A similar bill in North Carolina is so poorly worded that it bans both private persons and government agencies from conducting surveillance of:.
Such a restriction may mean that the police will never be able to develop the probable cause necessary to get a warrant to stop casino belle ile en mer the animal abuse.
Ag-Gag Laws Look A Lot Like Anti-Drone Laws.
While the door may be open for a drone overflight to document abuses at farms (or pollution from factories and other industrial plants) many states are quickly closing that door.
Consider Idaho's law which the aclu rightly criticized for restricting the private use of drones, they wrote: "the bill prohibits anyone from using a drone to take photographs or make recordings of private property absent the property owners written permission.But the majority said the marijuana defendant and Dow Chemical had no 'reasonable expectation of privacy' from aerial photography in the observed areas, even though the photography of the Dow plant was done with a highly advanced 22,000 camera. If anybody in a Cessna can see the blood filled lake next to a ranch, shouldn't the police or citizens be able to see the same thing with a drone? Potter focuses much of his pitch on ag-gag laws, noting how statutes in some states make it illegal to photograph animal cruelty on factory farms. Not surprisingly, progressive groups are up in arms about such legislation which is clearly designed to protect corporate farming interests.
'Any member of the public flying in this airspace who glanced down could have seen everything that these officers observed Chief Justice Warren.
They've never been required to turn a blind eye to evidence of criminality.
With advances in drone technology, law enforcement now has a tool that can prevent industrial scale animal abuse.
Potter's goals are illustrative of the enormous benefits of drone technology.
Thus, the law for at least the last 25 years has allowed the police to fly a helicopter over a factory farm or industrial plant, spot abuse or pollution, then use that information to get a warrant to go in on foot and investigate further.Legislators Need To Slow Down And Carefully Draft Drone Legislation With anti-drone laws pending in dozens of state legislatures, drones are poised to be taken off the table as a tool for preventing the horrible abuses Will Potter describes in his Kickstarter campaign.The Fourth Amendment And Aerial Observations. Now maybe that's where activists come in, but as we've seen, some of them have been grounded. But their efforts would not result in the prosecution of the abusive farmer because, per the terms of the North Carolina bill, "evidence obtained or collected in violation of this section is not admissible as evidence in a criminal prosecution in any court of law. A farm, dairy, ranch, or other agricultural industry without the written consent of the owner of the farm, dairy, ranch, or other agricultural industry. Why?Kickstarter campaign aimed at combining drone photography with investigative reporting to find out what corporations are trying to keep hidden from activists.It further restricts drone photography or recording of any individual for the purpose of publishing or disseminating the image or data." That law would prevent private citizens from using a drone to document the type of activity that Potter is hoping to expose.That's the question independent journalist Will Potter posed. The law specifically states (in relevant part (1) As used in this section, "agricultural operation" means private property used for the production of livestock, poultry, livestock products, or poultry products. But, activists have found the gap in the Utah law that allows them to use drones - it's the clause that criminalizes " leaving a recording device on the agricultural operation." Drones aren't left behind to record, they merely fly over property and record. Why would we want to ban that technology when it comports with the Constitution?Now before someone starts copying and pasting the Fourth Amendment into the comments below this post, it is important to note that the Fourth Amendment does not require the police to get a warrant before making aerial observations.The campaign was fully funded in just five days, and justifiably.