Source: https://dronelawtoday.com/tag/police-drones/
Timestamp: 2017-10-24 07:47:21
Document Index: 793600653

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 10', 'art 9', 'art 9', 'art 8', 'art 8', 'art 7', 'art 7', 'art 6', 'art 6', 'art 5', 'art 5', 'art 4', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 3', 'art 4']

police drones | Drone Law Today
Police Drones & the 4th Amendment Part 10: Predicting the Future
January 9, 2017 Steve H.	Leave a comment
farberflorida v rileykerrohmpolice drone searchpolice dronesstate drone lawstate v davisvillasenor
Police Drones & the 4th Amendment, Part 9: State v. Davis
December 26, 2016 Steve H.	Leave a comment
Welcome 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.
Emil Kiehne’s Blog on State v. Davis
drone warrantdrones 4th amendmentdrones new mexicoemil kiehnepolice drone searchpolice dronesstate v davis
Police Drones & the 4th Amendment, Part 8: Kyllo v. U.S.
December 19, 2016 Steve H.	Leave a comment
Welcome 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.
Kyllo v. U.S.
drone lawdrone surveillancefourth amendment droneskyllopolice drone searchpolice dronespolice search dronespolice searches with drones
Police Drones & the 4th Amendment – Part 7: Florida v. Riley
December 12, 2016 Steve H.	Leave a comment
Welcome 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.
ciraolodow chemicaldrone surveillancedrones and the fourth amendmentflorida v rileykatzpolice drone searchpolice drones
Police Drones & the 4th Amendment – Part 6! Dow Chemical v. U.S.
October 3, 2016 Steve H.	Leave a comment
Welcome back, Drone Law Nation! Today we are back with Part 6 of our series on the Constitutional issues raised when police use drones.
Our talk today hits the second of our three “aerial surveillance” cases, Dow Chemical v. U.S. This case deals with aerial photographs of a 2,000 acre chemical plant by a contractor working for the U.S. Government. Is that a “search” under the Fourth Amendment that requires a warrant? If not, why not? How might drone technology & advanced sensors change the game in the future?
Dow Chemical v. U.S.
4th am drones4th amendmentaerial surveillancecivil rightsdow chemicalfourth amendmentpolice dronespolice search dronessearch and seizure
Police Drones & the 4th Amendment – Part 5!
September 19, 2016 Steve H.	Leave a comment
Welcome back, Drone Law Nation! Today we are back with Part 5 of our series on the Constitutional issues raised when police use drones.
Our talk today hits the first of our “aerial surveillance” cases, California v. Ciraolo. This case deals with naked-eye observation of the “curtilage” of a home (the backyard) from a fixed-wing aircraft. Is that a “search” under the Fourth Amendment that requires a warrant? If not, why not? How might drone technology change the game here?
aerial surveillanceciraolodrone lawdrone podcastdrone surveillancepolice dronesunmanned aircraft systems
Police Drones & the 4th Amendment – Part 4!
August 22, 2016 Steve H.	Leave a comment
Welcome back, Drone Law Nation! Today we continue our special series on Drone Law Today: Drones and the Fourth Amendment!
This third episode looks at the case of Oliver v. U.S., a Supreme Court case from 1984. In this case, the Court addresses the “open fields doctrine.” This doctrine is an “exception” to the Fourth Amendment. Essentially, this means that if the police gather evidence in an “open field,” then no warrant is required.
This case builds on Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3 of our series. These episodes established the “trespass” and “reasonable expectation of privacy” concepts in Fourth Amendment law.
The “open fields” doctrine is another piece of this puzzle. This concept is both a “bridge” to the aerial surveillance cases as well as a stand-alone concept that will be important for future drone cases.
Understanding these cases will help you, Drone Law Nation, to protect yourself and your business by seeing how things may play out.
Listen in for Part 4!
Oliver v. U.S., 466 U.S. 170 (1984)
Hester v. U.S., 265 U.S. 57 (1924)
drone lawdrone privacydrone surveillancehester v. usoliver v. uspolice dronespolice search dronesunmanned aircraft systems