You DO NOT turn yourself in, for this or any other case, unless you go with a lawyer, who tells the police he/she has advised you not to answer any questions. I'm just sayin. . .
P4 owner in trouble with the law......
- Thread starter Toddf
- Start date
You don't need an attorney to assert your 5th Amendment rights. I'm not disagreeing that an attorney be consulted prior to all of this. If I were this person and turned myself in, I'd make plans on spending at least a day or two.
You don't. You do need one to keep you from saying something stupid and not realizing it. Cops are trained to get you to say things without you realizing you are using a shovel.
Ridiculous is the only word that comes to mind.
It's ridiculous that the news media turned this into a story about drones instead of about some people having a problem with illegal voyeurism, trespassing and invasion of privacy.
It's ridiculous that some posters on this chain have felt the need to invent facts to make the story worse. It's bad enough as it is - yet some have found it necessary to speculate that perhaps he was also watching CHILDREN! I'm sure that if that were true, it would have been a main feature of the news report. (It's not). Not every pervert is also a pedophile. No need to exaggerate or embellish the story with imaginary facts like this - or like the gent who suggested that the drone was registered and marked with an FAA number. LOL! If I were to assume anything - it would be the opposite - but the story didn't say - so again, we should probably just stick to the facts.
It's ridiculous that some posters have suggested this might be a case of an illegal search. It's even more ridiculous to suggest the victim might be guilty of theft. The drone was abandoned in a parking lot after trespassing on private property!!! The story doesn't say who first reviewed the SD card. It could have been the police. It could have been the guy who picked it up. Either way, it's evidence of a crime that was turned into the police. They didnt bust down the suspects door and take it. It's not much different than finding an unattended wallet - of course people are going to look inside to try to determine the owner.
Whoever was flying the drone is clearly guilty of trespassing and voyeurism. This time they used a drone. The primary suspect has priors. Drones didn't turn this guy into a pervert - they're just the latest technological advance - which this guy (laughably) thought might be helpful. If drones didnt exist - or were outlawed - they would have found this guy in a tree 2 miles away with a 300x zoom lens on his DSLR - or worse yet - they wouldn't have found him at all and he would still be out there committing crimes. In a way - the drone helped catch this person and hopefully the community will be safer now after he has been caught, charged and sentenced!
I know this story is a month old and I'm kinda late to the party, but I just came across this thread in a PhantomPilots summary email. I read all 6 pages from start to finish and found I had a lot to say - and much of it was "ridiculous"!
It's ridiculous that the news media turned this into a story about drones instead of about some people having a problem with illegal voyeurism, trespassing and invasion of privacy.
It's ridiculous that some posters on this chain have felt the need to invent facts to make the story worse. It's bad enough as it is - yet some have found it necessary to speculate that perhaps he was also watching CHILDREN! I'm sure that if that were true, it would have been a main feature of the news report. (It's not). Not every pervert is also a pedophile. No need to exaggerate or embellish the story with imaginary facts like this - or like the gent who suggested that the drone was registered and marked with an FAA number. LOL! If I were to assume anything - it would be the opposite - but the story didn't say - so again, we should probably just stick to the facts.
It's ridiculous that some posters have suggested this might be a case of an illegal search. It's even more ridiculous to suggest the victim might be guilty of theft. The drone was abandoned in a parking lot after trespassing on private property!!! The story doesn't say who first reviewed the SD card. It could have been the police. It could have been the guy who picked it up. Either way, it's evidence of a crime that was turned into the police. They didnt bust down the suspects door and take it. It's not much different than finding an unattended wallet - of course people are going to look inside to try to determine the owner.
Whoever was flying the drone is clearly guilty of trespassing and voyeurism. This time they used a drone. The primary suspect has priors. Drones didn't turn this guy into a pervert - they're just the latest technological advance - which this guy (laughably) thought might be helpful. If drones didnt exist - or were outlawed - they would have found this guy in a tree 2 miles away with a 300x zoom lens on his DSLR - or worse yet - they wouldn't have found him at all and he would still be out there committing crimes. In a way - the drone helped catch this person and hopefully the community will be safer now after he has been caught, charged and sentenced!
