Government trespassing to place servalence cameras on your property?

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...n-american-spy-cam-tied-to-his-tree-sues-feds

It seems the govt. keep trespassing on at least this mans property, he took their camera, now they want it back, what do you say?

Good on him. He's doing the right thing.

Palacios' ranch is situated at the 35-mile marker due north from Laredo, along Interstate 35, just three miles south of the small town of Encinal. The nearest US-Mexico border crossing is at Laredo. The precise distance between the border and Palacios' ranch matters: under federal law, agents can go onto private property that is within 25 miles of the border "for the purpose of patrolling the border to prevent the illegal entry of aliens into the United States."

In other words, if Palacios' ranch were within that range, he likely wouldn't have a case. This is related to, but distinct from, the 100-mile radius that the CBP claims it can operate in and warrantlessly stop people and search bags, cars, electronic devices, and more. This is commonly referred to as the "border exception" to the Fourth Amendment, which protects against warrantless searches and seizures. (There is currently a lawsuit over border searches of electronic devices underway in federal court in Massachusetts: Alasaad v. Duke.)
.
.
.
Palacios and his attorneys believe that the camera is part of "Operation Drawbridge," an effort by the Texas Department of Public Safety to use "low-cost, commercially off-the-shelf technology that has been adapted to meet law enforcement needs," with "hundreds of cameras located along the border." The cameras, which are in constant use, 24 hours a day, send alerts to the Border Patrol as well as state and local authorities. "At approximately $300 per camera, they provide a high-tech capability at a low-tech cost," the Texas DPS website states. The Texas DPS did not immediately respond to Ars' request for comment. Since the lawsuit, Casso said, his client has only had one interaction with CBP: agents went to his door and asked his permission to pursue a group of people they believed were on his ranch and were undocumented. He agreed.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...-american-spy-cam-tied-to-his-tree-sues-feds/

And the camera appears to be part of a border vigilance program.

Anyway, if someone is going to make noises about how important patrolling the border is, etc., they're going to ask themselves whether they approve of this sort of thing, whether they want the government instead to simply seize the land via eminent domain (if they could for this reason; I'm no eminent domain expert), or what happens if they have to request permission from each private property owner and don't get it.

See also:

https://www.dps.texas.gov/PublicInformation/operDrawbrdg.htm

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4383859-drawbrdgPhotos.html

(The program)







And before anyone starts with one of the predictable "so what you're saying is <straw man>", you will note that I didn't actually take a position. The article is somewhat informative, but reading the actual complaint would probably help, too.

Complaint:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4383829-S-D-Tex-5-17-Cv-00244-6-0.html