Valley News reports on a 21st Century pursuit:
The Grand Forks County Sheriff's Office says it deployed a drone to help catch some criminals on the run. They say it is the first time a drone has been used by law enforcement to conduct a mission at night.
...
[Three suspects] are facing alcohol and fleeing-related charges. There's also a fourth suspect authorities are not identifying.
It's neat that drones are getting used in some legal and non-disturbing (for most people, anyway) ways. However, is anyone a little concerned that this was described as a "mission" rather than "law enforcement activity"?
For our non-USA members: Grand Forks is the third-largest city in North Dakota.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Grand Forks Police Use Drone to Track Down DUI Suspects
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 15 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @07:05AM
We all know where Grand Forks County is?
(Score: 3, Funny) by Horse With Stripes on Sunday October 12 2014, @09:29AM
Of course. It's where GitHub is located - the Land of the Grand Forks.
(Score: 2) by E_NOENT on Sunday October 12 2014, @09:35AM
We all know where Grand Forks County is?
You should. There's a lot of science going on up there. Space sciences, aeronautical sciences, radar, climate modeling, meteorology, environmental sciences. Lots of computers and smart people too.
/this is not an advertisement
I'm not in the business... I *am* the business.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Uncle Bob on Sunday October 12 2014, @11:55AM
(Score: 2) by tibman on Sunday October 12 2014, @07:49AM
"Mission" might be the same word used if they sent a helicopter. Not sure. But it certainly sounds more military than police. This does seem like a perfectly legitimate reason to use a drone though.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by keplr on Sunday October 12 2014, @08:22AM
It's just a cheaper, more responsive, version of the old police helicopter that has been used for decades. So now even a rural police department with a small budget can have some air recon. I'll start to worry when these stories about police drones end with "...there were no survives."
I don't respond to ACs.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by tathra on Sunday October 12 2014, @05:20PM
and therein lies the problem. thats exactly how they justify using video cameras everywhere out in public too. with a helicoptor, like with a policeman stalking you and taking pictures of everything you do, you know they're there and it takes manpower and time to do it, so they're inherently limited in how much it can be done; with drones and cameras, its cheap and invisible, so they can do it everywhere, all the time.
drones are also in a position where they can look in windows; seeing a crime committed, such as drug use, through a window isn't technically a 4th amendment violation, but people turn their blinds down specifically to prevent people from looking in, which makes it easy for drones to see in. under the "open window" precedent, it wouldn't be seen by the courts as a 4th amendment violation, although it very clearly is since they'd be going to great lengths just to see through the "open window".
with parallel construction a regular thing, its pretty much guaranteed they'll be spying through windows with these things. everyone's window, all the time, without any way to know about it.
(Score: 2) by EvilSS on Sunday October 12 2014, @09:47PM
Curtilage should cover that, it's the same reason a police officer can't just walk up and start looking into your windows without a valid reason to be there. Of course, it's not like that will stop come of them from trying...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Bot on Sunday October 12 2014, @09:50AM
> eagerly waiting for the debian-systemd troll to post his usual statement, picking up the "Grand Forks" hint
Come on!
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @07:30PM
Troll: someone you disagree with.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday October 12 2014, @08:20PM
No, in this case I "sort of" agree with the guy, but *I* consider him a troll that repeatedly inserts comments about how unsatisfied he is about Debian's handling of systemd into unrelated stories.
It's not really flamebait, because the supporters aren't generally that committed. Overrated it too unspecific. Etc. Troll seems the best description.
FWIW, I'm wondering if my response to your comment isn't edging close to that boundary. It's a clear response to your comment, but it's quite unrelated to the story. But I felt it necessary to say that I don't always disagree with trolls, even though, by definition, their comments are irrelevant.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @10:28PM
Troll: someone you disagree with.
I am pretty sure this statement is wrong. Ergo, must be a troll. (And if you disagree with my disagreement, you are a Double Troll! Ha!)
(Score: 2) by Bot on Sunday October 12 2014, @11:06PM
Except that I do not disagree on what the troll said about systemd in debian. Yet copypasting multiple times in seemingly unrelated thread is trolling. Also , debian is not dead...
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday October 13 2014, @03:07AM
Honestly, how many of our USA members actually knew where the hell Grand Forks is? I'd be willing to be that if I polled 100 random people here in New Jersey, I might find one who actually knows where that is.
Even geographically savvy Americans don't know much about North Dakota. There just isn't much there.
(Score: 1) by http on Tuesday October 14 2014, @05:12PM
I would have sworn it was in Canada.
I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.