| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Land of the Free |
| Victory! Fourth Circuit Rules Baltimore's Warrantless Aerial Surveillance Program Unconstitutional |
| 2021-07-03 |
| [WashingtonGazette] The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled last week that Baltimore’s use of aerial surveillance that could track the movements of the entire city violated the Fourth Amendment. The case, Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle v. Baltimore Police Department, challenged the Baltimore Police Department’s (BPD) use of an aerial surveillance program that continuously captured an estimated 12 hours of coverage of 90 percent of the city each day for a six-month pilot period. EFF, joined by the Brennan Center for Justice, Electronic Privacy Information Center, FreedomWorks, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and the Rutherford Institute, filed an amicus brief arguing that the two previous court decisions upholding the constitutionality of the program misapplied Supreme Court precedent and failed to recognize the disproportionate impact of surveillance, like Baltimore’s program, on communities of color. In its decision, the full Fourth Circuit found that BPD’s use and analysis of its Aerial Investigation Research (AIR) data was a warrantless search that violated the Fourth Amendment. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decisions in United States v. Jones and United States v. Carpenter, the Fourth Circuit held that Carpenter—which ruled that cell-site location information was protected under the Fourth Amendment and thus may only be obtained with a warrant—applied “squarely” to this case. The Fourth Circuit explained that the district court had misapprehended the extent of what the AIR program could do. The district court believed that the program only engaged in short-term tracking. However, the Fourth Circuit clarified that, like the cell-site location information tracking in Carpenter, the AIR program’s detailed data collection and 45-day retention period gave BPD the ability to chronicle movements in a “detailed, encyclopedic” record, akin to “attaching an ankle monitor to every person in the city.” The court further stated that oversurveillance and the resulting overpolicing do not allow different communities to enjoy the same rights That ability to deduce an individual’s movements over time violated Baltimore residents’ reasonable expectation of privacy. In making that determination, the court underscored the importance of considering not only the raw data that was gathered but also “what that data could reveal.” Contrary to the BPD’s claims that the aerial surveillance data was anonymous, the court pointed to studies that demonstrated the ease with which people could be identified by just a few points of their location history because of the unique and habitual way we all move. Moreover, the court stated that when this data was combined with Baltimore’s wide array of existing surveillance tools, deducing an individual’s identity became even simpler. The court also recognized the racial and criminal justice implications of oversurveillance. It noted that although mass surveillance touches everyone, “its hand is heaviest in communities already disadvantaged by their poverty, race, religion, ethnicity, and immigration status,” and that the impact of high-tech monitoring is “conspicuous in the lives of those least empowered to object.” The court further stated that oversurveillance and the resulting overpolicing do not allow different communities to enjoy the same rights: while “liberty from governmental intrusion can be taken for granted in some neighborhoods,” others “experience the Fourth Amendment as a system of surveillance, social control, and violence, not as a constitutional boundary that protects them from unreasonable searches and seizures.” In a powerful concurring opinion, Chief Judge Gregory dug deeper into this issue. Countering the dissent’s assumption that limiting police authority leads to more violence, the concurrence pointed out that Baltimore spends more per capita on policing than any comparable city, with disproportionate policing of Black neighborhoods. However, policing like the AIR program did not make the city safer; rather, it ignored the root issues that perpetuated violence in the city, including a long history of racial segregation, redlining, and wildly unequal distribution of resources. Related: Fourth Circuit: 2021-05-13 Appeals Court: Federal Law Gives Right to Inspect Non-Citizen Voting Fourth Circuit: 2021-01-24 Chief Justice Roberts will not preside over any Senate impeachment trial of President Trump Fourth Circuit: 2020-11-22 US Supreme Court Reorganizes Circuit Assignments Related: Baltimore Police: 2020-10-31 Baltimore's Aerial Surveillance Program Will End Saturday, Police Say Baltimore Police: 2020-07-25 Balt. State's Atty Mosby: Federal agents sent to Baltimore 'will face criminal charges' Baltimore Police: 2020-05-12 5 shot, 2 killed during first virtual Baltimore Ceasefire Weekend |
| Posted by:Jigum Thritle5771 |
| #9 There were concerns about cameras in a pubic space being used to observe events on private property Keep yer damn cameras outta my pubic space |
| Posted by: Zebulon Crineng3408 2021-07-03 23:19 |
| #8 Baltimore was one of the primary test sites for the DARPA networked video system, aka 'Gorgon Stare'. There were concerns about cameras in a pubic space being used to observe events on private property. Run a search on 'Gorgon stare' and you'll read some troubling stories. |
| Posted by: ed in texas 2021-07-03 17:35 |
| #7 Those drones are probably watching the cops. |
| Posted by: Airandee 2021-07-03 13:44 |
| #6 Would this impact CCTV surveillance, too, assuming the Supreme Court agrees? |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2021-07-03 12:28 |
| #5 Why do cops hate warrants so much? It's a freakin rubber stamp. |
| Posted by: Angstrom 2021-07-03 11:55 |
| #4 But the cops can still go through your garbage after you put it at the curb, because it's deemed "municipal property" at that point. |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2021-07-03 10:31 |
| #3 The Crime vs. protection eye in the 100 to 2500 ft. sky is gone. But what about the other physical privacy and IT violations? |
| Posted by: NN2N1 2021-07-03 09:47 |
| #2 "Warrants?..We don't need no steenking warrants!" |
| Posted by: Warthog 2021-07-03 09:06 |
| #1 Could we be reaching a turning point at last ? |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2021-07-03 00:10 |