Baltimore PD: secret aerial surveilance exposed

[ElNono]

In this case a person is literally one pixel. A dot on the screen.

You paranoia is interesting.

Good enough to track such pixel around to see where he went, stopped, for how long, etc. That's been classified as surveillance for a long time now.

And yes, there's a difference between a cop following you and an automated system. In United States v. Jones (2012), the SCOTUS ruled on this already, determining that automated systems like GPS trackers are indeed a search under the 4th amendment and require a warrant. (and trespass was part of it, which also goes to the core of this too)

And that was a case where a warrant was issued. In this particular case, there's not even a warrant.

[ElNono]

I can only imagine the outrage if this system was used to track gun owners, tbh...

[spurraider21]

Good enough to track such pixel around to see where he went, stopped, for how long, etc. That's been classified as surveillance for a long time now.

And yes, there's a difference between a cop following you and an automated system. In United States v. Jones (2012), the SCOTUS ruled on this already, determining that automated systems like GPS trackers are indeed a search under the 4th amendment and require a warrant. (and trespass was part of it, which also goes to the core of this too)

And that was a case where a warrant was issued. In this particular case, there's not even a warrant.

there was no warrant in jones... the entry paragraph on wiki is wrong on det

well, they had a warrant but it expired before they ever attached the device, so the action was warrantless, technically

they ruled that because the GPS was considered a "trespass" it automatically qualified as a "search." since they "searched" him without a warrant, it was considered illegal

that being said, if the search warrant was valid, the GPS would have been permitted. the evidence was thrown out in court because they ruled it a search and there was no warrant

[Trill Clinton]

how you personally feel is irrelevant when it comes to potentially impeding other people's 4th amendment rights

good point

Seriously?

Good luck making a 4th amendment case.

unfortunately, this is true too. the supreme course has shown they do not allow the 4th amendment to interfere with the prosecution of the war on drugs. florida v bostick and terry v ohio come to mind.

[ElNono]

there was no warrant in jones... the entry paragraph on wiki is wrong on det

they ruled that because the GPS was considered a "trespass" it automatically qualified as a "search." since they "searched" him without a warrant, it was considered illegal

Regardless, while it's not exactly the same scenario, it's close enough, IMO. Equating 7 foot tall cops or a police chopper looking down to an ongoing, automated aerial recording system is simply not the same thing.

I remember one of the arguments the government advanced in Jones was that there was no difference between the tracker and a police car following the guy. The SCOTUS clearly made a distinction.

[spurraider21]

Regardless, while it's not exactly the same scenario, it's close enough, IMO. Equating 7 foot tall cops or a police chopper looking down to an ongoing, automated aerial recording system is simply not the same thing.

I remember one of the arguments the government advanced in Jones was that there was no difference between the tracker and a police car following the guy. The SCOTUS clearly made a distinction.

made edits, see above

the difference is that a police car following a guy wouldn't be considered a search under the 4th amendment... so with or without a warrant, that action is fine

but a GPS was considered a trespass which automatically qualified it as a search under the 4th amendment, which is why a valid warrant was required for them to use that evidence.

the entire case would have been moot if they acted timely while the warrant was active

[spurraider21]

but ElNono it is correct that aerial surveillance (helicopters, cameras) are generally not considered searches and dont require warrants... unless they have thermal vision or other extreme technology that is not available to the general public, in which case it would be considered intrusive and require a search warrant for use

Dow Chemical v US addresses the aerial surveillance/photograph question

Kyllo v US addressed the thermal imaging question

[ElNono]

but ElNono it is correct that aerial surveillance (helicopters, cameras) are generally not considered searches and dont require warrants... unless they have thermal vision or other extreme technology that is not available to the general public, in which case it would be considered intrusive and require a search warrant for use

Dow Chemical v US addresses the aerial surveillance/photograph question

Kyllo v US addressed the thermal imaging question

Actually, I was reading that there's also a certain al ude set to be considered part of property (and thus trespassing). I don't remember off the top of my head, but I was reading about it with the whole drone drama lately.

Regardless, I'm sure surveillance like this will be challenged in court. Again, the core of this issue really touches upon expectation of privacy and probable cause. We're not talking natsec here, which has it's own rules and oversight, but a PD...

[ElNono]

Dow Chemical v US addresses the aerial surveillance/photograph question

Note this on that case though:

3. EPA's taking, without a warrant, of aerial photographs of pe ioner's plant complex from an aircraft lawfully in public navigable airspace was not a search prohibited by the Fourth Amendment. The open areas of an industrial plant complex such as pe ioner's are not analogous to the "curtilage" of a dwelling, which is en led to protection as a place where the occupants have a reasonable and legitimate expectation of privacy that society is prepared to accept.

