Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Drone sent over property as part of municipal code enforcement; no exclusionary rule violation
Date: Mon, 06 May 2024 21:24:37 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <5d0j3j5p1vsq5dvuu9250ibom93fqrlp6d@4ax.com>
References: <v1aupf$2lass$1@dont-email.me> <7eqi3j99m8gn16ahagl3ejp3m8a6ppq5v9@4ax.com> <v1btv7$2s4u2$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 07 May 2024 03:24:40 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a8c045675f0eaadfed56bd2d53e800d5";
	logging-data="3037572"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/ahXLBHUjxAeznF3O0P5JoxH4PFcCI6UQ="
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Ij/XN0AI2b5Ccl9Z16liNm78MKU=
Bytes: 2406

On Tue, 7 May 2024 00:51:51 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>Mon, 6 May 2024 15:59:43 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:
>
>>>In oral argument, Lehto said that one of the judges asked the Institute
>>>for Justice attorney if they don't extend the exclusionary rule that
>>>municipalities will buy drones and commence overflights. The IJ attorney
>>>said of course they will given how cheap drones have become.
>
>>How is viewing someone's home from the street an invasion of a right
>>to privacy?
>
>Did you read my synopsis? The privacy violation was the drone
>OVERFLIGHT. There were three of them.

Yep, no one is questioning the ability for anyone to view someone's
property from the street without violating the law. I agree that if
the municipality couldn't see anything from the street then they
wouldn't have any ability to complain, but that doesn't give them the
right to over fly the property in question. 

Though here is the issue. It likely was possibly for them to fly their
drone directly over the street (keeping it on public property) and
still see into the property in question. That doesn't appear to be
what was done, but it does seem like it could have been done and still
given them the evidence they wanted/needed.