> The problem with the RT article is that it treats any instance of the DoJ using unmanned aircraft as a kind of constitutional crisis.
Their source is Rand Paul so this is not all that surprising. His 2012 anti-drone bill would have made it so improper use of a drone would exclude the evidence collected by drone, and authorized civil suits against operators of said drones. Sounds good...except it was extremely broad.
Here is an example of drone use that would be covered. An endangered species of bird has nested on a university campus. A bird researcher at the university is using a small drone with camera to periodically observe the nest. His research is partly funded by an NSF grant.
While flying the drone to the nest one evening, the researcher sees a man attempting to rape a woman in a public area of the university, and alerts the police.
This would have been forbidden drone use under Paul's bill unless the researcher had a warrant. The researcher would have been covered because he was partly funded by the Federal government, and that was sufficient to put one under the bill. The evidence stemming from the drone use would be inadmissible and the researcher could be sued by the attempted rapist.
There was an exigent circumstances provision in the bill that provided an exception when swift action was necessary to prevent danger to life. That would at first SEEM to apply to an attempted rape in progress. Alas, the exigent circumstances only applied to drones operated by a "law enforcement party", which the bill defined as authorized by law or funded by the Federal government to investigate or prosecute offenses against the United States. A university bird researcher is not a "law enforcement party", and so the exigent circumstances exception does not apply. (Heck, even state and local police would not be law enforcement parties, because they investigate offenses at the state and local level, not offenses against the United States).
Fortunately this bill died quickly. There is a 2013 version. The House version takes out the part about it covering anyone who is funded in whole or part by the Federal government, so would remove my hypothetical biologist from coverage. It would only apply to drones operated by entities acting under the authority of the Federal government.
The Senate version still covers anyone who is funded in whole or part by the Federal government.
Their source is Rand Paul so this is not all that surprising. His 2012 anti-drone bill would have made it so improper use of a drone would exclude the evidence collected by drone, and authorized civil suits against operators of said drones. Sounds good...except it was extremely broad.
Here is an example of drone use that would be covered. An endangered species of bird has nested on a university campus. A bird researcher at the university is using a small drone with camera to periodically observe the nest. His research is partly funded by an NSF grant.
While flying the drone to the nest one evening, the researcher sees a man attempting to rape a woman in a public area of the university, and alerts the police.
This would have been forbidden drone use under Paul's bill unless the researcher had a warrant. The researcher would have been covered because he was partly funded by the Federal government, and that was sufficient to put one under the bill. The evidence stemming from the drone use would be inadmissible and the researcher could be sued by the attempted rapist.
There was an exigent circumstances provision in the bill that provided an exception when swift action was necessary to prevent danger to life. That would at first SEEM to apply to an attempted rape in progress. Alas, the exigent circumstances only applied to drones operated by a "law enforcement party", which the bill defined as authorized by law or funded by the Federal government to investigate or prosecute offenses against the United States. A university bird researcher is not a "law enforcement party", and so the exigent circumstances exception does not apply. (Heck, even state and local police would not be law enforcement parties, because they investigate offenses at the state and local level, not offenses against the United States).
Fortunately this bill died quickly. There is a 2013 version. The House version takes out the part about it covering anyone who is funded in whole or part by the Federal government, so would remove my hypothetical biologist from coverage. It would only apply to drones operated by entities acting under the authority of the Federal government.
The Senate version still covers anyone who is funded in whole or part by the Federal government.
Here's the 2013 House version: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr972
Here's the 2013 Senate version: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s1016