Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
-- legal case unfolding in North Dakota Rodney -- -- -- is the first American citizen known to be busted with the help of a predator surveillance drone.
Now -- big debate is brewing in the small town of Lakota raising privacy concerns over the use of unmanned drones by law enforcement.
Joining us live to talk about at least -- former federal prosecutor Fox News legal analyst Joseph di Benedetto is a criminal defense attorney joins us as well.
That the back story is that -- I got to explain this.
-- wander onto -- -- sorts property.
And he decides he's gonna keep the neighbor's house which he can't.
-- the cops show up to -- can't do that.
He allegedly grabs a high powered rifle and chases the police off his property.
Here's what the attorney representing North Dakota says quote.
The alleged crimes were already committed long before a drone was even thought of being used it was only used to help -- There weren't weapons into may he rest safer for both.
Debris starts and law enforcement.
And you know -- -- they had a warrant.
Right they did have a -- but I would I really worry about -- slow appear in other words you can get in a warrant for -- You knew that we get there they are crimes argument is so called crimes McAlester OK and you get a warrant for that.
Where -- we end without -- hello hunter house at least we can you know Xena alleged lying homeless terrorizing police with a high powered by -- -- you need a drone for that -- just going with the old fashioned.
I've rest warrant that's it it's over and don't bring -- -- What is and it's safer Joseph if you know where on this huge property Broussard is and you can see whether or not he's got some weapons.
Greg I will agree with you on the these particular facts and circumstances.
The use of the drone is not so egregious.
But -- lease brings up is if they're bringing in a drone for six counts can you imagine what the federal government would do if they believe that you were Tony Montana or Pablo Escobar.
I mean -- every every citizen of of the United States has a reasonable expectation of privacy in their home.
The use of this -- is no different than the FBI storming your house and searching every single -- the fact that they're flying up above.
Makes no difference -- what about -- 1989.
US Supreme Court decision and in fact we'll put it up -- to screen.
Supreme Court said any member of the public could legally -- been flying over Riley's property is is it different Casey was grown marijuana.
In a helicopter at the altitude of 400 feet and could have observed -- greenhouse the police officer did more and Lisa Supreme Court -- you know what.
You didn't even need a warrant used a helicopter -- is a surveillance drone any different -- And other Supreme Court case and said you have to have that you have to have a warrant to go win member of the is cases -- talked about if you hit -- heat seeking device you've got to have a warrant.
Anything like that coming from your house you have have a warrant.
Maybe not so different may be here of the drones were OK because they did have a warrant and they knew the guy they wanted to get in custody it was -- huge property.
I'm not sure you need a warrant on the -- injustice to --
Filter by section