SUBSCRIBE | NEWSLETTERS | MAPS | VIDEOS | BLOGS | MARKETPLACE | CONTESTS
TRY BACKPACKER FREE!
SUBSCRIBE NOW and get
2 Free Issues and 3 Free Gifts!
Full Name:
Address 1:
Address 2:
City:
State:
Zip Code:
Email: (required)
If I like it and decide to continue, I'll pay just $12.00, and receive a full one-year subscription (9 issues in all), a 73% savings off the newsstand price! If for any reason I decide not to continue, I'll write "cancel" on the invoice and owe nothing.
Your subscription includes 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Or click here to pay now and get 2 extra issues
Offer valid in US only.


» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

 

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]

reply to topic new topic new poll
Topic: A little backbone in Charlottesville!< Next Oldest | Next Newest >
 Post Number: 1
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 05 2013, 1:22 pm  Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Shortly after 11 p.m. on Monday, February 4, 2013, the City Council of Charlottesville, Va., passed what is believed to be the first anti-drone resolution in the country.  According to my notes, and verifiable soon on the City Council's website, the resolution reads:

"WHEREAS, the rapid implementation of drone technology throughout the United States poses a serious threat to the privacy and constitutional rights of the American people, including the residents of Charlottesville; and

"WHEREAS, the federal government and the Commonwealth of Virginia have thus far failed to provide reasonable legal restrictions on the use of drones within the United States; and


And Read the rest:

http://www.huntingtonnews.net/54800


--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 2
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43793
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 05 2013, 1:32 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

"The same City Council passed a resolution on January 17, 2012, calling for an end to drone wars, as well as ground wars, excessive military spending, and any possible attack on Iran. "

Extensive googling reveals there hasn't been a ground war in Charlottesville since this passed!

Kudos.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 3
JimInMD Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 3947
Joined: Feb. 2011
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 05 2013, 1:37 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Fine, helicoptors it is.

--------------
"Your number one philosophy for personal security should be a life long commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation."

The 3 Stupids Rule:

Don’t go to stupid places, with stupid people, to do stupid things.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 4
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43793
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 05 2013, 1:42 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(JimInMD @ Feb. 05 2013, 10:37 am)
QUOTE
Fine, helicoptors it is.

Excellent choice! What with the replacement of the MH-53J Pave Low III with Osprey CV-22Bs there's some good deals to be had I'm sure.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 5
Gabby Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6333
Joined: Jun. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 05 2013, 2:40 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Now that OBAMA dares use drones, everyone on the right seems to be getting their panties all in a twist. Funny, that.

Mind you, I have never been "pro-drone", nor will I ever be. Anything that takes the terror out of war is not a good thing. Anything that removes the combatants from risk is absolutely not a good thing. War is not something we should be doing "by remote control". That should apply to anyone from either party or from any country, for that matter.

But guess who's requesting those Predators for patrolling the border down here in Texas? I can answer that one: it was one of John Cornyn's "big items" for the last three years!
QUOTE
Just how serious is Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, about bringing unmanned aerial drones to the Texas-Mexico border? Ask Michael Huerta.

Huerta was nominated to the post of Deputy Administrator to the Federal Aviation Administration by President Barack Obama last year, and sailed through the Senate’s committee hearing process. But that’s as far as he’s gone, thanks in part to Cornyn’s recent displeasure with the FAA.

Cornyn, along with Gov. Rick Perry, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and a host of Democratic Congressmen, urged for months that the FAA issue a certification of authorization and clear a flight path for an unmanned areal drone to patrol Texas’ border with Mexico.

http://www.texastribune.org/2010....-drones
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 6
JimInMD Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 3947
Joined: Feb. 2011
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 05 2013, 2:48 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Gabby @ Feb. 05 2013, 2:40 pm)
QUOTE
Now that OBAMA dares use drones, everyone on the right seems to be getting their panties all in a twist. Funny, that.

