Posted on 08/02/2012 2:05:24 PM PDT by Myrddin
A North Dakota court has preliminarily upheld the first-ever use of an unmanned drone to assist in the arrest of an American citizen.
A judge denied a request to dismiss charges Wednesday against Rodney Brossart, a man arrested last year after a 16-hour standoff with police at his Lakota, N.D., ranch. Brossart's lawyer argued that law enforcement's "warrantless use of [an] unmanned military-like surveillance aircraft" and "outrageous governmental conduct" warranted dismissal of the case, according to court documents obtained by U.S. News.
[Photo Gallery: The Expansion of the Drone]
District Judge Joel Medd wrote that "there was no improper use of an unmanned aerial vehicle" and that the drone "appears to have had no bearing on these charges being contested here," according to the documents.
Court records state that last June, six cows wandered onto Brossart's 3,000 acre farm, about 60 miles west of Grand Forks. Brossart allegedly refused to return the cows, which led to a long, armed standoff with the Grand Forks police department. At some point during the standoff, Homeland Security, through an agreement with local police, offered up the use of an unmanned predator drone, which "was used for surveillance," according to the court documents.
Grand Forks SWAT team chief Bill Macki said in an interview that the drone was used to ensure Brossart and his family members, who were also charged, didn't leave the farm and were unarmed during the arresting raid.
[FAA Releases List of Registered Drone Operators]
Brossart faces felony terrorizing and theft of property charges and a misdemeanor criminal mischief charge. Although his charges weren't dismissed, Brossart won a motion to move the trial from Nelson County—which has a population of 3,100—to nearby Grand Forks County.
Brossart is believed to be the only American citizen who was arrested with the assistance of a drone on U.S. soil. John Villasenor, of the Washington, D.C.-based Brookings Institution, says the legality of domestic drone use likely stems from two Supreme Court cases that allow police to use "public, navigable airspace" for evidence gathering.
Domestic drone use has become a controversial topic over the past several months, with Congress directing the Federal Aviation Administration to devise guidelines for proper drone use.
[The Coming Drone Revolution: What You Should Know]
Wednesday, Massachusetts Democrat Rep. Edward Markey released a draft of a bill that would require private drone operators to inform the government of any data collected by drones and would require law enforcement to "minimize the collection … of information and data unrelated to the investigation of a crime."
States are "increasingly using unmanned aircraft systems in the United States, including deployments for law enforcement operations," according to the bill. There "is the potential for unmanned aircraft system technology to enable invasive and pervasive surveillance without adequate privacy protections."
In April, Brossart told U.S. News that he thought the SWAT team use of the drone was "definitely" illegal. Some estimates suggest that there may be as many as 30,000 unmanned drones operated in the United States by 2020 for uses such as wildfire containment and surveillance, law enforcement, and surveying.
We don’t own the airspace above our houses, so...
The last frame the camera will show will be a cat with claws outstreched, and jaws open.
I figured out early on that the little electric RC helicopters were a bad idea in the house. They just don't make 'em strong enough.
Gonna be lots of different kinds of accidents happen to their equipment if they push it.
/johnny
What about air rights?
Just remember this was an ongoing armed standoff.
If it had been a manned police helicopter would that have been OK? Or for any armed standoff anywhere, should a warrant be required for use of any aircraft to observe the standoff?
Is it just “directly over” your private property (do you own the airspace and space all the way above your property to the moon?) Or is it allowed if you’re flying the aircraft over public property off to the side and looking at your property?
Be Prepared. Have a tennis racket handy. Get one before they outlaw them.
A first step on a very slippery slope that will result in tyranny.
Where is the boundary? The highest point on the structure approved and constructed on the property? The highest tree on the property? There must be some boundary between "public airspace" and my private property. Perhaps it will be necessary to put up some bird netting to define your space.
Like it or not, it’s just another technology.
I think they should have waited and handled it through mediation, but on the other hand, the guy was definitely in the wrong and was menacing, so this wasn’t an arbitrary action.
We can never stop a new technology. The only thing we can and must do is to make sure it is used for legitimate purposes, and not used to enforce the whims of the reigning Dem honcho of the moment.
All this over six head of cattle? WTF? Why the hell wouldnt he give/take them back to the rightful owners?
'Sides, I got bird shot for the 12 ga. if I really need it. (Thanks coach for the trap and skeet club in high school)
/johnny
Big Brother is watching.
The only thing that bothers me is that, how does the DHS presume involvement in a non-Federal criminal matter? If a local police department or even a State agency own a drone, that’s one thing. But I’m not necessarily comfortable with the Feds poking their noses into everything.
When I was a kid, during the “War on Drugs” the local county bought an ultra-light to cruise the tree tops looking for pot farms. Every once in a while you’d see an article in the paper about a bust that always seemed to yield millions in street value. I don’t know if it was really successful, but where I was raised, if it flew slow your weapon was at hand and you were bored, an ultra-light would be a pretty tasty target. I bet a drone would be the same.
Air rights? I don’t understand your question.
I believe their assistance was requested by the locals. They didn't butt in uninvited.
Offhand, I don't know. The FAA could probably tell you.
And even if we did, the airspace above a public road close to your house, would be sufficient to observe everything except a small triangle in the shadow of your house.
Best to simply restrict the warrant-less use of drones for surveillance on homes as unreasonable search and seizure, than to rely on airspace rights.
Best to simply restrict the warrant-less use of drones for surveillance on homes as unreasonable search and seizure, than to rely on airspace rights.
___________________
agree so much.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.