[spurraider21]

Note this on that case though:

3. EPA's taking, without a warrant, of aerial photographs of pe ioner's plant complex from an aircraft lawfully in public navigable airspace was not a search prohibited by the Fourth Amendment. The open areas of an industrial plant complex such as pe ioner's are not analogous to the "curtilage" of a dwelling, which is en led to protection as a place where the occupants have a reasonable and legitimate expectation of privacy that society is prepared to accept.

good point, didn't remember that part

[SnakeBoy]

Note this on that case though:

3. EPA's taking, without a warrant, of aerial photographs of pe ioner's plant complex from an aircraft lawfully in public navigable airspace was not a search prohibited by the Fourth Amendment. The open areas of an industrial plant complex such as pe ioner's are not analogous to the "curtilage" of a dwelling, which is en led to protection as a place where the occupants have a reasonable and legitimate expectation of privacy that society is prepared to accept.

These cases might be of interest
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._Riley
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_v._Ciraolo

Actually, I was reading that there's also a certain al ude set to be considered part of property (and thus trespassing). I don't remember off the top of my head, but I was reading about it with the whole drone drama lately.

Regardless, I'm sure surveillance like this will be challenged in court. Again, the core of this issue really touches upon expectation of privacy and probable cause. We're not talking natsec here, which has it's own rules and oversight, but a PD...

I'm sure it will, at least you seem to have returned to the world of the reasonable here instead of Winehole's "OMG anyone who isn't instantly outraged is to cowardly for freedom" bull .

[Winehole23]

The govt has democratic approval to surveil our asses

your local PD wasn't elected. they don't have democratic approval. in this case, they didn't even tell the city fathers.

[Winehole23]

police that break the law should be prosecuted.

I do not believe in denying honest police valid tools to fight crime because of a statistically insignificant potential for abuse.

Unlike the case of terrorism, I don't think you can show it's statistically insignificant.

Can you?

[Winehole23]

Also, you continue to insist the tool is valid.

Has that been shown, or is that more reason by fiat?

[Winehole23]

Good enough to track such pixel around to see where he went, stopped, for how long, etc. That's been classified as surveillance for a long time now.

And yes, there's a difference between a cop following you and an automated system. In United States v. Jones (2012), the SCOTUS ruled on this already, determining that automated systems like GPS trackers are indeed a search under the 4th amendment and require a warrant. (and trespass was part of it, which also goes to the core of this too)

And that was a case where a warrant was issued. In this particular case, there's not even a warrant.

Valid tool to catch bad guys.

Shut up about the US Cons ution!

[SnakeBoy]

your local PD wasn't elected. they don't have democratic approval. in this case, they didn't even tell the city fathers.

Already stated they should have but it wasn't the grand conspiracy you seem to think it was.

At a news conference on Wednesday, Police Department spokesman T.J. Smith repeatedly insisted to reporters that the test program, which began in January, was not a secret.

"It's not a secret spy plane," Smith said as reporters pressed him for an explanation for the lack of information. "There's no conspiracy to not disclose it."

The test program lets the department evaluate the effectiveness of a potential tool in the department's crime-fighting arsenal, he said.

The program tests products and services from Persistent Surveillance Systems. Phase 1, Smith said, included 100 hours of the plane flying over the city in January and February. The program is now in Phase 2, working toward 200 hours that began in mid-June. Phase 2 will end in a few weeks; the department "doesn't have a plan to move forward beyond that," Smith said.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/s...olice-41629517

Phase 2 died an early death.

[Winehole23]

I didn't say it was a grand conspiracy, and I don't care if phase 2 died an early death, this is ing bull and shouldn't be allowed.

[Winehole23]

The Baltimore PD has harmed its own prestige and legitimacy. So much the worse for them and any PDs who wish to emulate them.

[SnakeBoy]

I didn't say it was a grand conspiracy, and I don't care if phase 2 died an early death, this is ing bull and shouldn't be allowed.

That's debatable...no matter how much you stomp your feet.

[Winehole23]

it's a debate for sure. not sure why you think others should shut up.

do we owe it to the police to zip it and not rock the boat, in your view?

[Winehole23]

what's your gripe, SnakeBoy?

[SnakeBoy]

what's your gripe, SnakeBoy?

Not really a gripe but I just think you are overreacting on this topic calling people who disagree too cowardly to be free, etc. I know privacy/over-reaching in the name of security is a big issue to you and I agree with you on many of those issues (post 911 reaction for example). On this one, I'm on the fence from what little we know about the actual technology and how it may have been used. I'm not telling you to shut up but it is debatable whether this type of surveillance is cons utional. Does that make me scared of freedom?

[Winehole23]

how is it cons utional for the Baltimore PD to run mass surveillance without permission or oversight?

[Winehole23]

and leaving that completely aside, why do you think it's a good idea?

[Winehole23]

and leaving that completely aside, do you really see no downside for personal liberty and due process?