Court Upholds Domestic Drone Use in Arrest of American Citizen

Rocktown Gal · #1 08/02/12, 03:00 PM

I know this story is about cows going on his property and him not giving them back...but the USE OF A DRONE to get info is the topic here...This is going to set the president from this point forward

A motion to dismiss charges based on the use of a Predator drone was denied Wednesday

A North Dakota court has preliminarily upheld the first-ever use of an unmanned drone to assist in the arrest of an American citizen.

A judge denied a request to dismiss charges Wednesday against Rodney Brossart, a man arrested last year after a 16-hour standoff with police at his Lakota, N.D., ranch. Brossart's lawyer argued that law enforcement's "warrantless use of [an] unmanned military-like surveillance aircraft" and "outrageous governmental conduct" warranted dismissal of the case, according to court documents obtained by U.S. News.

[Photo Gallery: The Expansion of the Drone]

District Judge Joel Medd wrote that "there was no improper use of an unmanned aerial vehicle" and that the drone "appears to have had no bearing on these charges being contested here," according to the documents.

Court records state that last June, six cows wandered onto Brossart's 3,000 acre farm, about 60 miles west of Grand Forks. Brossart allegedly refused to return the cows, which led to a long, armed standoff with the Grand Forks police department. At some point during the standoff, Homeland Security, through an agreement with local police, offered up the use of an unmanned predator drone, which "was used for surveillance," according to the court documents.

Court Upholds Domestic Drone Use in Arrest of American Citizen - US News and World Report

Sonshine · #2 08/02/12, 03:23 PM

Welcome to Big Brother Nation.

ET1 SS · #3 08/02/12, 07:09 PM

Wow, this is impressive.

MO_cows · #4 08/02/12, 09:35 PM

It's the "no warrant" part that bothers me most. If they want to tap your phone lines, go thru your trash, whatever, they need a warrant. So if they want to spy from the air with a drone on private property, they should need a warrant for that, too. Bad precedent.

ET1 SS · #5 08/02/12, 09:59 PM

Well, you can be naked-xrayed without a warrant, at airports.

Your vehicle ban be x-rayed without a warrant, with ZBV.

If your house is near the street it can be xrayed all without a warrant, with ZBV

terri9630 · #6 08/02/12, 11:01 PM

The drone was used after the standoff began. At that point they probably had probable cause to search the property and the drone would have been the safest way. If the drone would have been used before that point the judge probably ruled differently.

Narshalla · #7 08/02/12, 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by terri9630

The drone was used after the standoff began. At that point they probably had probable cause to search the property and the drone would have been the safest way. If the drone would have been used before that point the judge probably ruled differently.

From what I've read of this case, this is the order in which events occurred, and though I don't like it, I have to agree with you and the ruling.

Though the drone was unmanned, if they had used a manned helicopter, it would have been ruled acceptable, so I don't see how not having someone in the airborne vehicle makes a difference.

Not that I like it, mind you. This is just one more example of the militarization of the police.

terri9630 · #8 08/03/12, 04:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Narshalla

From what I've read of this case, this is the order in which events occurred, and though I don't like it, I have to agree with you and the ruling.

Though the drone was unmanned, if they had used a manned helicopter, it would have been ruled acceptable, so I don't see how not having someone in the airborne vehicle makes a difference.

Not that I like it, mind you. This is just one more example of the militarization of the police.

I don't like it either. To much potential for misuse.

Bearfootfarm · #9 08/03/12, 04:38 AM

Quote:

It's the "no warrant" part that bothers me most

No warrant would be required in the middle of an "armed standoff"

Rocktown Gal · #10 08/03/12, 05:59 AM

Armed stand off over cows...give me a freaking break. You have got to be kidding.

If the man had the cows...the person who owned the cows could have taken the man to court to get his ---- cows back.

This was not a police drone this was a DHS drone. Was this drone controlled by the local police or our military? If they used military against a US Citizen I have a problem with that...as should you!

Forerunner · #11 08/03/12, 06:23 AM

Old case law indicates that any invasion of space within the geographic boundaries of a truly privately held property, from the center of the earth to as far out in space as the property owner can reach.......is a rightly defensible trespass.

There is very, very little private property left on the North American continent.

Bearfootfarm · #12 08/03/12, 06:46 AM

Quote:

This was not a police drone this was a DHS drone. Was this drone controlled by the local police or our military?

"DHS" IS the "police" DEA, BATFE, FBI, etc)

"DOD" (Department of Defense) is the military

Forerunner · #13 08/03/12, 06:53 AM

I don't know, BFF........ the line between the two is getting foggier every day...............

Bearfootfarm · #14 08/03/12, 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Forerunner

I don't know, BFF........ the line between the two is getting foggier every day...............

