OT: Unmanned Aerial Drones for SPD - Public meeting

[reillo584]

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"... Benjamin Franklin

 

[Sparky508]

[h=2]WAC 232-12-005[/h]	Agency filings affecting this section
[h=1]Predatory birds.[/h]

(1) HUNTING PREDATORY BIRDS:

(a) It is unlawful to hunt for or take predatory birds without a hunting license except as allowed under RCW 77.36.030.

(b) Crows and magpies: It is lawful to take crows during established hunting seasons and crows or magpies when found committing or about to commit depredations upon ornamental or shade trees, agricultural crops, livestock, or wildlife, or when concentrated in such numbers and manner as to constitute a health hazard or other nuisance provided that none of the birds, or their plumage, be offered for sale.

(c) All other predatory birds may be hunted throughout the year.

Looks like you can take them out at will..............

 

[EMNofSeattle]

NO compromise. According to the Constitution of the United States they need a warrant issued by a judge. I do not see any other option.

Here is what SPD says:



And we all know that they follow their own guidelines They never beat the "mexican piss" out of any citizens. They never shoot unarmed Native American woodcarvers.

A warrant from a judge for each and every use. That is the only acceptable usage.

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2019526462_drones26m.html

I actually don't think the constitution says anything about drones. If the drone can't look into your house it's not a problem with me. Did you know that the King County sheriff operates this contracption called a "helicopter" their helicopter is equipped in such a way that it can see into houses, last year they did a demonstration for a county councilwoman and showed her her kids playing video games in the front room of her house with the FLIR camera.

These drones are Toys R us type stuff, these aren't predators here. they have one IR lense and a regular camera lense. far less capable then assets police have been using for decades. these can be used stealthier then a chopper for situations in which they need it.

A warrant from a judge is not needed to patrol public areas.

 

[Difdi]

Actually aluminum is better, Aluminum cuts down on the government mind control frequencies and can also prevent abduction by paraterrestrials.

Actually that has been effectively disproved, by MIT no less. http://berkeley.intel-research.net/arahimi/helmet/

How resistant will these be to spurious signals? Remember the CB radio signals that could possibly set off electric blasting caps?

Me, I'd take a Faraday cage, cut a hole in one side to make it directional, and stick one of these inside. Aim it straight up above my property, wired to a motion detector. Set the range gate at about 35 feet, and install blinds that keep anything higher than 35 feet from looking in my windows. Drone problem solved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosively_pumped_flux_compression_generator

 

[BigDave]

A couple of years ago on a TV show called Harry's Law, the cops had a drone outside her house,
spying in the window of her neighbor,,,
Harry didnt know who it was looking at, or what IT really was...
She brought out her shotgun,,,yelled "PULL" and shot it out of the sky!!
Cops tried to prosicute her for destruction of police property,,, and lost...

You do realize that is a tv show.

 

[Motofixxer]

I'm building a 5 mile range EMP generator with skynet dome activation, along with a remote activated, aimbot controlled, turret mounted combination AK 57 oozie radar laser triple-barrel double-scoped heat-seekin shotgun for backup.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Actually that has been effectively disproved, by MIT no less. http://berkeley.intel-research.net/arahimi/helmet/



Me, I'd take a Faraday cage, cut a hole in one side to make it directional, and stick one of these inside. Aim it straight up above my property, wired to a motion detector. Set the range gate at about 35 feet, and install blinds that keep anything higher than 35 feet from looking in my windows. Drone problem solved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosively_pumped_flux_compression_generator

Obviously MIT is an arm of the New World Order and is trying to subjagate us to the will of the Trilateral Commission

 

[DocWalker]

I'm building a 5 mile range EMP generator with skynet dome activation, along with a remote activated, aimbot controlled, turret mounted combination AK 57 oozie radar laser triple-barrel double-scoped heat-seekin shotgun for backup.

Are you quoting "Bananas at large"?

Thirty-point-buck...lol

 

[bmg50cal]

http://www.draganfly.com/

[video=youtube;1rff4IvB3tA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rff4IvB3tA[/video]

 

[davidmcbeth]

I have released my aerial balloons to prevent flyovers. 35,000 over my 40,000 sq. foot property. Take that commies!

Did I hear someone mention Bananas ? Bananas !:banana::banana::banana::banana:

Really, use of drones by drones should not be allowed.

 

[tannerwaterbury]

Oh man, I will be saving money and buying my own RC heli, that way if a drone ever flew over my airspace (IE: the immediate area of property I live on) I'd use the helicopter to intercept and bump it out of the sky. No warrant? NO DRONES FOR YOU! Thats what we all should have, our own fleet of drone interceptors. If they don't want to lose money and resources, they better not fly over my airspace illegally.

 

[Ajetpilot]

Thats what we all should have, our own fleet of drone interceptors.

I had several drone interceptors, and they're all 12 gauge.

