View Single Post
Old March 7, 2013, 03:46 PM   #32
overhead
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 28, 2013
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 182
Again, not a lawyer, but the ruling required that someone would not have reason to believe their activities were private. It said

"Any member of the public could legally have been flying over Riley's property in a helicopter at the altitude of 400 feet and could have observed Riley's greenhouse. The police officer did no more."

I assume it has something to do with a "reasonable expectations of privacy". In my opinion looking inside a house would fall outside of what is allowed. Whether it be a camera looking through a window or more advanced means. At least I hope they would not be allowed.

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/488/445/
overhead is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.04854 seconds with 7 queries