I have no problem with police having easy access to anything I can buy as a regular citizen. For me, my concerns are about equipment being used in the wrong situation without training. If you have the budget for a whole team's worth of stuff but not enough training to avoid NDing into suspects, everyone might be better off without.
But on the equipment topic alone, is it possible to go too far? If my department has an M2 Browning that mounts on our BearCat, is everything still cool?
Well since the police are currently not allowed to operate any aircraft for law enforcement purposes, I think that drones establish a dangerous precedent.Originally Posted by jlw
Seriously, drones simply reduce the cost of aerial observation, something that police have already been doing. As with anything there is a potential for abuse but I think it is vastly overrated. There are some very good applications for drones, such as elevated crime scene scenery (think accident reconstruction) that seem very beneficial.
I see drones as potentially useful to an agency that can't afford a "real" aviation program. There are some situations, primarily vehicle and foot pursuits, in which an aircraft can greatly enhance the safety of the officers. If an LE agency has SAR responsibilities, there are some more potential life saving uses for lower cost aircraft capabilities.
I think that come of these concerns would be alleviated if folks understood the large body of previous case law that limits the police use of technology. For instance, the Supreme Court has already ruled in 2001 that police can not use a FLIR device to search the exterior of a residence for evidence they are growing marijuana. The court found that the device's ability to provide such explicit information about the contents of the residence to be unreasonable without a search warrant. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States)Depends on what they're used for. ... "Your Honor, {illegal activity A} was in plain view..." ...of the radio-controlled helicopter hovering outside the third floor window a hundred yards from the nearest public road.
The Supreme Court's guidelines consider how much a particular technology enhances an officer's natural senses. One defense attorney argued that it was unreasonable for an officer to shine a flashlight into a vehicle to observe it's contents. The court found the flashlight was just allowing the officer to see what would have been visible in daylight. Conversely, using a parabolic mic to dramatically enhance one's hearing is not considered reasonable and requires a warrant.
Another factor that court considers is how common a technology is. If everybody and their brother already has something, it doesn't make much sense to exclude that same device from use by the government. For instance, the police use of binoculars is not unreasonable. Binoculars substantially enhance an officer's natural senses but anyone can own a pair.
The most problematic SCOTUS decision in this arena is a much older case (1986) that says if you want privacy, you need four walls and a roof. It originates from and EPA overflight of an industrial site. There is a 1989 case that specifically addresses helicopter surveillance of private property. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._Riley)
- It's not the odds, it's the stakes.
- If you aren't dry practicing every week, you're not serious.....
- "Tache-Psyche Effect - a polite way of saying 'You suck.' " - GG
Looks to me like you answer your own question with your opening sentence............they are expensive, but for sale...........
Drones might generate a thread all by themselves.
I think drones are particularly interesting due to something you noticed in your post; limits will have to be entirely based on a legal framework. There's no technological reason I can't fly a drone right up to your window.
What's also going to be interesting is that imaging devices grow increasingly effective and storage increasingly cheap. There's no technological reason I couldn't have a drone loiter above my town/city semi-continuously and image the entire area for later review. You'd be able to see literally everything that happens outside, going back for however long you feel like. There's a private company that does it now (with a regular private plane), if you have a large enough budget to pay for it. There's no technological reason that this isn't the future.
Absolutely. Bear in mind that, back before lightweight, high quality digital cameras, let alone quadrotors that could lift them were a thing, I worked for a company whose primary business was aerial photography using film cameras suspended from an unpowered, tethered mini-blimp. Since a tethered balloon is (or was, this was the very early '90s and I don't know how the FAA's changed regs since then) good with no lights up to 300 feet, we could do photography work that would have been cost-prohibitive if it involved renting a Robinson.
Re: Armored Vehicles. In my area in 2011 we had a shooting involving almost an entire region of law enforcement. 2 deputies were killed, 2 were severely wounded (1 paralyzed) by a guy armed with an AR in an advantageous position (high ground, sun to his back). The closest Bearcat was about 1.5 hours away. It was obtained with DHS funds and labeled regional. By the time they arrived the BG was taken care of with several rounds of 00Buck. The Bearcat would have been perfect for the evacuation of the personnel wounded or under fire by the bad guy but nothing like that was available and fortunately the BG retreated. Now fast forward to today, several agencies that responded to that incident have obtained MRAPs or up-armored Hummers. Why? Not to "militarize" but they found a hole in their capability. The agency of the late-deputies has acquire much more training and assets because the situation magnified those areas were lacking. I can't fault an agency for wanting to be prepared.
This point is probably going to be really key in any decisions. If you can do it right now, then is there compelling reason to disallow the government from doing this? They are still trying to figure out if the FAA has authority but if they do, there are some minimums (400 or 600 feet AGL - maybe?) that might apply. This would limit the ability to lawfully plant one outside of someone's window.
Also, if you read the SCOTUS case I posted, the Justices were very concerned about altitude in the case. The court found that being 400' AGL was OK. I suspect that lower level flights would get bounced pretty quick. If you look at the very recent case about government searches of cell phones incident to arrest, you see the court is very willing to reign in the police in situations they previously has "green lights."
I also suspect that industry wanting access to cheap aerial surveillance will limit the extent of government regulations in this arena. Besides the stuff I already mentioned, drones have shown a lot of promise in other government domains from natural resource assessments to overflights of wildfires. The wildfire stuff is really promising to me because we lose pilots every year doing work that could probably be done by drones and without risk to human life.
- It's not the odds, it's the stakes.
- If you aren't dry practicing every week, you're not serious.....
- "Tache-Psyche Effect - a polite way of saying 'You suck.' " - GG
I was being facetious with the drone post. However, there does appear to be correlation with the folks that flip out over the subject matter at hand.
---
We have some sort of armored vehicle. It pre-dates my time with the agency. I only know it exists based on two reasons:
1- It is on our inventory list.
2- The guys tell a story about when it was delivered, the boss was told that it was bulletproof. Not to take someone's word such things, he pulled out a Winchester 94 and tested said bulletproofness; or at least the story goes. Supposedly, this happened in the SO parking lot.
I had an ER nurse in a class. I noticed she kept taking all head shots. Her response when asked why, "'I've seen too many people who have been shot in the chest putting up a fight in the ER." Point taken.
From my casual observations, most officer shoot their long guns better than their pistols. They may not be able to keep them running but they do hit better with them. One year, I had everyone shoot our pistol course with their rifles (I shot it in reverse order so they didn't realize what was happening). A very large number of folks shot 100%, something they'd never do with their pistols. If I were unarmed and relying on the typical cop to end a threat with me in the area, I would prefer them to be armed with a M-4/AR-15.
Regarding your other question, I have a hard time seeing much use for anything belt fed. The only thing that comes to mind is some form of anti-aircraft role. The agencies that are doing aerial interception are using semi-auto 50 calibers rifles currently.
The only other situation that comes to mind is a massive Mumbai style attack with illegally imported belt feds and RPG's. Imagine what 100 jihadist could do with AK's, PKM's, and RPG's in a big east coast city. The Al Queda training tapes showed such hits on golf courses so it remains a remote possibility. I suspect that if it ever does happen posse comitatus would disappear real fast.
(Of course, since I will never be able to afford anything belt fed in this current environment, I'd like to see the manufacture of new machine guns for private consumption resume. It would level the playing field a bit.)
- It's not the odds, it's the stakes.
- If you aren't dry practicing every week, you're not serious.....
- "Tache-Psyche Effect - a polite way of saying 'You suck.' " - GG
True. Especially MRAPs.
Reply With Quote