Mind you, I have never been "pro-drone", nor will I ever be. Anything that takes the terror out of war is not a good thing. Anything that removes the combatants from risk is absolutely not a good thing. War is not something we should be doing "by remote control". That should apply to anyone from either party or from any country, for that matter.

But guess who's requesting those Predators for patrolling the border down here in Texas? I can answer that one: it was one of John Cornyn's "big items" for the last three years!
QUOTE
Just how serious is Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, about bringing unmanned aerial drones to the Texas-Mexico border? Ask Michael Huerta.

Huerta was nominated to the post of Deputy Administrator to the Federal Aviation Administration by President Barack Obama last year, and sailed through the Senate’s committee hearing process. But that’s as far as he’s gone, thanks in part to Cornyn’s recent displeasure with the FAA.

Cornyn, along with Gov. Rick Perry, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and a host of Democratic Congressmen, urged for months that the FAA issue a certification of authorization and clear a flight path for an unmanned areal drone to patrol Texas’ border with Mexico.

http://www.texastribune.org/2010....-drones

Gabby, forgive me if I missed it, but where do they call for a Preditor?  I assume this is an unarmed observation/ surveilence platform that they're using.  In that capacity, it makes a lot more sense than putting USBP Agents in the air, on foot and in boats to do the same work more slowly.

--------------
"Your number one philosophy for personal security should be a life long commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation."

The 3 Stupids Rule:

Don’t go to stupid places, with stupid people, to do stupid things.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 7
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43793
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 05 2013, 2:56 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

"“I’m pleased to see that the FAA has finally approved Predator patrols over this portion of the Texas-Mexico border. This is progress, but we have much more work to do to secure our borders. The American people are terribly upset, scared, and angry with the Federal Government, and they don’t understand why we aren’t doing more.  I will continue pressing the FAA to allow these Predator patrols to expand to the rest of the Texas border, and pursue additional ways to enhance our border security,” said Senator Cornyn."

http://www.cornyn.senate.gov/public....1dd89d6

There's wiggle room as the Predator UAV  and the Predator B follow up larger vehicle initially was unarmed and only later were variants developed that carried Hellfire missiles and laser designators.

ETA: And that Predator B's armed variant's official name is MQ-9 Reaper
http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=6405
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 8
Gabby Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6333
Joined: Jun. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 05 2013, 2:58 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

No, it was a more general statement AFA that particular article is concerned, but then you haven't had the opportunities I have had to observe Mr. Cornyn in his native habitat, so to speak - and he has at least mentioned unarmed Predator drones on at least one occasion I remember, when he was complaining that the number he had requested for patrol was more than the Feds were going to give him.

So, I apologize, that's from whence my comment about "Predator" derived.

ETA: Yep, you got it before I could type it, HSF.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 9
Old Frank Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1192
Joined: Sep. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 05 2013, 3:18 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I know we Texans elected Cornyn and Perry and Cruz, but out of concern for my blood pressure, would you guys please quote them as little as possible? Thank you.

--------------
My favorite compliment: "GrandPa, I've seen other old men, and their faces are a whole lot cruddier than yours is".
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 10
Gabby Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6333
Joined: Jun. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 05 2013, 3:48 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Frank,

There is, in the spirit of that lovable hell-raiser Molly Ivins, still some sheer joy in the stupidity of voters and politicians in Texas. No one elsewhere knows how outrageously stupid and asinine any of them truly are until someone as stupid as Governor Goodhair attempts to run for the Presidency. You'd think everyone would know by now, just based on his multiple performances during the entertaining GOP debates. (I watched all of them from start to finish - they were that funny! [Me slapping knee and breaking out in uproarious laughter: "These are the guys Obama has to beat? Hell, this is going to be easy!])

And yet, this total doofus (Gov. Goodhair) has been in office for over a dozen years - the longest running term of any governor in the nation! See how stupid Texans are!

Stupidity, I understand, is one of the primary causes of celebratory activity in this state.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 11
JimInMD Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 3947
Joined: Feb. 2011
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 05 2013, 4:15 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Thanks HSF (and Gabby), I had only read the linked section.  Beyond that, I've got nothing.  That just makes my head hurt.