Yeah, it's harder and harder too tell them apart.

Too many PD's THINK they are "the Marines"

Rocktown Gal · #15 08/03/12, 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bearfootfarm

"DHS" IS the "police" DEA, BATFE, FBI, etc)

"DOD" (Department of Defense) is the military

Took a little researching but I found this...

The FAA granted authorizations to operate drones in the U.S. to the military, Border and Customs Patrol, NASA and the FBI.

Bluesgal · #16 08/03/12, 10:31 AM

Yes, the part that's really disturbing... the DHS offered the use of the drone to the police department... guess they want the locals on their side and to call them help.

lurnin2farm · #17 08/03/12, 06:49 PM

Why were police even involved in a dispute over 6 cows. Are they that bored? There's 1.4 million gang members in the US maybe they should focus on some real crime.
Why was DHS involved? Why is the federal Gov involved at all in a local dispute over 6 cows. As someone already pointed out at best this is a civil action to get the cows returned possibly with a counter claim to recoup damages and or grazing fees.

The only case I am aware of where privacy issues were raised and upheld is a case I ready about in Fl several years ago. Man had a couple Marijuana plants in his yard but had a high fence and a locked gate. Chopper flew over and found the plants but man argued he had a reasonable expectation of privacy because of the way he set up his fence. Couldnt be seen from the street or by passersby and he was behind a locked gate. The courts agreed with him and agreed police needed a warrant to search even from the air.

Until we all get angry enough to actually demand some privacy back things like this will continue. Local laws can be passed to prevent this but noone seems to care.. Very sad.
I live 1 1/4 miles down a private dirt road. My house cant be seen from any other houses except at night when the lights are on. House can only be seen from the road in the winter. Police are not even allowed down this road unless called. My understanding is its the only road like it in the county yet they still fly over looking for pot plants every year. None are ever found so you think they would stop wasting money.

terri9630 · #18 08/04/12, 01:03 AM

What is only six cows to you is up to $7,000 to the owner. Depending on age, breed, bred or not, market prices. He had every right to call the police to get the cows returned. The property owner escalated things with the stand off which caused the rest.

The property owner had the right to call the police to remove the cows and document the incident so he could press for any feed or repairs. He didn't have the right to keep the other guys property.

In small rural communities all law enforcement back each other up. If the locals called for help the other dpts will respond.

lurnin2farm · #19 08/04/12, 01:47 AM

I agree with you that the owner of the cows had a right to get them back back. I will also say that Brossert kept the cows when they wandered onto his property wasn't very neighborly like.

I disagree that the property owner escalated things. The police escalated things when they showed up on his 3000 acre farm without a warrant.

Quote:

Brossart's lawyer argued that law enforcement's "warrantless use of [an] unmanned military-like surveillance aircraft

IMO an agenda is being pushed forth here. Police show up without a warrant and then use a drone for warrantless surveillance. I dont see how any of this is constitutional.

Where do we draw the line? Whats next? do we allow police to search our homes and properties without a warrant just because if we have nothing to hide whats the problem?

If it were me I would have just given the cows back but then again maybe this was an ongoing issue between the land owner and person who owned the cows. Not enough info to make that determination.
Then when the police showed up and he refused them entry onto his land the police should have left. They could have gotten a statement from the owner of the cows and taken it to a judge to get a warrant. If handled in that manner I side with the police everytime. If no warrant then no entry, pretty simple IMO.

Quote:

Brossart faces felony terrorizing and theft of property charges and a misdemeanor criminal mischief charge.

Do you see what they did here? Cows wandered onto his property. He's being charged with theft. Police try and take them back without a warrant , he's being charged with felony terrorizing charges for not allowing them on his property.

Hopefully everyone can see the slippery slope here. If they come to your house tomorrow they can trump up the same BS charges and make it cost you 10's of thousands to defend. Many could and would go bancrupt trying to defend against this. I assume he has some money put away if he has 3000 acres. How much does 3000 acres cost in ND?

terri9630 · #20 08/04/12, 02:28 AM

They were called and went to talk to the guy. They don't need a warrant to knock on a door and ask questions. They need a warrant to come in and search without consent.

The property owner caused the armed stand off there by causing the escalation. If he had simply returned the cows and filed a report for the damages or given the officer a reasonable explanation of why he couldn't return them none of this would have happened.

The article doesn't give enough information to make judgments of who was in the right to start with. Was the house near the road with an open gate? Was the neighbor pressing theft charges and he started by resisting arrest? Everyone is jumping the gun and assuming that the police started off wrong with out any information on what actually happened to start with. Once the armed standoff began warrants were no longer necessary to effect the arrest.