OUTRAGED Midwest Farmers Protest EPA Spy Planes Over Iowa Ranches

[gallantwarrior]

It does apply as far as the principle of the expectation of privacy is concerned. And, my previous post about HOW it is applied specifically to aerial surveillance explains that clearly. THAT was Allen v. United States, where the Katz principle was applied to aerial surveillance. The ruling said that there IS an expectation of privacy from the air if there is not routine air traffic over the property.

That's where the law is on this.

The drone surveillance should be challenged. I hate the constant erosion of the 4th Amendment and I don't care if you are polluting, growing drugs, or making bombs on your property. The authorities need to get a fucking warrant if there is an expectation of privacy.

It isn't a drone. You're making the same mistake Mr.Nick made and I missed. These are small airplanes with EPA inspectors aboard.

Ah. Well, he better not shoot those down, either.

Regardless of whether it is a drone taking the pictures or persons in a plane, the expectation of privacy as far as aerial surveillance still is the same - it exists if there is not routine air traffic over the property.

Based on those two cases I mentioned earlier (the landmark expectation of privacy case and the Allen case on aerial surveillance). That is my understanding.

ETA: In one case on this, and I can't recall which one, the court's opinion stated that one need not construct an opaque bubble over one's property to guard their privacy, but on the other hand, if air traffic is routine, then they better do so if they want the privacy. Seems like some very common sense talk to me.

It would depend on the type of air traffic involved. Normally, air traffic any where other than in close proximity of a small airport implies aircraft flying at altitudes high enough that no specific features of a property would be discernible without some very specialized surveillance equipment. In an area like where I live, small aircraft are the rule. Estimates have 1 in 4 people in AK have private pilots' licenses and small, general aviation craft are quite normal. Most of them are operated using VFR, which means they navigate using prominent features, such as roads, rivers, other landmarks. So I might think twice about shooting at an manned aircraft. Drones, on the other hand, have no imaginable legitimate reason for overflying my property. I'd consider them target practice of the best sort.

 

[Si modo]

What a load of non sequitur manure. All the justification needed to overfly an entire watershed is a downstream test that shows a lot of cow shit in the water, that is undoubtedly what has occurred here. It's enforcement after the fact and still people bitch.

Then, they can get a warrant, as that piece of paper that so seems to annoy you requires. It's called the Constitution - the Supreme Law of the Land.

Cattle ranches are also a business and the operation aspects are open to federal inspection at any time in any way they see fit. Just because you happen to live on premises makes no difference. Tell the fire inspector or the health inspector or the EPA for that matter to get a warrant to inspect your business and see what happens.

Then, they can get in their cars and drive to the ranch.

Or, they can get a warrant for aerial surveillance.

Or, if air traffic is routine over their land, then the EPA can fly over and watch (without enhancement other than binocs) all they want.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Just prosecuting pollution after the fact is the retarded way to keep the environment clean.

I suppose over-flying a property will give a before-the-fact indication of pollution? How does that work? Oh, they have cattle, they must be polluting... News flash, genius, if they can spot some indication, it's already too late. But it's not really about "pollution" at all. It's about controlling what people are doing. But as usual, the libturd population laps up the "justifiable" excuse of "protection". Now that's retarded.

Exactly. Now...aren't the drones doing what they are looking for IF the issue is 'pollution'?

Guess it's OK when government does it...

Depends on whose government. If it were a conservative administration, you could bet your bottom dollar these libturd morons would be all over this issue like stink on shit (pun intended). But because this is The One, their Messiah-in-chief, and his out-of-control flunky agencies invading what the libturd left considers a conservative bastion, it's all just hunky-dory.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Just prosecuting pollution after the fact is the retarded way to keep the environment clean.

I suppose over-flying a property will give a before-the-fact indication of pollution? How does that work? Oh, they have cattle, they must be polluting... News flash, genius, if they can spot some indication, it's already too late. But it's not really about "pollution" at all. It's about controlling what people are doing. But as usual, the libturd population laps up the "justifiable" excuse of "protection". Now that's retarded.

I wish people knew just how polluted we would be at this point without Nixon's commie EPA. Perhaps you are unaware of how polluting a large livestock operation can be? Maybe you think cow manure is a natural product?

Given the amount of unmitigated bullshit spewed by liberals/progressives, you'd think y'all would be just fine with the natural type of cow manure.

 

[occupied]

Then, they can get a warrant, as that piece of paper that so seems to annoy you requires. It's called the Constitution - the Supreme Law of the Land.

Cattle ranches are also a business and the operation aspects are open to federal inspection at any time in any way they see fit. Just because you happen to live on premises makes no difference. Tell the fire inspector or the health inspector or the EPA for that matter to get a warrant to inspect your business and see what happens.

Then, they can get in their cars and drive to the ranch.

Or, they can get a warrant for aerial surveillance.

Or, if air traffic is routine over their land, then the EPA can fly over and watch (without enhancement other than binocs) all they want.

Or they could cover more ground in a day than they can cover in a month on the ground and that is what they did. Quit trying to defend people who dump tons of toxic waste into an already endangered fresh water supply, there is clearly a problem here with runoff. Is pollution a constitutional right? You would think so listening to some of the reactionaries here.

 

[Si modo]

Cattle ranches are also a business and the operation aspects are open to federal inspection at any time in any way they see fit. Just because you happen to live on premises makes no difference. Tell the fire inspector or the health inspector or the EPA for that matter to get a warrant to inspect your business and see what happens.

Then, they can get in their cars and drive to the ranch.

Or, they can get a warrant for aerial surveillance.

Or, if air traffic is routine over their land, then the EPA can fly over and watch (without enhancement other than binocs) all they want.

Or they could cover more ground in a day than they can cover in a month on the ground and that is what they did. Quit trying to defend people who dump tons of toxic waste into an already endangered fresh water supply, there is clearly a problem here with runoff. Is pollution a constitutional right? You would think so listening to some of the reactionaries here.

Umm, I'm defending the Constitution and the rights it grants all of us, even those of the morons who don't know that.

 

[Si modo]

Cattle ranches are also a business and the operation aspects are open to federal inspection at any time in any way they see fit. Just because you happen to live on premises makes no difference. Tell the fire inspector or the health inspector or the EPA for that matter to get a warrant to inspect your business and see what happens.

Then, they can get in their cars and drive to the ranch.

Or, they can get a warrant for aerial surveillance.

Or, if air traffic is routine over their land, then the EPA can fly over and watch (without enhancement other than binocs) all they want.

Or they could cover more ground in a day than they can cover in a month on the ground and that is what they did. Quit trying to defend people who dump tons of toxic waste into an already endangered fresh water supply, there is clearly a problem here with runoff. Is pollution a constitutional right? You would think so listening to some of the reactionaries here.

One more comment: If the problem is so "clear", then they can get a fucking warrant.

What part of that process confuses you?

 

[occupied]

Then, they can get in their cars and drive to the ranch.

Or, they can get a warrant for aerial surveillance.

Or, if air traffic is routine over their land, then the EPA can fly over and watch (without enhancement other than binocs) all they want.

Or they could cover more ground in a day than they can cover in a month on the ground and that is what they did. Quit trying to defend people who dump tons of toxic waste into an already endangered fresh water supply, there is clearly a problem here with runoff. Is pollution a constitutional right? You would think so listening to some of the reactionaries here.

Umm, I'm defending the Constitution and the rights it grants all of us, even those of the morons who don't know that.

You are just making accusations and ignoring rebuttals at this point, no case can be made that anyone overstepped their authority here or did anything that has not already been thoroughly hashed out in court.

 

[occupied]

Then, they can get in their cars and drive to the ranch.

Or, they can get a warrant for aerial surveillance.

Or, if air traffic is routine over their land, then the EPA can fly over and watch (without enhancement other than binocs) all they want.

Or they could cover more ground in a day than they can cover in a month on the ground and that is what they did. Quit trying to defend people who dump tons of toxic waste into an already endangered fresh water supply, there is clearly a problem here with runoff. Is pollution a constitutional right? You would think so listening to some of the reactionaries here.

