Fox News
Expand
Browse All Video
Watch Live

You're watching...

Police drone use raises privacy concerns

Details

  • Description

    Debate over North Dakota case

  • Duration 3:09
  • Date

Clips

Also in this playlist...

Editor's Picks

Auto-advance: ON

Auto-advance
View All

Transcript

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.

Here.

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 --

Load More