 

[gogodawgs]

I actually don't think the constitution says anything about drones. If the drone can't look into your house it's not a problem with me. Did you know that the King County sheriff operates this contracption called a "helicopter" their helicopter is equipped in such a way that it can see into houses, last year they did a demonstration for a county councilwoman and showed her her kids playing video games in the front room of her house with the FLIR camera.

These drones are Toys R us type stuff, these aren't predators here. they have one IR lense and a regular camera lense. far less capable then assets police have been using for decades. these can be used stealthier then a chopper for situations in which they need it.

A warrant from a judge is not needed to patrol public areas.

Seriously? The constitution doesn't say anything about blue jeans either, or Mac books, or mobile homes.... well you get the point. But they need a warrant to search or seize any of those things. Both by the US Constitution and the Washington Constitution.

As to FLIR, IR or any other device they need a WARRANT.

Don't be naive on purpose!

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

SECTION 7 INVASION OF PRIVATE AFFAIRS OR HOME PROHIBITED. No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Seriously? The constitution doesn't say anything about blue jeans either, or Mac books, or mobile homes.... well you get the point. But they need a warrant to search or seize any of those things. Both by the US Constitution and the Washington Constitution.

As to FLIR, IR or any other device they need a WARRANT.

Don't be naive on purpose!

You're right they need warrants in order to use FLIR to image someone's house.
I'm not nessecarily concerned about a 4 pound battery RC chopper that you can probably buy at Toys R Us. you have no claim to "air rights" above your home, if the FAA approves it to fly it can fly. If I own a cessna 172 I can fly above your house all day long if I want. I can fly orbits above your house and watch everything you do. that's already well established. the only thing requiring a warrant is something that invades the privacy of structures on your premises. your yard is considered "open fields" and requires no warrant to search. (Hester v United States)

these things aren't going to be hovering outside your bathroom window watching you shower, they're going to be used for specific incidents or events and will save tons of money because they'll be authorized to fly in ways that a chopper or fixed wing aircraft cannot and will be much cheaper. these things can only fly for 30 minutes on a charge anyway.

The benefits are great, a public protest, someone begins beating someone else, the drone can observe the incident happen, police officers on the ground can be directed to the incident and notified of any dangers they need be aware of and can follow and track the perpetrators as they flee. Or if a search warrant is being executed the drone can be used to track fleers and the like, maybe even save money because it can track which cars parked where and at what time so we need fewer meter maids. these can be highly beneficial, and they observe NOTHING that is not already oberservable to anyone who owns a piper or cessna.

 

[Freedom1Man]

Seriously? The constitution doesn't say anything about blue jeans either, or Mac books, or mobile homes.... well you get the point. But they need a warrant to search or seize any of those things. Both by the US Constitution and the Washington Constitution.

As to FLIR, IR or any other device they need a WARRANT.

Don't be naive on purpose!

Constitutions where not meant to restrict the rights/powers of citizens. They are there to enumerate the LIMITED powers of government. They do not have to address computers, jeans, mobile homes, etc.

Which Washington Constitution are you referring to though? 1878 (the one on congressional record submitted for obtaining statehood) or the 1889?

As for the requiring a Warrant, I will look for the case again, but I found a ruling that stated that the only reason the police could not use FLIR, RADAR, etc (without a warrant) is because the average citizen could not afford the technology.

------
Edit
Here is proof that the courts are either not requiring warrants and/or are handing them out like candy on Halloween.
http://www.losangelescriminaldefense.com/INFRARED.pdf
http://www.alea.org/public/airbeat/back_issues/may_jun_2008/Seven Years Since Kyllo.pdf

I will keep looking for the first case I talked about. It may have been the Kyllo case when it was heard by a lower level court.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

You're right they need warrants in order to use FLIR to image someone's house.
I'm not nessecarily concerned about a 4 pound battery RC chopper that you can probably buy at Toys R Us. you have no claim to "air rights" above your home, if the FAA approves it to fly it can fly. If I own a cessna 172 I can fly above your house all day long if I want. I can fly orbits above your house and watch everything you do. that's already well established. the only thing requiring a warrant is something that invades the privacy of structures on your premises. your yard is considered "open fields" and requires no warrant to search. (Hester v United States)

these things aren't going to be hovering outside your bathroom window watching you shower, they're going to be used for specific incidents or events and will save tons of money because they'll be authorized to fly in ways that a chopper or fixed wing aircraft cannot and will be much cheaper. these things can only fly for 30 minutes on a charge anyway.

The benefits are great, a public protest, someone begins beating someone else, the drone can observe the incident happen, police officers on the ground can be directed to the incident and notified of any dangers they need be aware of and can follow and track the perpetrators as they flee. Or if a search warrant is being executed the drone can be used to track fleers and the like, maybe even save money because it can track which cars parked where and at what time so we need fewer meter maids. these can be highly beneficial, and they observe NOTHING that is not already oberservable to anyone who owns a piper or cessna.