One more comment: If the problem is so "clear", then they can get a fucking warrant.

What part of that process confuses you?

They do not need a warrant what part of that confuses you?

 

[Si modo]

Or they could cover more ground in a day than they can cover in a month on the ground and that is what they did. Quit trying to defend people who dump tons of toxic waste into an already endangered fresh water supply, there is clearly a problem here with runoff. Is pollution a constitutional right? You would think so listening to some of the reactionaries here.

Umm, I'm defending the Constitution and the rights it grants all of us, even those of the morons who don't know that.

You are just making accusations and ignoring rebuttals at this point, no case can be made that anyone overstepped their authority here or did anything that has not already been thoroughly hashed out in court.

Oh? This EPA surveillance has been challenged in the courts?

I missed that.

 

[occupied]

Umm, I'm defending the Constitution and the rights it grants all of us, even those of the morons who don't know that.

You are just making accusations and ignoring rebuttals at this point, no case can be made that anyone overstepped their authority here or did anything that has not already been thoroughly hashed out in court.

Oh? This EPA surveillance has been challenged in the courts?

I missed that.

The agency does not matter, Forestry can fly over looking for fires, Immigration can fly over looking for aliens, DEA can fly over looking for drugs, DHS can fly over looking for whatever they look for and the EPA can fly over looking for unconfined manure dumps. Just how it is, all they need is a little smoke and they can overfly anything they want. I hate it or like it on an individual basis.

 

[Si modo]

You are just making accusations and ignoring rebuttals at this point, no case can be made that anyone overstepped their authority here or did anything that has not already been thoroughly hashed out in court.

Oh? This EPA surveillance has been challenged in the courts?

I missed that.

The agency does not matter, Forestry can fly over looking for fires, Immigration can fly over looking for aliens, DEA can fly over looking for drugs, DHS can fly over looking for whatever they look for and the EPA can fly over looking for unconfined manure dumps. Just how it is, all they need is a little smoke and they can overfly anything they want. I hate it or like it on an individual basis.

Yes, that IS what the EPA is doing. So, hopefully they will be challenged in the courts for that.

I like my 4th Amendment rights.

 

[Ravi]

It does apply as far as the principle of the expectation of privacy is concerned. And, my previous post about HOW it is applied specifically to aerial surveillance explains that clearly. THAT was Allen v. United States, where the Katz principle was applied to aerial surveillance. The ruling said that there IS an expectation of privacy from the air if there is not routine air traffic over the property.

That's where the law is on this.

The drone surveillance should be challenged. I hate the constant erosion of the 4th Amendment and I don't care if you are polluting, growing drugs, or making bombs on your property. The authorities need to get a fucking warrant if there is an expectation of privacy.

It isn't a drone. You're making the same mistake Mr.Nick made and I missed. These are small airplanes with EPA inspectors aboard.

Ah. Well, he better not shoot those down, either.

Regardless of whether it is a drone taking the pictures or persons in a plane, the expectation of privacy as far as aerial surveillance still is the same - it exists if there is not routine air traffic over the property.

Based on those two cases I mentioned earlier (the landmark expectation of privacy case and the Allen case on aerial surveillance). That is my understanding.

ETA: In one case on this, and I can't recall which one, the court's opinion stated that one need not construct an opaque bubble over one's property to guard their privacy, but on the other hand, if air traffic is routine, then they better do so if they want the privacy. Seems like some very common sense talk to me.

These seem to be the facts. Of course, I could be wrong.

The farm is a business.
As a business it accepts regulation.
There is run off in the area that has tested high for pollutants, probable cause right there, if they even need it as:
The EPA is allowed to inspect farms, without a warrant.
Ariel inspection allows them to pinpoint where the runoff may be coming from, allowing them to save time and not waste farmers time that appear to be operating legally.
They send an inspector to inspect in person.

I'm not sure why the farmers are against this, unless they have something to hide, lol. I have a much bigger problem with the DEA raiding people for marijuana with these types of operations.

 

[The T]

(Image: Graphics Connection LLC )​

 

[Ravi]

(Image: Graphics Connection LLC )​

Is that what you plan on doing?

