Assignment #1 (1 page)
Drones and the Fourth Amendment
The Fourth Amendment states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Courts have established exceptions to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. In addition, courts have had to consider technological advancements and determine the Fourth Amendment implications.
The U.S. Supreme Court has considered searches and seizures in cars, use of airplanes to conduct surveillance, and the use of specially trained dogs to “sniff” out drugs. One issue that has not yet been decided by the United States Supreme Court, but is ripe for review, is the police use of drones.
Read this law review article:
Belinger, C. (2019, February 28). Florida v. Riley: Foreshadowing Fourth Amendment issues in 21st century aerial surveillance and the need for clarity. Minnesota Law Review. https://minnesotalawreview.org/2019/02/28/florida-v-riley-foreshadowing-fourth-amendment-issues-in-21st-century-aerial-surveillance-and-the-need-for-clarity/
If you were a United States Supreme Court justice, would you require law enforcement officers to seek a warrant before using a drone to conduct surveillance? Please explain.
————————–
Assignment 2 (1/2 Page) 150 words min. Ask a question to Rose, Cite 1 reference
Rose
Hello Class,
This is a great topic because this is a very talked about topic in my household. My husband is a retired veteran and is a big constitutional buff and we discuss this topic all the time. I personally would not feel comfortable being surveyed by a drone, I would prefer the old way and having you take me to court or law enforcement personally issuing a warrant at my front door. I think having drones for law enforcement use period is wrong, but if it is going to be done I would prefer a warrant to be issued first before the police just conduct their drone surveillance on their own. So for example, I went down to Virginia to my brother’s house and they have drones that provide surveillance for certain roads and if you are speeding you will not get pulled over, that drone takes surveillance and sends you a ticket via mail. After hearing about that from my brother I felt very uncomfortable and I do not know if that should be legal because it probably is saving police officers time so they can patrol else where, but at the same time I feel that I am being spied on. If I were a United States Supreme Court justice, I would want to require law enforcement officers to retrieve a warrant before using a drone to conduct surveillance because in every other case to be able to wire tab you would need a warrant right? So then I would agree that drone surveillance would require a warrant before taking that next step.
Reference
McNeal G., Brookings (November 2014) Drones Aerial Surveillance: Considerations for Legislatures.
Drones and aerial surveillance: Considerations for legislatures
———————————–
Assignment 3 (1/2 Page) Ask a question to Kathia , cite one reference , 150 word min
Because of the ever-changing technology, conducting surveillance has been made easier for law enforcement, but also for the normal people who do unlawful things like stalking. Would I require law enforcement officers to seek a warrant before using a drone to conduct surveillance? The simple answer is yes, but why? The reasons would include the following: reasonable expectation of privacy, technological impact, existing precedents, prevention of overreach, and balance of interests.
The Fourth Amendment protects areas where individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Drones can intrude on that expectation because they can fly over private spaces like homes and backyards. The technological impact of drones is that they are equipped with advanced technology, like high-definition cameras, thermal imaging, and other surveillance tools that can provide law enforcement with intrusive methods of gathering information. Capabilities that extend the human eye and make warrantless surveillance even more of a problem. Drones can be considered government overreach because how drones can enable persistent, widespread surveillance, and having a warrant ensures that law enforcement uses the drones only when there is probable cause. Lastly, the warrant can have courts ensure that drones are justified and used properly. I wanted to add that in the 5-4 decision in Kyllo v. United States, the Court stated that in cases of searches of the interior of homes “there is a ready criterion. . . of [a] minimal expectation of privacy that exists, and that is acknowledged to be reasonable;” thus, “[when] the Government uses a [thermal-imaging] device that is not in the general public use, to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a ‘search’. . . .” In other words, when thermal imaging is used in a search and seizure in a home without a warrant, it becomes only a search. The evidence found can’t be used against the defendant.
Reference:
Belinger, C. (2019, February 28). Florida v. Riley: Foreshadowing Fourth Amendment issues in 21st century aerial surveillance and the need for clarity. Minnesota Law Review. https://minnesotalawreview.org/2019/02/28/florida-v-riley-foreshadowing-fourth-amendment-issues-in-21st-century-aerial-surveillance-and-the-need-for-clarity/
Florida v. Riley: Foreshadowing Fourth Amendment issues in 21st-century aerial surveillance and the need for clarity – Minnesota law review. Minnesota Law Review -. (2019, February 28). https://minnesotalawreview.org/2019/02/28/florida-v-riley-foreshadowing-fourth-amendment-issues-in-21st-century-aerial-surveillance-and-the-need-for-clarity/
Greenwood, F. (2022, March 9). Drones and aerial surveillance: Considerations for Legislatures. Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/drones-and-aerial-surveillance-considerations-for-legislatures/
Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001). Justia Law. (n.d.). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/533/27/