--------------
"Your number one philosophy for personal security should be a life long commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation."

The 3 Stupids Rule:

Don’t go to stupid places, with stupid people, to do stupid things.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 12
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 05 2013, 5:04 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Gabby @ Feb. 05 2013, 2:40 pm)
QUOTE
Now that OBAMA dares use drones, everyone on the right seems to be getting their panties all in a twist. Funny, that.

Mind you, I have never been "pro-drone", nor will I ever be. Anything that takes the terror out of war is not a good thing. Anything that removes the combatants from risk is absolutely not a good thing. War is not something we should be doing "by remote control". That should apply to anyone from either party or from any country, for that matter.

But guess who's requesting those Predators for patrolling the border down here in Texas? I can answer that one: it was one of John Cornyn's "big items" for the last three years!
QUOTE
Just how serious is Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, about bringing unmanned aerial drones to the Texas-Mexico border? Ask Michael Huerta.

Huerta was nominated to the post of Deputy Administrator to the Federal Aviation Administration by President Barack Obama last year, and sailed through the Senate’s committee hearing process. But that’s as far as he’s gone, thanks in part to Cornyn’s recent displeasure with the FAA.

Cornyn, along with Gov. Rick Perry, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and a host of Democratic Congressmen, urged for months that the FAA issue a certification of authorization and clear a flight path for an unmanned areal drone to patrol Texas’ border with Mexico.

http://www.texastribune.org/2010....-drones

My panties were in a twist over it when George Bush used them, I'm not a supporter of either party. Or drone use for killing or spying.

--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 13
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 05 2013, 5:06 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(High_Sierra_Fan @ Feb. 05 2013, 1:32 pm)
QUOTE
"The same City Council passed a resolution on January 17, 2012, calling for an end to drone wars, as well as ground wars, excessive military spending, and any possible attack on Iran. "

Extensive googling reveals there hasn't been a ground war in Charlottesville since this passed!

Kudos.

Their entire state now has a two year moratorium on drones. If civil liberty issues aren't satisfactorily addressed during that period, perhaps it will become permanent.

--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 14
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43793
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 05 2013, 5:15 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Not, really as quoted:
""we don't own the air.""

They've expressed an opinion, for themselves "endorses the proposal*...", and presumably expressing their approach to  actions within their control: so they as a city won't be buying unmanned surveillance aircraft. Kudos.

it may be useful to look up what a "Resolution" is.

Hint: NOT a law. Similar to their "anti-ground war" one. An expression of opinion, nothing actionable. Though I expect, were Iran aware of the other one, they'd be thankful to not be facing the implacable threat otherwise posed by a fierce Charlottesville. Freeing them up for launching their President into space!

* "entire state now has" No they do not:
THIS is the proposal they endorse: note a proposal, not passed and signed into law legislation.

http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin....bmit=GO

ETA: Oh and it's a proposed state action that would not impact the federal government:
"HOUSE BILL NO. 2012
AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE
(Proposed by the House Committee for Courts of Justice)
(Patron Prior to Substitute--Delegate Cline [HB 1616])
House Amendments in [ ] -- February 4, 2013
A BILL to place a moratorium on the use of unmanned aircraft systems.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:

1. § 1. No state or local agency or organization having jurisdiction over criminal law enforcement or regulatory violations, including but not limited to the Department of State Police, and no department of law enforcement as defined in § 15.2-836 of any county, city, or town shall utilize an unmanned aircraft system before July 1, 2015.

[ 2.  Notwithstanding the prohibition in paragraph A of this section, an unmanned aircraft system may be deployed before July 1, 2015 when an Amber Alert is activated pursuant to § 52-34.3, when a Senior Alert is activated pursuant to § 52-34.6, when a Blue Alert is activated pursuant to § 52-34.9, or for the purpose of a search and rescue operation. In no case may a weaponized unmanned aircraft system be deployed or its use facilitated by a state or local agency in Virginia. ]"
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 15
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 05 2013, 5:20 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Old Frank @ Feb. 05 2013, 3:18 pm)
QUOTE
I know we Texans elected Cornyn and Perry and Cruz, but out of concern for my blood pressure, would you guys please quote them as little as possible? Thank you.