 

[occupied]

Oh? This EPA surveillance has been challenged in the courts?

I missed that.

The agency does not matter, Forestry can fly over looking for fires, Immigration can fly over looking for aliens, DEA can fly over looking for drugs, DHS can fly over looking for whatever they look for and the EPA can fly over looking for unconfined manure dumps. Just how it is, all they need is a little smoke and they can overfly anything they want. I hate it or like it on an individual basis.

Yes, that IS what the EPA is doing. So, hopefully they will be challenged in the courts for that.

I like my 4th Amendment rights.

Successful challenge is impossible, not sure anyone would try. The federal government owns all airspace and they are not giving that up. I agree that government surveillance is a thing to worry about but pick your battles in this, it is not all bad, it's how they catch a lot of illegals.

 

[gallantwarrior]

It isn't a drone. You're making the same mistake Mr.Nick made and I missed. These are small airplanes with EPA inspectors aboard.

Ah. Well, he better not shoot those down, either.

Regardless of whether it is a drone taking the pictures or persons in a plane, the expectation of privacy as far as aerial surveillance still is the same - it exists if there is not routine air traffic over the property.

Based on those two cases I mentioned earlier (the landmark expectation of privacy case and the Allen case on aerial surveillance). That is my understanding.

ETA: In one case on this, and I can't recall which one, the court's opinion stated that one need not construct an opaque bubble over one's property to guard their privacy, but on the other hand, if air traffic is routine, then they better do so if they want the privacy. Seems like some very common sense talk to me.

These seem to be the facts. Of course, I could be wrong.

The farm is a business.
As a business it accepts regulation.
There is run off in the area that has tested high for pollutants, probable cause right there, if they even need it as:
The EPA is allowed to inspect farms, without a warrant.
Ariel inspection allows them to pinpoint where the runoff may be coming from, allowing them to save time and not waste farmers time that appear to be operating legally.
They send an inspector to inspect in person.

I'm not sure why the farmers are against this, unless they have something to hide, lol. I have a much bigger problem with the DEA raiding people for marijuana with these types of operations.

The fact that you cannot understand why farmers, or anyone, would have problems with this tells just how far along you are in your brainwashing. You're on your ass, gaining speed as you move on down that slippery slope. Many of us just don't want to go along for that ride.

 

[gallantwarrior]

(Image: Graphics Connection LLC )​

Oooh! A potato gun!

 

[Stephanie]

Did they just say the Federal government OWNS all the airspace?

 

[Si modo]

It isn't a drone. You're making the same mistake Mr.Nick made and I missed. These are small airplanes with EPA inspectors aboard.

Ah. Well, he better not shoot those down, either.

Regardless of whether it is a drone taking the pictures or persons in a plane, the expectation of privacy as far as aerial surveillance still is the same - it exists if there is not routine air traffic over the property.

Based on those two cases I mentioned earlier (the landmark expectation of privacy case and the Allen case on aerial surveillance). That is my understanding.

ETA: In one case on this, and I can't recall which one, the court's opinion stated that one need not construct an opaque bubble over one's property to guard their privacy, but on the other hand, if air traffic is routine, then they better do so if they want the privacy. Seems like some very common sense talk to me.

These seem to be the facts. Of course, I could be wrong.

The farm is a business.
As a business it accepts regulation.
There is run off in the area that has tested high for pollutants, probable cause right there, if they even need it as:
The EPA is allowed to inspect farms, without a warrant.
Ariel inspection allows them to pinpoint where the runoff may be coming from, allowing them to save time and not waste farmers time that appear to be operating legally.
They send an inspector to inspect in person.

I'm not sure why the farmers are against this, unless they have something to hide, lol. I have a much bigger problem with the DEA raiding people for marijuana with these types of operations.

I have a problem with both.

And, I know you don't think this, but for the record: I am no fan of polluters. I am no fan of drug dealers (or users, for that matter). I am no fan of terrorists.

But, I AM a fan of the 4th Amendment and I hate the erosion of those rights that I have seen for some time now.

I hope it goes to court and is challenged.