Seattle Police Will Only Use Their New Drones On ‘Criminals’- and ‘Protestors’

Oh, the joy of being so reassured.  Well, they are here in my very own neck of the woods.  And the government is voting to be able to ‘listen’ in on me over the Internet.  But only for criminals, you see.  Or Terrorists.  Or Protestors.  Or Enemy Combatants.    Just don’t be a criminal, terrorist, enemy combatant or a protestor and you will be fine.  Really.

Seattle police don’t plan to use high tech drones for surveillance

by KING 5 News

KING5.com

Posted on April 26, 2012 at 8:33 PM

Updated today at 7:15 AM

Seattle police want right to videotape protesters

by LINDA BRILL / KING 5 News

KING5.com

Posted on April 26, 2012 at 5:31 PM

Updated yesterday at 8:36 PM

SEATTLE — Seattle police want the right to videotape protests and public demonstrations as a proactive way to fight crime. A city law makes that illegal, so the department is asking for a change in  that would let officers track certain people through a camera’s lens.

SPD points to the Occupy the Port protest last fall, at which masked protestors threw bricks and paint at police. Once trouble broke out, police turned their cameras on… read on..

7 comments

  1. Very tasteful informative website! Saw the Seattle drone issue on the news last night and was searching for an image of it to put on Facebook and found you… “I shall return!”

    Bradly Hughes aka “Inmate Angel”…

    • Without a Warrant: Police Drones—Recording Telephone & Private Conversations In Your Home & Business To Forfeit Property?

      It is problematic local police will want to use drones to record without warrants telephone and private conversations inside Americans’ homes and businesses: Despite some U.S. cities and counties banning or restricting local police using drones without warrants to invade citizens’ privacy, local police have a strong financial incentive (Civil Asset Forfeiture) to use their drones or Federal Drones. Should (no-warrant) drone surveillance evidence be allowed in courts—circumventing the Fourth Amendment, for example drones covertly recording private conversations and electronic communications in Citizens’ homes and businesses, expect federal and local police Civil Asset {Property Forfeitures to escalate. Civil asset forfeiture requires only a mere preponderance of civil evidence for federal government to forfeit property, little more than hearsay: Any conversation, phone call or other electronic communication captured by a drone inside a home or business, police could take out of context to initiate arrests and civil asset forfeitures to confiscate a home, business and related assets. Local police now circumvent state laws that require someone first be convicted of a crime before police can civilly forfeit their property—by referring their investigation to a Federal Government Agency that may legally rebate to local police up to 80% of assets the Feds forfeit. Federal Government is not required to charge anyone with a crime to civilly forfeit property. There are more than 350 laws and violations that can subject property to state and federal government asset forfeiture in addition to illegal drug forfeiture laws. Increasingly local police are paid part or all their salary from proceeds realized from civil and criminal asset forfeiture. Police have to confiscate Citizens’ property to keep their job. This is a clear conflict of interest. At the least, Congress should require the Federal Government prove by Clear and Convincing Evidence that a property is subject to Civil Asset Forfeiture, not a mere preponderance of civil evidence, little more than hearsay.

      The passed Federal “Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000” effectively eliminated the “five year statue of limitations” for Government Civil Asset Forfeiture: the statute now runs five years (from the date) police allege they “learned” an asset became subject to forfeiture. It is foreseeable should (no warrant) government-drone electronic surveillance be admissible in courts, police will relentlessly sift through Citizen and businesses’ (drone captured emails, Internet data, private conversations and phone communications seized on private property in hopes of discovering crime or civil violation to cause arrests and property forfeitures. It is problematic without public oversight, a corrupt U.S. Government agency or local police, may use drone no-warrant searches of Citizens’ emails, Internet data and phone call communications to extort and blackmail Americans; sell (no-warrant drone acquired physical and electronic surveillance information) seized from Americans and private businesses.

      Almost every week the media reports police arrested and convicted for selling drugs, extorting drug dealers, falsifying reports to cause arrests; perjury in court. It is foreseeable this kind of corruption will find its way into government / police drone search and seizure of lawful Citizens’ private property to cause arrests and property forfeiture.

      Under U.S. federal civil forfeiture laws, a person or business need not be charged with a crime for government to forfeit their property. Most U.S. Citizens, property and business owners that defend their assets against Government Civil Asset Forfeiture claim an “innocent owner defense.” This defense can become a “Catch 22” criminal prosecution trap for both guilty and innocent property owners. Any fresh denial of guilt made to government when questioned about committing a crime “even when you did not do the crime” may (involuntarily waive) a defendant’s right to assert in their defense—the “Criminal Statute of Limitations” past for prosecution; any fresh denial of guilt even 30 years after a crime was committed may allow Government prosecutors to use old and new evidence, including information discovered during a Civil Asset Forfeiture Proceeding to launch a criminal prosecution. For that reason many innocent Americans, property and business owners are reluctant to defend their property and businesses against Government Civil Asset Forfeiture.

      Re: waiving Criminal Statute of Limitations: see USC18, Sec.1001, James Brogan V. United States. N0.96-1579. U.S. See paragraph (6) at:
      http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-1579.ZC1.html

  2. Yeah… and pretty much I will only exercise my Second amendment rights against CRIMINALS, PROTESTERS, SQUATTERS.. oh wiat.. I don’t think ERIC “MY PEOPLE” HOLDER would appreciate me exercising my LAWFUL rights under the Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground legislation

    • Oh, Robert. You make me laugh. We, the People, are being unarmed, spied on and defined as ‘enemy combatants’- everything is happening so fast that our courts can’t keep up. The laws are being tucked into boring funding bills and the powers that be are smart enough not to abuse them right now. They lie dormant, however, ripe for abuse- ready to rear their ugly heads at just the right time. But we, sleepy & overconfident People slumber away. It frustrates me to no end. There will be no satisfaction to say, “I told you so”. I’d rather act the fool now rather than be imprisoned later.

Please join the conversation! All comments are monitored, so if you have a private note you wish to leave, just say so. Also, all profane or unhelpful comments will be deleted. Thank you!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s