Posted on 03/10/2024 3:24:28 AM PDT by CFW
The Alaska Supreme Court ruled on Friday that law enforcement officers in Alaska are not permitted to conduct aerial surveillance of a person’s yard using a zoom lens without first obtaining a warrant.
In its ruling, the court said that it disagrees with the state’s claim that such surveillance was constitutional “because small airplane travel is so common in Alaska, and because any passenger might peer into your yard and snap a picture of you, law enforcement officials may do the same.”
“The Alaska Constitution protects the right to be free of unreasonable searches,” the court stated in a 34-page ruling (pdf). “The fact that a random person might catch a glimpse of your yard while flying from one place to another does not make it reasonable for law enforcement officials to take to the skies and train high-powered optics on the private space right outside your home without a warrant.”
According to the ruling, the Alaska Constitution prohibits unregulated aerial surveillance of residents’ homes because such activity would be “inconsistent with the aims of a free and open society.”
(Excerpt) Read more at theepochtimes.com ...
If LEOs have sufficient reason to think someone is committing a crime, they can go to a judge and obtain a search warrant to search their home.
I've always thought it strange that some courts have said that while law enforcement couldn't come into your house to spy on you without a search warrant, they could do so from the air or by a zoom camera from afar.
paywall free link:
Alaska Court Rules Police Must Obtain Warrant to Surveil Houses Using Zoom Lenses, Aircraft
bttt
FREEDOM, LIBERTY
A very good ruling.
A good ruling that leftists will simply ignore.
I consider the area above my home a personal ADIZ.. drones would be targets and I’m surrounded by trees on the side of a mountain and a good rifle scope is limited to about 70 yards.
Then I go to town and I’m probably filmed numerous times in both directions not to mention the stores.
Good ruling - though I would like the author to use the word “telephoto” instead of zoom. A zoom lens has a variable focal length, but isn’t necessarily a high-magnification telephoto lens.
I have a 500 mm f/4 telephoto lens that is NOT a zoom, but rather, a fixed focal length. Ditto for my telescopes, though they do make zoom eyepieces.
bkmk
Leftist will ignore it. They will surveillance you with drones and zoom lense off the record.
Not just leftists. Republicans and law and order cops have a natural support for any technology cops want to use.
I have heard the military has developed ways to “see” you through the walls of your home, if they so wish to do so.
The method has something to do with observing the heat mass image of your body, which may be seen in one color, against the immediate surrounding atmosphere in that room, that is manifested as a cooler tone or color. This was originally used to locate terrorists in their homes
I heard about this years ago, after Osama Bin Laden had only “died” about four times.
This is contrary to the long standing plain view doctrine. If law enforcement can see evidence of illegal activity from a public space and it is in plain view, no warrant is necessary. We are to be safe in our homes and other places where we have a reasonable expectation of privacy (except NOT boats). So if you are growing marijuana in a field and it can be seen by a law enforcement airplane, no warrant is necessary. (If you live on a boat, police can come on and search everywhere without a warrant! I think this dates from pirate days.)
Oh, for crying out loud. they need to get a warrant. It only takes a few minutes to type it up. It can be signed electronically. The cops are lazy, they are cheating the system.
The judge ie wrong in his ruling
Then, here is your opportunity to spread chaos. Paint some messages on drop cloths:
1. Officer XX is diddling the chief’s wife.
2. Officer YY was photographed in a bar that sells little children
3. Officer ZZ owes me money on the cocaine.
Etc.
When you leave the house, spread one on your back lawn. It is not libel since it was not in public.
...and now with drones, they park one outside of your window and get a good look inside, if conditions are right.
IIRC that technology was banned for use by LEO’s several years ago.
I most strongly agree with the judge.
Only that which is discernable to the unaided human eye from a point accessible to the public outside the property should not require a warrant. And further ANYONE operating drones or aircraft below 500 feet altitude above private property is invading privacy.If aerial device is camera equipped tha view should match that of unaided 20/20 human vision.
I would never find anyone liable for destroying an intruding drone.
Technology CAN be limited. Note that laser pointer abuse is much reduced from when first available.
I guess cops should be required to close their eyes when driving past my house, then.
Please don’t, kind sirs.
“I guess cops should be required to close their eyes when driving past my house, then.”
There is a bit of difference in seeing a crime taking place in plain view and going to extra effort to spy on someone looking for evidence of a crime. If a LEOs have sufficient reason to believe a crime is taking place, they can take that information to a judge and get a warrant to search the property.
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.