I know this story is a month old and I'm kinda late to the party, but I just came across this thread in a PhantomPilots summary email. I read all 6 pages from start to finish and found I had a lot to say - and much of it was "ridiculous"!
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2016
- Messages
- 4
- Reaction score
- 2
- Age
- 43
The 4th amendment allows for and in certain situations, law enforcement may perform a search when they have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity (this is documented in the police SM release, even if it falls short of probable cause necessary for an arrest. Under Terry v. Ohio (1968), law enforcement officers are permitted to conduct a limited warrantless search on a level of suspicion less than probable cause under certain circumstances. In one case, the Supreme Court ruled that when a police officer witnesses "unusual conduct" that leads that officer to reasonably believe "that criminal activity may be afoot". Technically it was witnessed and reported by a witness other than law enforcement, but there is a provisional loophole in the law where the police can conduct a search, including an SD card, in an effort to identify the owner, which could lead to the discovery of criminal activity at which time, law enforcement must stop and obtain a warrant if criminal charges are to be pursued.
Aside from that, depending on the outcome of the investigation, IMO, the offender should be outright banned from flying drones as s/he is clearly not operating responsibly, but for devious intentions.
Aside from that, depending on the outcome of the investigation, IMO, the offender should be outright banned from flying drones as s/he is clearly not operating responsibly, but for devious intentions.
I agree, this story has heaps of BS about it - a real perv would simply use a 'birdwatching' lens on a modern DSLR. This story is just about seeding 'anti-drone' feelings in the MSM.
I must have missed something here. Christmas has come and gone ... did the guy get arrested (The FB page says they'll arrest him on Christmas Morning) ? Does the 'voyeur' really exist, or was all of this story 'fabricated' somehow? Wasn't there a topic in the news recently about 'incorrect/fabricated' news on FB?
Catch this dumb*** and shut him down. This is not uncommon and has a lot to do with negative public opinion about drones and those who fly them.
Not sure about illegal search laws as applies to equipment.
Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots
Not sure about illegal search laws as applies to equipment.
Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots
GadgetGuy
Premium Pilot
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2015
- Messages
- 6,881
- Reaction score
- 2,199
The police were too busy opening their presents and flying their own drones to care.
Actually, he should be banned from owning or operating drones, cameras, binoculars and telescopes. Limiting the ban just to drones would further the association of voyeurism with drones (in the eyes of the public). Banning all commonly used voyeur tools makes it more clear that the story is about a criminal than it is about drones.
Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots
Last edited:
Au contraire, mon ami, but then, that's what makes horse racing. I'm doubtful that in most jurisdictions pulling the SD card, after you have the evidence (drone) in custody, is the same as a Terry stop, or other exigent circumstance warrantless search. In any event any difference of opinion is meaningless, since they could get a warrant in a heartbeat, and then go get their man, or, hey, did we decide if it's a vouyer or a vouyette yet?
You mean Voyeur or Voyeuse ... (or maybe a group). French can be tricky at times ...
Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots
Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2016
- Messages
- 300
- Reaction score
- 91
- Age
- 54
We're all already banned from that. Obviously didn't solve anything.
Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots
Aye and neither would being banned from " owning or operating drones, cameras, binoculars and telescopes"
Bad people do bad things regardless of bans.
Banning a criminal from certain activities or owning certain items is not meant to completely take away their ability to do bad things. It is meant to give peace officers more flexibility in arresting/detaining/preventing the individual BEFORE another crime takes place.
If he's caught in possession of any of the banned items, he can be arrested and charged. Nobody is saying that a ban will completely prevent him from future crime - but bans are not completely useless as you seem to think.
In future interaction with law enforcement - they don't necessarily have to prove an act of voyeurism or trespass has occurred. If they find him with binoculars or another banned item - that's all they need to be able to arrest and charge him - hopefully BEFORE he commits his next crime.
Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots
So LE doesn't have to prove a crime existed just that he had things he could have used in a crime. Yeah, that is a dark path I would prefer we don't go down.
Besides prior restraint has been ruled unconstitutional and it brings in 14th amendment issues as well.
If he is doing illegal things then he should be in jail. Then he can't have those items. If he is walking around then he should have the same rights to have those items that anyone else does.
Similar threads
