Path: ...!news.nobody.at!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Drone sent over property as part of municipal code enforcement; no exclusionary rule violation
Date: Tue, 7 May 2024 00:51:51 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <v1btv7$2s4u2$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v1aupf$2lass$1@dont-email.me> <7eqi3j99m8gn16ahagl3ejp3m8a6ppq5v9@4ax.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 07 May 2024 02:51:51 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f74df4a862178c31e49a9a9aad2d1376";
	logging-data="3019714"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19oFJfwDR6VifWe3hEfGcOl/0QjtG+ZeXg="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:1UItbXu0bjW+MYcjuXm85iskiTs=
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Bytes: 1549

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.

>. . .