[spurraider21]

law would be nearly impossible to practice without the reasonable/prudent standards

unless we have microchips inside people's brains that can tell us exactly what they were thinking during an act, the reasonable standard is the next best thing

[boutons_deux]

law would be nearly impossible to practice without the reasonable/prudent standards

unless we have microchips inside people's brains that can tell us exactly what they were thinking during an act, the reasonable standard is the next best thing

cops must know what the laws are (one taillight is legal, citizens filming cops is legal) and obey them.

[spurraider21]

cops must know what the laws are (one taillight is legal, citizens filming cops is legal) and obey them.
i'm in agreement of that

[Winehole23]

That would be the potentially problematic part of it. Of course, the mechanism to limit the rule is to judiciously limit what constitutes a "reasonable" mistake of law and confine it to circumstances involving ambiguous statutes which arguably fit the facts of a particular case. I'm not particularly optimistic that courts will necessarily choose the latter route, but it would be a sensible limitation if the rule remains in effect.

It does seem, though, that conservative fears about the "erosion of constitutional rights" are pretty much limited to the First, Second, and Tenth amendments without much regard for running roughshod over the protections of the Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, and Eighth in most instances.Ouch!

[FromWayDowntown]

Ouch!

It seems to me to be the hypocrisy of the "constitutionalist" movement.