Seattle police host meeting on planne...

Seattle police host meeting on planned use of drones

There are 2 comments on the Seattle Times story from Oct 26, 2012, titled Seattle police host meeting on planned use of drones. In it, Seattle Times reports that:

Protester Emma Kaplan, far right, of The October 22nd Coalition to Stop Police Brutality yells her views Thursday against the unmanned aerial vehicle program during an informational meeting by the Seattle Police Department.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Seattle Times.

Rwolf

Reno, NV

#1 Oct 28, 2012
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.

“Pancakes and eggs...”

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#2 Nov 21, 2012
Why the heck would a small town police dept like Pullmans, need to be useing high tech drones on Farmers and college students...woh there...slow down...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Kaplan Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Lawyer: Let same-sex marriage start in Mississippi (Dec '14) Jul 15 Maltamon 5
News Lawyer: Congressman Grimm faces federal charges (Apr '14) Apr '14 lady 1
News Maine Lawyer Credited in Fight for Gay Marriage (Mar '13) Mar '13 equalityboy81 1
News Edison man arrested in homicide case (Nov '10) Mar '13 JimmyTag 8
News Netanyahu Demands 'Red Line' on Iran (Sep '12) Nov '12 super grover 241
News Netanyahu Asks for 'Red Line' on Iran (Sep '12) Sep '12 Pug 2
News Washington Post reports higher 2Q net income (Aug '12) Aug '12 Holly 1
More from around the web