U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Vermont
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-29-2014, 02:54 PM
 
12 posts, read 12,514 times
Reputation: 15

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by joe from dayton View Post
They can also fly into schools and buildings and look for bad guys with guns who are murderering people. Case law already exists to show that police cannot enter your property and look in your window "just because." Pull down your blinds.
Pull down your blinds?
Nope!
More like load your shotgun!

It "could have been" a peeping tom and not the police, I didn't know, sorry, perhaps you should not fly that thing near my house next time.

Oh, and "proactive" has another name, "self initiated field activity" and it is basically a cop looking for trouble, and if there is no trouble, they will find it anyway, and you pay for it with your time, money, reputation and possibly even your life.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-29-2014, 03:05 PM
 
12 posts, read 12,514 times
Reputation: 15
Oh, and the "government" says "military weapons do not belong on our streets" but are passing out military weapons and equipment out like free candy to police forces all over the US telling us our police/domestic security forces needs to be as strong as our military force?

Drones I fear are just the beginning.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2015, 08:02 AM
 
118 posts, read 234,738 times
Reputation: 112
Default 2008 VT 39 State v. Bryant (2005-252)

State v. Bryant :: 2008 :: Vermont Supreme Court Decisions :: Vermont Case Law :: Vermont Law :: U.S. Law :: Justia

"The issue on this appeal from a conviction for cultivation of marijuana is whether the warrantless aerial scrutiny of defendant’s yard, for the purpose of detecting criminal activity by the occupant of the property, violated privacy rights secured by the Vermont Constitution. We hold that Vermont citizens have a constitutional right to privacy that ascends into the airspace above their homes and property. The warrantless aerial surveillance in this case violated that constitutionally protected privacy right."

Last edited by Bang!; 04-30-2015 at 08:23 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2015, 08:49 AM
 
12 posts, read 12,514 times
Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bang! View Post
State v. Bryant :: 2008 :: Vermont Supreme Court Decisions :: Vermont Case Law :: Vermont Law :: U.S. Law :: Justia
We hold that Vermont citizens have a constitutional right to privacy that ascends into the airspace above their homes and property. The warrant-less aerial surveillance in this case violated that constitutionally protected privacy right."

What more can be said?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2015, 10:33 AM
 
Location: Somewhere in northern Alabama
17,851 posts, read 54,121,626 times
Reputation: 30316
The decision is an interesting read. There are a couple of issues involved that make me suspect that the limitations can be tested.

First, the helicopter involved was in fact operating ILLEGALLY - by flying lower than 500' on extended surveillance, a civilian pilot would be in DEEP trouble with the FAA and possibly get his license revoked. Any search conducted through illegal means is subject to having the result thrown out of court.

Second, the owner of the property had posted "no trespassing" signs, which gave clear indication that he expected privacy on his property. Even though those were not visible from the air, the intent and reasonable measures taken to express that were properly given.

Had the property NOT been posted, AND the helicopter been flown at over 500' in something similar to a USGS ground survey, and the photos showed the plants there would have been no privacy issue or case.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2015, 11:56 AM
 
118 posts, read 234,738 times
Reputation: 112
Harry,

Paragraph 12 specifically states "government intrusions into the home are searches for purposes of Article 11 even if an individual fails to take affirmative steps to convey his expectation of privacy."

And Paragraph 28 states "...Therefore, we disagree with those courts that would use the legality of an aircraft’s position alone to evaluate the constitutionality of the surveillance conducted aboard it."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2015, 04:50 PM
 
12 posts, read 12,514 times
Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bang! View Post
Harry,

Paragraph 12 specifically states "government intrusions into the home are searches for purposes of Article 11 even if an individual fails to take affirmative steps to convey his expectation of privacy."

And Paragraph 28 states "...Therefore, we disagree with those courts that would use the legality of an aircraft’s position alone to evaluate the constitutionality of the surveillance conducted aboard it."

WOW!
Speaks like a Lawyer he does!
What, no Yoda Smilie?

Bang! I have an unrelated Vermont Law question that I have wondered about for a long time and nobody seems to have any insight in regards to the subject.

Below it says the fine for violating section 4010. "Gun Silencers" is $25.00 for each offense, but does not mention any jail time, or even confiscation of said silencer.

I would believe that means silencers are "against the law" in spirit only.
It is a slap on the wrist as they do not put you in jail or break your bank.

§ 4010. Gun silencers
A person who manufactures, sells, uses, or possesses with intent to sell or use an appliance known as or used for a gun silencer shall be fined $25.00 for each offense. The provisions of this section shall not prevent the use or possession of gun silencers by:
Subdivision (1) effective until July 1, 2015; see also subdivision (1) effective July 1, 2015 set out below.
(1) a certified, full-time law enforcement officer or Department of Fish and Wildlife employee in connection with his or her duties and responsibilities and in accordance with the policies and procedures of that officer's or employee's agency or department; or
Subdivision (1) effective July 1, 2015; see also subdivision (1) effective until July 1, 2015 set out above.
(1) a Level III certified law enforcement officer or Department of Fish and Wildlife employee in connection with his or her duties and responsibilities and in accordance with the policies and procedures of that officer's or employee's agency or department; or
(2) the Vermont National Guard in connection with its duties and responsibilities. (Amended 2009, No. 154 (Adj. Sess.), § 238f, eff. June 3, 2010; 2013, No. 141 (Adj. Sess.), § 17, eff. July 1, 2015.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2015, 06:10 PM
 
Location: The Woods
16,946 posts, read 22,257,781 times
Reputation: 9051
Silencers are NFA regulated and so any state offense with one puts you on hook for a federal felony, and the ATF won't approve the paperwork on one if not legal in your area. It's a dumb law many of us want changed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2015, 08:57 PM
 
12 posts, read 12,514 times
Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader View Post
Silencers are NFA regulated and so any state offense with one puts you on hook for a federal felony, and the ATF won't approve the paperwork on one if not legal in your area. It's a dumb law many of us want changed.
So, get caught with one (recreational use, not for criminal activity) get fined the $25 by the local cops and then what happens?

Does a federal officer come to your home (there was no mention of arrest or jail time) and arrest you again?

If you are arrested/ticketed for a crime, go to court, given a time or $$ penalty, pay that penalty, and go home does not double-jeopardy protect you from being pulled into court for that same crime and prosecuted a second time?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2015, 07:15 AM
 
118 posts, read 234,738 times
Reputation: 112
Suppose you legally own a silencer in another state and you get caught in VT with it. Is the offense limited to a $25 fine alone or does the violation of the state law implicate Federal regulations?

UPDATE: AFT Form 5320-20 must be filed for all interstate NFA weapons transfers even temporary ones... but, it does not require the form for suppressors. However, interstate transfer of a legally registered suppressor to a restricted state is apparently untested legal territory. Certainly not an area of law I'll be testing.

https://www.atf.gov/files/forms/down...-f-5320-20.pdf

Last edited by Bang!; 05-01-2015 at 08:10 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Vermont
View detailed profiles of:
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top