Aug 212012
 
 August 21, 2012  Laws, Surveillance

Ryan Calo writes:

Earlier this month, U.S. News & World Report ran the following headline: “Court Upholds Domestic Drone Use In Arrest Of American Citizen.”  The article goes on to explain that a man was arrested in North Dakota with air support from a Predator B drone on loan from the Department of Homeland Security.  His attorney filed a motion to dismiss on the basis that local police had not secured a warrant to use a drone in his arrest.  The court, understandably, denied the motion.  As I and others have observed, the Fourth Amendment does not restrict the use of drones to assess whether a perpetrator is dangerous.  It would only be implicated if, for instance, one person were followed around for a long time, or the entire population were placed under constant aerial surveillance.  And even then the outcome of a challenge is uncertain.

Read more on Stanford CIS.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.