HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Can the DEA Hide a Survei...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 05:55 AM

Can the DEA Hide a Surveillance Camera on Your Property?

http://www.alternet.org/drugs/can-dea-hide-surveillance-camera-your-property



A case that began with reports of suspicious activity in northeast Wisconsin forest land last spring may be headed for the US Supreme Court. That's because a US district court judge ruled in the case last fall that it was okay for the DEA to enter the rural property without a warrant and install surveillance cameras that were used to help convict five members of a family on charges they were growing marijuana.

The ruling last October came in a motion to suppress the evidence obtained by the warrantless video cameras. After that ruling, the defendants, five members of the Magana family, pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute marijuana and now face up to life in prison and up to $10 million in fines. But as part of the plea deal, they retained their right to appeal the ruling.

And their attorneys say they are prepared to take the case all the way to the US Supreme Court.
In their motion, they had asked the court to suppress evidence because of the property's locked gate and "No Trespassing" sign. Since the properties were heavily wooded and posted with signs, the owners were entitled to an expectation of privacy, the attorneys say.


"After sentencing, the first round of appeals will go to the Seventh Circuit and if there's no favorable ruling there, the cases will be filed into the US Supreme Court," Wisconsin attorney Stephen Richards told the Chronicle last week.

9 replies, 1063 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 9 replies Author Time Post
Reply Can the DEA Hide a Surveillance Camera on Your Property? (Original post)
xchrom Jan 2013 OP
phantom power Jan 2013 #1
nick of time Jan 2013 #2
JackRiddler Jan 2013 #3
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #4
JackRiddler Jan 2013 #5
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #7
JackRiddler Jan 2013 #8
petronius Jan 2013 #6
kenny blankenship Jan 2013 #9

Response to xchrom (Original post)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 10:23 AM

1. I can't get my head around how any court could think that was OK w/out a warrant

It doesn't seem ambiguous in any way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phantom power (Reply #1)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 11:09 AM

2. We're in a brave new world where the police think they can do anything

 

in the name of national security and the courts seem to agree with them most of the time.
It's well past time for the people to rise up and say enough of this erosion of our constitutional rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nick of time (Reply #2)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 11:30 AM

3. Yes, and where "national security" includes harmless pot growers.

Mofos.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #3)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 11:35 AM

4. Jack I don't know about this family

But pot growers are not necessarily harmless. I know I come across one in my back country I back away and call the cops. My locals are well armed and have been known to kill. They are working for the cartels

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #4)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 11:41 AM

5. They're facing decades of imprisonment on pot charges.

Not for arms, or killing, or working for the cartels.

Pot charges. That's what they've been convicted of. Nothing more. That's what the DEA discovered, according to the article above, through its unconstitutional surveillance.

Pot growing. An inherently harmless - in fact, productive - activity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #5)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 12:27 PM

7. I am just saying, that not all pot growers are harmless

Raising that critical point. I am all for legalization, but am fully cognizant not all are just harmless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #7)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 01:59 PM

8. Let's stick to the facts known about this case.

Facing decades in prison for pot growing discovered after DEA put surveillance cameras on their property.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 11:43 AM

6. Similar to the discussion about using GPS trackers on cars without a warrant

http://www.npr.org/2012/03/21/149011887/fbi-still-struggling-with-supreme-courts-gps-ruling

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203806504577178811800873358.html

So far the courts have held a line against this, but not as strongly as I'd like...

On edit: maybe this is simplistic, but it has always seemed to me that if you would not allow a police officer to stand in a particular spot, or access property, or ride around in your car with you, then LE should need a warrant to do the same thing with a device instead. I really don't like the logic coming from some of the LE in these articles: we can't get warrants because these intrusions are how we get probable cause? We can't get warrants because it's dangerous to place these things in the first place?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xchrom (Original post)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 02:03 PM

9. I think the policy of this govt and party is very clear:

if they can assassinate your ass, they can certainly shove a camera up there too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread