CAN THIS HAPPEN HERE ?

There is a difference between not trusting and making accusations you have no basis for. I didn't say I trusted, I said I won't make accusations with out cause. I guess I'm just tired of the conspiracy theories dominating the national conversation. We all have enough to be concerned about with out making stuff up. It has become a game now to accuse the government of everything including your latest hang nail.

The Government invented that game when they took over everything including the domination of conspiracy theories within the national conversation. If they think we need anything that's made up they make it up.

archer wrote: There is a difference between not trusting and making accusations you have no basis for. I didn't say I trusted, I said I won't make accusations with out cause. I guess I'm just tired of the conspiracy theories dominating the national conversation. We all have enough to be concerned about with out making stuff up. It has become a game now to accuse the government of everything including your latest hang nail.

I believe the ACLU would disagree with your statement.....(check their website on this issue)
This is MY take on the issues that CONTINUE to be in the forefront of the news.......it is
PRECISELY because people are "overloaded and maxed out" that they "tune out"......and ALLOW
abuse to happen....being VIGILANT and knowledgeable is NOT allowing your government to run
amok.......the PATRIOT ACT is a prime example of what NOT to do....but the populace believed
that SECURITY (at all cost) was mandatory.....BIG mistake....JMO

The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that aerial police searches do not violate the 4th Amendment, as long as the airspace is accessible by the public. No search warrant necessary. However, courts in New Mexico have held that aerial police searches violate the New Mexico constitution, so if you are concerned, move to New Mexico. However the feds can still do fly overs even in New Mexico.

archer wrote: No, I don't like drones...... But my impression was that they tried to search the property but we're meet with armed (?) resistance. Like I posted earlier, I prefer the use of a drone to search the property than a shootout to gain access to the property possibly causing injury to law enforcement or the family. If there is a warrant to search, the means by which that search is accomplished shouldn't be the issue.

The point I was making amid all the conspiracy and 1984 references is that I have yet to see any documented use of drones to spy on American citizens without a valid warrant. Doesn't mean it never happened, but I'm not about to cry foul without some proof.

Search warrants must be very specific as to exactly what, where, how a search warrant is to be conducted.
The police had a search warrant but did not execute it. They then conducted a search which was not specified in the previous warrant.

The assertion of "armed resistance" must be taken with quite a bit of salt. Police do make all sorts of statements, charges, and assertions which are highly exaggerated or just plain false.

Here is one big question which has bothered me for quite some time: Why is it that liberals and politicians of both stripes cannot see that they are Big Brother? Have they not read 1984? Have they no ability of introspection? The liberals of today are NOT the liberals of the 1960s (completely opposite!).

I have to agree with dog on this, if it's public airspace I doubt a warrant is even needed. How is this any different than the photos that Google takes both from the road and from satellite?

archer wrote: I have to agree with dog on this, if it's public airspace I doubt a warrant is even needed. How is this any different than the photos that Google takes both from the road and from satellite?

The difference is that this was intentional, not coincidental observation in the normal course of the day.

Arlen wrote:

archer wrote: I have to agree with dog on this, if it's public airspace I doubt a warrant is even needed. How is this any different than the photos that Google takes both from the road and from satellite?

The difference is that this was intentional, not coincidental observation in the normal course of the day.

I disagree, Google is intentionally photographing your house and grounds along with everyone else in the world..,... There was no entering the home or searching through personal belongings. They simply looked at the property from public space such as you might from the road.

Right or wrong I doubt even the Supreme Court would find it illegal or unconstitutional.

Google is NOT the government. Don't you know the difference? The government is DANGEROUS, not benign.

Arlen wrote: Google is NOT the government. Don't you know the difference? The government is DANGEROUS, not benign.

Are you saying that what is legal for a corporation should not be legal for the government?