I already know FAC’s position on this: comply with the law!

And who here will be the first to volunteer to be separated from their families and have their dirty laundry aired on the nightly news, just to make a point?

Has a failure to register ever resulted in public support for reducing/eliminating registration? Imagine the opportunity for law enforcement, elected officials, and the news media, were there a “mass failure to register.”

The circuit court did not rule against these SCOTUS decisions. In fact, they did not rule anything on this issue at all. They upheld the trial court’s decision, but for reasons unrelated to surveillance.

The headline here, “8th Circuit affirms use of surveillance equipment,” does not seem correct.

I don’t know I’m with you but I’m not. I say if the rules are stupid and they make the game unfair we ALL stand against them in court and out of court. It’s a delicate situation. It’s easy to enforce the registration rule when the majority adhere and the minority don’t. It’s easy for the cops to catch one guy speeding down the highway. But if every car that drives down that road is speeding during rush hour then what? We as people gotta begin to stand up and unite as a while nationwide. I’m all for going about it through the legal system but when the rules and people who make them are against you you begin to see they modify the game to their advantage. Along with court battles we need to make some noise. The radical route would be every offender in the nation saying we aren’t registering, we aren’t putting sides in our yard, we aren’t sitting in the back of the bus any more. The passive route is through the great work that fac and other orginazations are doing. What’s the balance?

In Carpenter v United States, a federal district court granted a motion to suppress evidence, ruling that police use of a “pole camera” represented a search under the Fourth Amendment. Also, citing Carpenter v United States, SCOTUS held that the government’s warrantless searches of historical cell-site service for more than 7 days violated the fourth amendment.

In United States v. Moore-Bush, the government placed a camera on a utility pole across the street from the house of a suspect in a criminal investigation. The camera was used for eight months to surveil the driveway and the front of the house. Law enforcement argued that the use of the camera did not constitute a search because police are allowed to monitor the comings and goings of individuals in public without a warrant. The court ruled that this was a violation of the suspect’s 4th amendment rights because; (1) using a pole-mounted camera gave the government continuous video recording for approximately eight months; (2) focused on the driveway and front of the house; (3) had the ability to zoom in so close that it can read license plate numbers; and (4) created a digitally searchable log. Taken together, these features permit the Government to piece together intimate details of a suspect’s life. Further, it differentiated between surveillance cameras and security cameras. Because surveillance cameras are not used to protect against crime, they are restricted under the 4th amendment.

In United States v Jones, SCOTUS concurred that the unique nature of pole-mounted cameras, particularly its capability to be remotely adjusted and its ability to create a digitally searchable log, allows the government to piece together intimate details of a person’s life, and needs to be restricted.

In a related case, Riley v California, SCOTUS held that cops cannot search a cell phone without a warrant. Justice Roberts wrote that the warrantless search exception following an arrest exists for the purposes of protecting officer safety and preserving evidence, neither of which is at issue in the search of digital data. The digital data cannot be used as a weapon to harm an arresting officer, and police officers have the ability to preserve evidence while awaiting a warrant.

So, it’s obvious that the SCOTUS has set limits on surveillance using digital technology, and that pole-mounted surveillance cameras have a very limited leeway, such as short duration (7 days?). So how is it that lower courts could rule in favor of law enforcement and against SCOTUS decisions?

I am not a lawyer, and I did not stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. However, after reading these cases, I really do wonder why law enforcement continues to get away with blatant constitutional violations and individual’s rights continue to be violated.

Nor should the NSA be monitoring Americans cell phones, Internet usage, and emails, but….

@ D. Martinez,

Law enforcement do not need a warrant to place video surveillance in a public setting. Even though it’s aimed at the home it’s field of view was a small step up from what anyone would see from the street.

I do agree that the resources spent could’ve gone on to better use elsewhere. As noted earlier this is a game and you are an unwilling participant.

Until things change for the better, play by their rules or run the risk of being caught. OR… move to a country that isn’t so silly.

The issue of whether this sort of warrantless use of electronic video surveillance equipment constitutes an unreasonable search, has yet to be decided at the federal appellate court level

Hmmm, I think I agree with you to some extent, but I’m not even sure. I’d need to think more deeply about it all.

It seems the worst thing that could occur as a result of things like this is that the criminal regimes think that more laws are needed. Or that more “compliance checks” need to be done. I suppose that is the worst. What the criminal regimes should be doing is ignoring their Registries as much as possible. But I think these types of things probably do cause them to waste more resources.

But I am happy if the general public thinks that Registry laws are ignored or that they are not effective. I think that is good. Except to the extent that their bitching & whining often emboldens the criminal legislators to try even more and more illegal “laws”. But other than that, I hope the general public thinks that Registries are just another big government failure.

These “laws” deserve nothing but contempt and disrespect. The ONLY reason to even consider following them is to neutralize their weapon. That said, I do follow all of the laws precisely so the criminal regimes cannot attack me. But I will tell them and the general public how useless their laws are and how I legally go around them.

I’m not going to scorn anyone who breaks Registries “laws”. Those people are heroes to me.

And it is people like you that makes it possible for the corruption to continue. This man’s rights were violated. Yes, he broke the law and yes he should go to jail, but not because law enforcement broke the law themselves to catch him in the act. How many thousands of dollars were wasted in this fiasco when they could have used that to catch REAL criminals who are a REAL threat. I have lost count how many times something like this happened while an innocent victim was harmed or killed only blocks away that could have been prevented and nine times out of ten the creep got away with it. The Constitution was written for a reason and it protects everyone, not just the people who think are obeying the law. If you really knew the law I bet you would find out you break many laws every day. Should you be hounded and spied on illegally for it? How would you feel if this happened to you or someone you love? Think before you stick your foot in your mouth.

It is indeed. This site covers topics dealing with the issue on a (fairly) regular basis, if you are interested in following:

https://www.techdirt.com/