Written by Joe Wolverton, II, New American, June 5, 2012
It’s been about a year since a North Dakota man was arrested after a local SWAT team tracked him down using a Predator drone it borrowed from the Department of Homeland Security. Although the story has not been widely reported, Rodney Brossart became one of the first American citizens (if not the first) arrested by local law enforcement with the use of a federally owned drone aerial surveillance vehicle after holding the police at bay for over 16 hours. … As the matter proceeds through the legal system, Bruce Quick, the lawyer representing Brossart, is decrying the “guerilla-like police tactics” used to track and capture his client, as well as the alleged violation of the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unwarranted searches and seizures. While the police admittedly possessed an apparently valid search warrant, Quick asserts that no such judicial go-ahead was sought or obtained for the use of the Predator to track the suspect. Therein lies the constitutional rub.
For full text of the article, visit First American Arrested by Aid of Drone Argues 4th Amendment Violation.
- First American Arrested by Aid of Drone Argues 4th Amendment Violation (thenewamerican.com)
- Attorney: ‘Guerilla-Like Police Tactics’ Used in First American Drone Arrest (usnews.com)
By Jennifer Valentino-DeVries, Digits, Wall Street Journal, September 22, 2011
The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects against “unreasonable searches and seizures” – but what does that mean when it comes to techniques that use technology rather than a physical search that is easy to see? In many ways, it remains unclear. But there a few key issues that courts have been considering lately when it comes to this question. First up: whether the activity being observed by the technology is outside or inside a person’s house. …
For full text of the article, visit: How Technology Is Testing the Fourth Amendment – Digits – WSJ.
- How Technology Is Testing the Fourth Amendment (blogs.wsj.com)
- Second Circuit Divides 6 – 6 on Rehearing Standing Case to Challenge FISA Amendments Act (volokh.com)
- No Right to Anonymity (nytimes.com)