• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Camera convicted him but raised battle over privacy

Harry Guerrilla

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,951
Reaction score
12,422
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Camera convicted him but raised battle over privacy | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com

Farmers beware: Big Brother may be watching.

Eastern Shore soybean farmer Steve Van- Kesteren learned that the hard way when he was charged with taking two red-tailed hawks, a violation of the federal Migratory Bird Act.

The evidence against him was a video recording showing him dispatching the birds with an ax.

Game wardens had put a hidden camera in a tree, pointed at VanKesteren's soybean fields, after receiving a complaint about protected birds getting caught in predator traps. The wardens had to walk or drive off a road, past a hedgerow, and travel about a quarter mile through one field and past a second hedgerow. VanKesteren said it appears they cut a swath through some brush to get to the tree.
Click to expand...

"As noted by other courts, hidden video surveillance invokes images of the 'Orwellian state' and is regarded by society as more egregious than other kinds of intrusions," James Broccoletti, Smith's attorney, wrote in his appeal.

Broccoletti argued the case before Smith in December 2007.

"We have not found any reported cases dealing with the installation of a video camera on private property," he told the judge.

"In open field cases, law enforcement officers are entitled to, and regularly do, go upon private property to conduct their investigations," Sterling responded. "No warrant is required, period.
Click to expand...

"I'll tell you, this opened my eyes about how the government works," VanKesteren said.

He wondered what Thomas Jefferson and George Washington would think.

"What if those people had come to them and said, 'We're going to put you in prison for killing a chickenhawk'? " he asked. "I think they would have started another revolution."
Click to expand...

This court says that government can put cameras on your property without your consent.

What do you think about it?
 
I can understand camera's in a public place, but on private property?

If you have to get (or you used to) a warrant to wiretap someone, why not video if it is on private property? Makes to much sense I guess.

Then again this is the US Government we are talking about.

PS: If the camera was not directly on his property, or they did not pass through his property then he would be SOL in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Fair Warning:

you may not like what you see.
 
Blackdog said:
I can understand camera's in a public place, but on private property?

If you have to get (or you used to) a warrant to wiretap someone, why not video if it is on private property? Makes to much sense I guess.

Then again this is the US Government we are talking about.

PS: If the camera was not directly on his property, or they did not pass through his property then he would be SOL in my opinion.
Click to expand...

The camera was on his property.

The judge cited a ruling from the 1920's were it said the government could view a property. That to me means it can look from a distance and not install equipment.

The judge was wrong and that set a dangerous president.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom