My research was on police use of military drones for surveillance and what impact it would have of the Fourth Amendment rights. Drone law is an emerging area of the law that has yet to be fully developed, so the issues discussed in the paper are likely to evolved, or change entirely, in the future. Despite the volatility of the current state of drone law, I believe that this is an incredible important area of the law for everyone in the United States, because there is a possibility of drastic changes to the privacy rights of American citizens.
Still, drones are a form of invasion of privacy but used in moral awareness will keep fellow citizens safe. I think that law enforcement should use drones to overlook people who have previously broken the law or invaded someone’s privacy. Drones can help America protect its privacy by looking out for potential threats while not invading the innocent American lives. I think congress should consider that drones keep a tab on certain criminals who have committed dangerous crimes, to a certain degree.The Supreme Court cases shown in “Right to Privacy” cases were about personal decisions that invaded an individual’s privacy. Cases such as Kelley v Johnson, Roe v Wade and Griswold v Connecticut presented how the government was being controlling of an individual’s personal decision. For example, in the Griswold v Connecticut, a Connecticut law criminalized the encouragement or use of birth control. The 1879 law said if "any person who uses any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purposes of preventing conception shall be fined not less than forty dollars or imprisoned not less than sixty days." This case was not brought to the U.S.
Since the invention of the plane and other flying machines, there has been the thought of making an unmanned flying machine. Today we know our unmanned aerial vehicles by another name: drones. In my paper I will be using both Colonel Dawn Zoldi’s article about drones at home and “The Drone as Privacy Catalyst”, by Ryan Calo to evaluate privacy-related matters that people should consider when it comes to drones. Zoldi’s analysis of how the government can help with personal privacy and unwarranted use of unwarranted searches will aid my own analysis. I will focus on drones and how they relate to the fourth amendment, taking a nuanced approach to operational purpose, renewing focus on collection, dissemination and retention, molding the remedy to the violation, drone as privacy catalyst and finally adding my own thoughts and criticisms about how this could possibly affect privacy.
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. You hear a drone hovering in your backyard, invading your privacy, what do you do? Many choose the illegal path and decide to shoot or swat it down. With the rise in drone sales, more and more Americans are losing their privacy, and for this reason, the federal government needs to take action and regulate the purchase and flight of drones.
When the topic of drones is brought up, some may think they are not among us and are objects of the future, while others may have one that they’ve built themselves and put to use already. Drones are being talked about more and more but not necessarily all for good reasons. The reading titled “From the Eyes of a Drone” by Tomas van Houtryve touches upon how drones affect surveillance, photography, and use for weapons. In a BBC article, “Drones: What Are They and How Do They Work?” the author goes into specific detail on how the United States is planning to use drones for the military. If regular drone use becomes a normality in society, it is true that amazing photography will be a positive outcome but what about privacy? Drones can aid the military as well, but if they are released for the general public to use on the daily things may get out of control. While drones can impact several aspects of life positively, they can create even more harm than one may think.
Drones In America And How They Infringe On The Fourth Amendment and Due Process Of The Law
Menacing spy craft... unmanned aerial vehicles... and missile laden predators. These are the images that come to mind when the word "drone" is spoken. Taken to new heights during the Global War on Terror, military drones have struck fear into the hearts of America's enemies. Now the U.S. government is starting to look inward toward its next target: the American people. Already starting along the US/Mexico border, big brother is indiscriminately watching whole neighborhoods via high tech zoom and heat imaging technology. There is even a debate in congress as to whether it is lawful for an American citizen to be killed by a missile firing drone. These actions and debates have caused legitimate concerns for the American people in regards to
This paper is intended to discuss the current state of Fourth Amendment law and evaluate the legality of State and Local governments use of drones as an extension of the state government?s police powers. The paper will proceed first by examining the current state of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence with particular attention paid to how courts have historically reconciled Fourth Amendment rights with State Government?s use of emerging technology to advance the state?s policing powers. Next, the author will define ?drones? and discuss the current capabilities of military and commercially available drones. To conclude, the author will analysis the current state of the Fourth Amendment and how courts have evaluated emerging technologies effect on the Fourth Amendment, together with the capabilities of modern drones, to determine the legality of State Governments usage of drones as a part of their police powers.
For example, many Instagram users and YouTube bloggers use drones to record all of their videos for them. The more expensive and high tech ones don’t even need a remote controller to navigate; they instead just locate and follow the person, and are barely limited to where they can go. This presents an issue in today’s world because just like the planes flying over Lee Causby’s farm and dwelling, these drones are flying over people’s properties. In fact, in January 2016, a drone owner, David Boggs, filed a federal lawsuit, “in hopes of having the courts define the rights of aircraft operators versus property owners with respect to unmanned aerial vehicles” after his neighbor shot down the drone. Attorneys for David Boggs filed a complaint for declaratory judgment and damages in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky nearly six months after the man’s drone was brought down by a shotgun-wielding neighbor, William Merideth. “Police initially cited Mr. Merideth with charges of criminal mischief and wanton endangerment for admittedly firing three blasts from his shotgun after he spotted the drone above his property last July, but Bullitt County Judge Rebecca Ward later dismissed those charges after concluding there had been an invasion of privacy and that Mr. Merideth was in the
Mary Ellen O’Connell, a research professor at the Kroc, Institute, University of Notre Dame, and the Robert and Marion Short Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame, tells the congressional Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs “Lawful Use of Combat Drones” that the United States is failing more often than not to follow the most important single rule governing drones: restricting their use to the battlefield. O’Connell begins her argument with by describing combat drones as battlefield weapons capable of inflicting very serious damage and being unlawful for use outside combat zones. She states that police are the proper law enforcement agents, outside these zones, and are generally required to warn before using lethal force. By failing to restrict these remote weapons systems to the battlefield the U.S. is failing to respect a basic rule that contradicts the goal of winning hearts and minds to respect the rule of law. She breaks her speech into three sections: drones as a lawful battlefield weapon, the battlefield defined, and battlefield restraints.
Drones are not the only way for people to invade our privacy. Hackers do that as well by hacking social media accounts, bank accounts, and etc... Hackers try to find out information that they
The CQ Researcher article “Drone Warfare” discusses the usage of UAVs, unmanned aerial vehicles or, more popularly known as, “drones”. The primary focus of the article is to illustrate how the United States government is using the drones and discusses whether or not many of the drone attacks have been legal. Since the C.I.A., Central Intelligence Agency, has such influence over what goes on, they have been able to declare the drone strikes as “lawful acts of war and national self-defense in the fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda.” While some people accept this,whether they believe it as fact or simply accept it as a national defense claim, critics have said “the intelligence agency's
A senate of the state, Dianne Feinstein said, “I think the greatest threat to the privacy of Americans is the drone and the use of the drones.” (“CNN”), which might actually be true considering all of the rules they are violating and the laws they are breaking. The
The Patriot Act has authorized the military to utilize drones in domestic airspace, to gather intelligence that pertains to terrorism (Sauter & Carafano, 2012). The military stated that a drone’s primary function is gathering Intel and protect individual rights protected by the U.S. Constitution. The question is, “How can a drone’s surveillance technique and video recording constitute as protecting an individual’s civil liberties?”
The usage of drones gives the government an ultimate power over its citizens. This power in all ways violates the rights of the American citizen. Rather than questioning the suspect, under current legislation they are essentially sent straight to slaughter, without any way of defending or speaking for themselves. They have no chance to stand on trial once they are targeted . Current legislation allows for drone attacks on United States citizens when: