Police Drones & the 4th Amendment Part 10: Predicting the Future

Logo 600 x 600Welcome back, Drone Law Nation! Today we are back with the tenth and final part of our series on the Constitutional issues raised when police use drones.

Today we’re talking about the future. Through the lens of legal scholars who have written about these issues, we will take a look at what future cases might look like.

Thanks for coming along for the ride. Listen in for more about what the future might be.

Links for you:

Police Drones Part 1

Police Drones Part 2

Police Drones Part 3

Police Drones Part 4

Police Drones Part 5

Police Drones Part 6

Police Drones Part 7

Police Drones Part 8

Police Drones Part 9

U.S. Constitution: Amendment 4

Villasenor: Observations from Above

Farber: Eyes in the Sky

Ohm: Fourth Amendment in a World Without Privacy

Kerr: Equilibrium Adjustment Theory

 

Listen in iTunes

Listen in Stitcher

Listen on YouTube

Listen in your browser

Nothing in this podcast is legal advice! Please don’t make legal decisions for yourself or your business before consulting counsel of your choice.

Learn more about our law firm, Ausley McMullen, at www.ausley.com.

Keep on flying,

Steve

Police Drones & the 4th Amendment, Part 9: State v. Davis

Logo 600 x 600Welcome back, Drone Law Nation! Today we are back with Part 9 of our series on the Constitutional issues raised when police use drones.

Today we’re talking about State v. Davis, a case from the Supreme Court of New Mexico addressing aerial surveillance under the Fourth Amendment and state law. This case gets into the “nitty gritty” of how to examine helicopter surveillance under federal precedent, and how to “distinguish” your case from precedent that you want to “get away” from. This case came from helicopter surveillance that led to a marijuana seizure – just like Riley. But the New Mexico Supreme Court went a different direction. And it mentioned how it might address drones in a different case.

Listen in for more about what the future might be.

Links for you:

Police Drones Part 1

Police Drones Part 2

Police Drones Part 3

Police Drones Part 4

Police Drones Part 5

Police Drones Part 6

Police Drones Part 7

Police Drones Part 8

State v. Davis

U.S. Constitution: Amendment 4

Emil Kiehne’s Blog on State v. Davis

 

Listen in iTunes

Listen in Stitcher

Listen on YouTube

Listen in your browser

 

Follow @DroneLawToday on Twitter!

What questions do you have about Drone Law? Click here to let us know!

 Nothing in this podcast is legal advice! Please don’t make legal decisions for yourself or your business before consulting counsel of your choice.

Download your FREE copy of “The Drone Revolution: How Robotic Aviation Will Change the World,” right here: CLICK FOR BOOK!

Learn more about our law firm, Ausley McMullen, at www.ausley.com.

Keep on flying,

Steve

Police Drones & the 4th Amendment, Part 8: Kyllo v. U.S.

cropped-logo-2048px.jpgWelcome back, Drone Law Nation! Today we are back with Part 8 of our series on the Constitutional issues raised when police use drones.

Today we’re talking about Kyllo v. U.S., the U.S. Supreme Court case that tells us when “new technology” may infringe on our Fourth Amendment rights. The “new tech” angle is critical here – the first court that considers police searches with a drone under the Fourth Amendment will have to read Kyllo together with Ciraolo, Dow Chemical, and Florida v. Riley to come up with its answer. This means that you should understand these cases, Drone Law Nation, as it could be your product (or client) that makes the law.

Listen in for more about what the future might be.

Links for you:

Police Drones Part 1

Police Drones Part 2

Police Drones Part 3

Police Drones Part 4

Police Drones Part 5

Police Drones Part 6

Police Drones Part 7

Kyllo v. U.S.

U.S. Constitution: Amendment 4

 

Listen in iTunes

Listen in Stitcher

 

Listen on YouTube

Listen in your browser

 

Follow @DroneLawToday on Twitter!

What questions do you have about Drone Law? Click here to let us know!

 Nothing in this podcast is legal advice! Please don’t make legal decisions for yourself or your business before consulting counsel of your choice.

Download your FREE copy of “The Drone Revolution: How Robotic Aviation Will Change the World,” right here: CLICK FOR BOOK!

Learn more about our law firm, Ausley McMullen, at www.ausley.com.

Keep on flying,

Steve

Police Drones & the 4th Amendment – Part 7: Florida v. Riley

Logo 600 x 600Welcome back, Drone Law Nation! Today we are back with Part 7 of our series on the Constitutional issues raised when police use drones.

Our talk today hits the third of our three “aerial surveillance” cases, Florida v. Riley. This case deals with naked-eye surveillance of marijuana plants inside a greenhouse through an open panel in the greenhouse roof. The surveillance took place from a helicopter hovering at 400 feet above the ground.