So why did SCOTUS say you need a warrant for GPS trackers?

Why are you so willing to sacrifice your liberty for safety.

Did you miss Nicks quote of our constitution that includes private affairs. If I have a fence around my yard for privacy and you fly over to avoid that you are ok with that.

The air space argument is a silly distraction. Can I fly my helicopter (If I had one) 8 feet above the ground in your property?

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I had several drone interceptors, and they're all 12 gauge.

 

[Trigger Dr]

You're right they need warrants in order to use FLIR to image someone's house.
I'm not nessecarily concerned about a 4 pound battery RC chopper that you can probably buy at Toys R Us. you have no claim to "air rights" above your home, if the FAA approves it to fly it can fly. If I own a cessna 172 I can fly above your house all day long if I want. I can fly orbits above your house and watch everything you do. that's already well established. the only thing requiring a warrant is something that invades the privacy of structures on your premises. your yard is considered "open fields" and requires no warrant to search. (Hester v United States)

these things aren't going to be hovering outside your bathroom window watching you shower, they're going to be used for specific incidents or events and will save tons of money because they'll be authorized to fly in ways that a chopper or fixed wing aircraft cannot and will be much cheaper. these things can only fly for 30 minutes on a charge anyway.

The benefits are great, a public protest, someone begins beating someone else, the drone can observe the incident happen, police officers on the ground can be directed to the incident and notified of any dangers they need be aware of and can follow and track the perpetrators as they flee. Or if a search warrant is being executed the drone can be used to track fleers and the like, maybe even save money because it can track which cars parked where and at what time so we need fewer meter maids. these can be highly beneficial, and they observe NOTHING that is not already oberservable to anyone who owns a piper or cessna.

with the
Think about it!! The problem lies not with the ORIGINAL INTENDED CONCEPT, but with the over reaching abusive implementation.
As far as tracking a fleeing felon, these are "line of sight" operational, and as such the operator would be within "line of sight" of the subject being tracked. Where is the benefit? And what is the possibility of unintended consequences?

 

[rapgood]

If I own a cessna 172 I can fly above your house all day long if I want. I can fly orbits above your house and watch everything you do. that's already well established. the only thing requiring a warrant is something that invades the privacy of structures on your premises. your yard is considered "open fields" and requires no warrant to search. (Hester v United States)

Once again, you speak in legal absolutes where none exist. Hester was decided in 1924. The law of surveillance substantially has matured since that decision was handed down. Moreover, while it is true that you can "fly orbits above" a house (assuming that you do, indeed, know how to fly), FAA-imposed minimum altitude regulations constrain your ability to peer into every nook and cranny of someone's home. Sadly, thus far, the use of drones by LE is not subject to this well-considered limitation.

The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351-352 (U.S. 1967) While what a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, generally is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection (See Lewis v. United States, 385 U.S. 206, 210; United States v. Lee, 274 U.S. 559, 563), what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected. See Rios v. United States, 364 U.S. 253 (1960). Not surprisingly, this view of strict Constitutional protections harkens far back in our judicial history. See Ex parte Jackson, 96 U.S. 727, 733 (1878).

Video surveillance is subject to comprehensive regulation both when used in domestic criminal investigations and in foreign intelligence operations. The conclusion that Congress intended the statutes regulating electronic surveillance to have expansive coverage is also supported by the language and legislative history of Title I, enacted in 1986. Title I bolstered individual privacy by subjecting additional forms of surveillance to regulation. United States v. Koyomejian, 946 F.2d 1450, 1457 (9th Cir. Cal. 1991).

Please know what you are talking about before stating that you do.

these things aren't going to be hovering outside your bathroom window watching you shower, they're going to be used for specific incidents or events and will save tons of money because they'll be authorized to fly in ways that a chopper or fixed wing aircraft cannot and will be much cheaper. these things can only fly for 30 minutes on a charge anyway.

Cite? Authority? What is your source of factual support for your representations? You quote none.

Interestingly enough, at least one Washington court has held that, as the owner/tenant of the curtilage, that owner/tenant can take aim with a firearm at your Cessna and you and be within the law, State v. McKinley, 87 Wn. App. 394, 397-398 (1997) (although I strongly discourage one from doing so), while another says you can't, State v. Smith, 118 Wn. App. 480, 93 P.3d 877 (2003), review denied, 151 Wn.2d 1014 (2004). This poignant contrast provides a clear and succinct example of the dearth of absolutes in the law.

 

[rapgood]

The air space argument is a silly distraction. Can I fly my helicopter (If I had one) 8 feet above the ground in your property?

No. Clearly you may not. (Red herring, I know )
14 CFR 91.119
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

(d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface--

(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and

(2) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section.