Hacker News Reader

Comment by fny | Hacker News Reader

Can a lawyer explain why this doesn’t violate unreasonable searches? Why is a warrant not required?

The Supreme Court ruled in Florida v. Riley that the police do not need a warrant to observe an individual's property from public airspace.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._Riley

The 5-4 Podcast has an episode covering it and they are not light in their criticism of the court's decision: https://www.fivefourpod.com/episodes/florida-v-riley/

I think, 30 years after that decision, it is fair to re-evaluate it in light of the proliferation of inexpensive surveillance technology. If/when drones are the size of a fly, would it be legal to land it on the fence of my property and record my conversation?

The people need to care.

IANAL, but it might. As the article mentions, it almost certainly violates NYC laws as well[1].

The NYPD has not historically shown an institutional interest in laws enforced on them, rather than by them.

[1]: https://www.nyc.gov/site/nypd/about/about-nypd/policy/post-a...

My feeling would be this does violate the law. The problem is new technology must often go through courts to actually establish the law. So it seems that while the NYPD could decide it’s a no-go, their worse case is to do it, get sued and then let a judge make the call.

(1) it's not been tested in courts, so it might not be legal

(2) the likely argument from the government would be that open backwards are but subject to the same expectation of privacy as other interior parts of the home. If the cops have a helicopter surveiling your back yard no one says that it's a warrantless search. Why is a drone different?

The obvious answer there is levels of scale, but it's an open question if that will hold up to actual legal challenges

Reply on news.ycombinator.com