Was this a “search” that requires a warrant under the Fourth Amendment? The Florida Supreme Court said “yes,” but the U.S. Supreme Court said “no.” The reasons that the U.S. Supreme Court reached that conclusion may be important for future “police drone” cases.

Listen in for more about what the future might be.

Links for you:

Police Drones Part 1

Police Drones Part 2

Police Drones Part 3

Police Drones Part 4

Police Drones Part 5

Police Drones Part 6

Florida v. Riley

U.S. Constitution: Amendment 4

 

Listen in iTunes

Listen in Stitcher

Listen on YouTube

Listen in your browser

 

Follow @DroneLawToday on Twitter!

What questions do you have about Drone Law? Click here to let us know!

Nothing in this podcast is legal advice! Please don’t make legal decisions for yourself or your business before consulting counsel of your choice.

Download your FREE copy of “The Drone Revolution: How Robotic Aviation Will Change the World,” right here: CLICK FOR BOOK!

Learn more about our law firm, Ausley McMullen, at www.ausley.com.

Keep on flying,

Steve

Police Drones & the 4th Amendment, Part 2!

Logo 600 x 600Welcome back, Drone Law Nation! Today we continue our special series on Drone Law Today: Drones and the Fourth Amendment!

This second episode looks at the case of Katz v. United States, a Supreme Court case that shows how our police “search and seizure” case law changes when the Court considers new technology.

In Part 1 of this series, we looked at the Olmstead decision (from 1928) where the Court held that wiretaps were not searches under the Fourth Amendment! That means that police did not need a warrant to put up a wiretap!

Does that sound crazy to you? It should, because that is certainly not the law today! This shows you how new technology crashes into the Constitution in unpredictable ways. The Court over time “changes its mind” to adjust to new things.

The Katz decision is part of this evolution. Instead of considering “liquor smuggling” like in Olmstead, this case looks at the use of telephone technology to run a gambling ring (and FBI “bugs” on phone booths…).

And why does this matter for drones? Because drones are a brand new technology that will, like wire taps and FBI listening devices, crash right into the Constitution in unexpected ways. Understanding these cases will arm you, Drone Law Nation, to protect yourself and your business by seeing how things may play out.

Listen in for Part 2!

Links for you:

Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Katz v. U.S., 389 U.S. 347 (1967)

Part 1 of our Series

 

Listen in iTunes!

Listen in Stitcher!

Listen in your browser!

 

Follow @DroneLawToday on Twitter!

 

What questions do you have about Drone Law? Click here to let us know!

 

Nothing in this podcast is legal advice! Please don’t make legal decisions for yourself or your business before consulting counsel of your choice.

 

Download your FREE copy of “The Drone Revolution: How Robotic Aviation Will Change the World,” right here: CLICK FOR BOOK!

 

Check out the FREE Drone Law Course at www.dronelawtoday.com/course!

 

Keep on flying,

Steve

Police Use of Drones & the Fourth Amendment, Part 1

Logo 600 x 600Police Use of Drones & the Fourth Amendment!

Welcome back, Drone Law Nation! Today we start a special series on Drone Law Today: Drones and the Fourth Amendment!

Police use of drone technology will be an important legal issue going forward. To understand how it may play out – and the constitutional issues involved – we have to look at the case law that has come before.

For generations, the U.S. Supreme Court has been grappling with questions about how police use of new technology fits within the constitutional limits on police “search and seizure” authority. The way these cases have been decided will impact future cases involving police use of drones.

How will the courts look at drone “searches” under the Fourth Amendment? Will warrants be required? How does new “drone tech” fit within the existing aerial surveillance case law?

The answer is it depends! No one really knows how the first “drone search” case will turn out.

But we can understand how the courts will make those decisions if we look at the cases that have gone before.

This episode will start a multi-part series where we examine these questions, step by step, to really understand how the “drone cases” may turn out. We start this week with the Olmstead case, where the court addressed whether a telephone wire tap was a “search” under the Fourth Amendment. What did the court hold? How does it impact what the law is today? Listen in to find out!

Links for you:

Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Olmstead v. U.S., 277 U.S. 438 (1928)

 

Listen in iTunes!

Listen in Stitcher!

Listen in your browser!

 

Follow @DroneLawToday on Twitter!

 

What questions do you have about Drone Law? Click here to let us know!

 Nothing in this podcast is legal advice! Please don’t make legal decisions for yourself or your business before consulting counsel of your choice.

Download your FREE copy of “The Drone Revolution: How Robotic Aviation Will Change the World,” right here: CLICK FOR BOOK!

Check out the FREE Drone Law Course at www.dronelawtoday.com/course!

Keep on flying,

Steve