Cruz is against sending tanks and fighter jets to the Muslim Brotherhood influenced Egyptian government, that shouldn't make your head hurt.

--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 16
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 05 2013, 5:26 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

City in Virginia Becomes First to Pass Anti-Drone Legislation.

http://www.usnews.com/news....lation-

State:

http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin....bmit=GO


--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 17
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43793
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 05 2013, 5:33 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

"Smith admits that the final legislation won't do anything to prevent federal- or state-operated drones from operating over Charlottesville's skies,"

But at least that growing tension between their city and Iran has been eased eh?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 18
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 05 2013, 5:38 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I realise you don't value either your privacy or your civil liberties. But for those who do, such legislation comes as encouraging.

--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 19
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43793
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 05 2013, 5:41 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Montecresto @ Feb. 05 2013, 2:38 pm)
QUOTE
I realise you don't value either your privacy or your civil liberties. But for those who do, such legislation comes as encouraging.

For those of us who value reality: Hasn't been signed into law as of yet. has it? And what's the VA governor's* record on drones?

"entire state now has"

So your above statement that a state moratorium was in place remains inaccurate.

Love my privacy: why I'm not on FB or use much of anything "google".

*: "Police drones flying over Virginia would be “great” and “the right thing to do” for the same reasons they are so effective in a battlefield environment, the state’s chief executive said Tuesday.

Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, a retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel, says he is open to any technology that makes law enforcement more productive. The use of drones, which was recently endorsed by the police chiefs of Fairfax County and D.C., would make better use of valuable police resources.

Increased safety and reduced manpower are among the reasons the U.S. military and intelligence community use drones on the battlefield, which is why it should be considered in Virginia, he says."

Has he changed his position? If not what are the votes for over-riding a veto?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 20
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 05 2013, 5:55 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

It passed the house today 86-13, that's backbone, let the governor veto it. I appreciate the effort and the respect for civil liberties. Maybe you should check out Jonathan Turleys posts on this, or the many studies out of several law universities that show their unconstitutional use both domestically and abroad.

--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 21
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43793
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 05 2013, 6:01 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Montecresto @ Feb. 05 2013, 2:55 pm)
QUOTE
It passed the house today 86-13, that's backbone, let the governor veto it. I appreciate the effort and the respect for civil liberties. Maybe you should check out Jonathan Turleys posts on this, or the many studies out of several law universities that show their unconstitutional use both domestically and abroad.

Review the legislative structure of Virginia: there's a House AND Senate. Then, once the two bills are reconciled (if they are) the one bill has to pass both houses and then be signed by the Governor.

It certainly may be enacted into law, ineffective towards federal aircraft as it would be, but it hasn't YET happened.

As to constitutionality: manned aircraft long ago passed that test. Remotely operated aircraft are different only in irrelevant (to the Constitution) details of flight control. Particular sensor technologies, however deployed, can easily be too intrusive I can imagine. But that's not a carrying platform issue that's a specific sensor technology issue: FAR different than the "drones" bogeyman.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 22
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 05 2013, 8:10 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

I understand there is a political process and that it may not become law. Still proud of the 86-13 vote and will wait to see. I'm sure you've not looked at law universities studies on it or constitutional lawyers like Jonathan Turley, that's fine if you haven't the interest, but there are plenty of people and institutions that don't dismiss it as a boggy man.

--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 23
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43793
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 05 2013, 11:02 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Montecresto @ Feb. 05 2013, 5:10 pm)
QUOTE
I understand there is a political process and that it may not become law. Still proud of the 86-13 vote and will wait to see. I'm sure you've not looked at law universities studies on it or constitutional lawyers like Jonathan Turley, that's fine if you haven't the interest, but there are plenty of people and institutions that don't dismiss it as a boggy man.

Have or have not manned aircraft used for domestic surveillance passed constitutional tests?

Hint: They're still flying.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 24
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 05 2013, 11:09 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

We are discussing UAV's some as small as humming birds spying on people. I understand your cool with it. But not everyone is. The ACLU isn't, and many law school reviews aren't, and many constitutional lawyers are not, but you are. I got it.

--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 25
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43793
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 05 2013, 11:22 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

An actual court?
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Eugene George BREZA, Defendant-Appellant.


http://openjurist.org/308/f3d/430/united-states-v-breza

"18
For the reasons set forth above, we conclude that neither the aerial surveillance of Breza's property nor the warrantless entry into his vegetable garden infringed upon Breza's Fourth Amendment rights. We therefore affirm the denial of the motion to suppress."

Or the actual Supreme Court of the United States?
"On two occasions, the Supreme Court has addressed the question of whether aerial surveillance of property violates an expectation of privacy that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. See Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445, 109 S.Ct. 693, 102 L.Ed.2d 835 (1989); California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207, 106 S.Ct. 1809, 90 L.Ed.2d 210 (1986). In Ciraolo, the Court concluded that aerial observation of the defendant's property from a height of 1,000 feet did not violate "an expectation of privacy that is reasonable" because it "took place within public navigable airspace in a physically nonintrusive manner." Ciraolo, 476 U.S. at 213, 106 S.Ct. 1809 (citation omitted); cf. Giancola v. W. Va. Dep't of Pub. Safety, 830 F.2d 547, 550-51 (4th Cir.1987) (holding, under Ciraolo, that helicopter flyover of property at 100 feet did not violate Fourth Amendment). In Riley, a plurality of the Court concluded that the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated when law enforcement officers observed marijuana while hovering in a helicopter at an altitude of 400 feet. See Riley, 488 U.S. at 451-52, 109 S.Ct. 693 (plurality opinion). In reaching this conclusion, the plurality noted, inter alia, that the flight was conducted in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. See id. at 451, 109 S.Ct. 693. Justice O'Connor concurred in the judgment, asserting that mere compliance with aviation regulations should not determine whether a Fourth Amendment violation occurred. See id. at 453-54, 109 S.Ct. 693 (O'Connor, J., concurring in judgment). Rather, Justice O'Connor maintained that the relevant inquiry was "whether the helicopter was in the public airways at an altitude at which members of the public travel with sufficient regularity that [the defendant's] expectation of privacy from aerial observation was not one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable." Id. at 454, 109 S.Ct. 693 (internal quotation marks omitted). Because the defendant had produced no evidence that such flights were rare, Justice O'Connor concluded that no Fourth Amendment violation had occurred. See id. at 455, 109 S.Ct. 693."

Manned helicopters in these instances. Would remotely operated vehicles change any of that? Not that I see.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 26
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 05 2013, 11:27 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

???

--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 27
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 05 2013, 11:29 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Oh MAV's. right. The same thing.

--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 28
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43793
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 05 2013, 11:29 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

N/m
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 29
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Feb. 05 2013, 11:36 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic.  Ignore posts   QUOTE

Oh.

--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
28 replies since Feb. 05 2013, 1:22 pm < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]


 
reply to topic new topic new poll

» Quick Reply A little backbone in Charlottesville!
iB Code Buttons
You are posting as:

Do you wish to enable your signature for this post?
Do you wish to enable emoticons for this post?
Track this topic
View All Emoticons
View iB Code



Get 2 FREE Trial Issues and 3 FREE GIFTS
Survival Skills 101 • Eat Better
The Best Trails in America
YES! Please send me my FREE trial issues of Backpacker
and my 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Full Name:
City:
Address 1:
Zip Code:
State:
Address 2:
Email (required):
Free trial offer valid for US subscribers only. Canadian subscriptions | International subscriptions