First Man Arrested By Aid of Drone Convicted in North Dakota

[SecularMotion]

Source: The New American

On January 14, North Dakota cattle rancher Rodney Brossart was sentenced to three years in prison (two and a half of which were suspended) for terrorizing police officers and resisting arrest.

The case gained national attention as Brossart is believed to be the first American to have been arrested with the aid of a drone operated by law enforcement.

Brossart was tracked and arrested by local law enforcement with the use of a federally owned aerial surveillance vehicle after holding the police at bay for over 16 hours.

Brossart’s run-in with law enforcement began after six cows found their way onto his property (about 3,000 acres near Lakota, North Dakota) and he refused to turn them over to officers. In fact, according to several sources, Brossart and a few family members ran police off his farm at the point of a gun.

Read more: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/17534-first-man-arrested-by-aid-of-drone-convicted-in-north-dakota

[Demeter]

1. Terrorizing police officers

Is there a justice plan for those terrorized by police?

[bkanderson76]

2. Damn Drones Need To Be Shot

[Aerows]

3. Hey, the drones were there for a reason

A crime might be committed somewhere, and it's up to law enforcement to apprehend every criminal, even if it is just people they don't like.

[DontTreadOnMe]

4. My first reaction was... who cares that they used a drone to apprehend the CRIMINAL.

But it appears they didn't have a "valid warrant" to use the drone to search his property. THAT IS NOT RIGHT!

So the case should be thrown out.. even though the suspect is a serious danger to the community.

But IF the local police had just waited and got the proper warrant to use the drone, I see NO PROBLEM using this method to apprehend a criminal. The drone was used to scan his property for infrared heat signature, so they could pinpoint where he was in the house. The guy had already threatened local Police with guns, and there was a good chance he had a stockpile of high powered weapons.

I don't have any remorse for individuals who think they can "fight" back with violent weapons against the Police. You WILL NOT EVER WIN THIS FIGHT. The Police have more people and bullets than you or any small militia you can recruit. Win your case in court, with lawyers. The second you try to fight back, you are a terrorist in my book.. and I don't care if they bring in tanks to bulldozer your house.

FORCE the Police to act properly. If they think you committed a crime, MAKE THEM get the proper warrants. If they don't, then get the case thrown out. If your tactic is to fight back with bullets, expect to be killed.

[reACTIONary]

6. What is a "valid warrent" to to use the drone?

How does it differ from a plain old "valid warrant"? Which they had.

The drone was DEFINITLY not used to locate him in his house:

For four hours, the Predator circled 10,000 feet above the farm... ... officers watched live drone video and thermal images of Alex, Thomas and Jacob Brossart and their mother, Susan... ...The glowing green images showed people carrying what appeared to be long rifles moving behind farm equipment and other barriers.

... the Predator launched again and flew back to the farm... the video showed the three Brossart brothers riding all-terrain vehicles toward a decommissioned Minuteman ballistic missile site at the edge of their property... ...the image indicated the three men were unarmed.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/10/nation/la-na-drone-arrest-20111211/2

[DontTreadOnMe]

8. Definition of a valid warrant:

The search warrant must include the following:

-The name of every person whose affidavit has been taken.

-The statutory grounds for issuance.

-A description with reasonable particularity of the persons, places and vehicles to be searched.

-A description with reasonable particularity of the persons, things or property to be seized.

The issue with this case is the "valid warrant" they had did not include his "entire 3000+ acres of land".. yeah, a technicality, but enough that they are making the case that the drone was an illegal search.

I have no problems with law enforcement using drones, with a legal warrant.

And for the record, warrant are EASY to get... so when I hear a story about problems with warrants, it means the police or whatever agency were LAZY with getting the proper paper work. I a situation where time is critical, then getting a "fast" warrant might put people in danger, and then this is the slippery slope. Current law can allow police to "bypass" using a warrant if they can justify that there is a large degree of public endangerment... like someone in a public place with a bomb.

But if time is NOT an issue.. and usually when someone is at their HOME PROPERTY, there is TIME... and not having proper warrants is NO EXCUSE.

When someone is suspected of a crime.. and you "know where they live"... there is never a rush to go in. The police in this type of case have the time to get the proper warrants, and can surround the proper to prevent escaping if needed.

[reACTIONary]

11. First, let me say...

...that I do not have any disagreement with you in principle with requiring warrants and expecting proper legal procedure to be followed. But, given the publicly available facts and my own (non-expert) understanding of the law, it seems evident to me that in this case legal procedure was followed. The fact that a drone was used seems irrelevant to me.

When the police initially approached the ranch without a warrant, which is perfectly legal, they were threatened with guns, which is definitely illegal. So they left, which was the right thing to do. They came back with a search warrant (as you say, easy to get) and a SWAT team (reasonable precaution, given the circumstances). If they found no one home, which seems to be the case, a wider search would be quite reasonable, especially given the previous resistance.

Since we don't know what was or was not in the search warrant, (at least it isn't mentioned in any of the articles I read) it may very well have specified "the suspect's ranch", implying all 3000+ acres, in it. Why wouldn't it? And if not, and if this made the warrant defective, why mention the drone at all? What difference would it have made if they conducted the search on foot, used an all terrain vehicle, or flew over in a helicopter. If the warrant was defective simply because it didn't mention the full ranch, it would be defective regardless of what sort of search was conducted. But...

But from the new articles the warrant is being challenged because of the drone, not because the warrant didn't specify the full ranch. If the warrant was defective simply because it didn't cover the full ranch, why bring up the drone at all?

My understanding is that the law treats an open expanse of land differently from one's home. A warrant is (usually, not always) needed for entrance into a home, but less so, and very often not at all, for the land surrounding it. And if a suspect is fleeing arrest, which seems to be the case here, the police don't have to get a search warrant to go chasing after him, regardless of who owns the property he is traversing.

I don't see this as anything more that another case of what I think of as "drone hysteria" and a misguided lawyer trying to use lame technicalities to help his clients evade justice. Just my humble opinion.

[bleedinglib]

5. 1984 ??

I'm sure there can be some good uses for the drone & in criminal situations they would probably save lives.
The thing that does bother me is, how long until they are used for surveillance purposes under the guise of protecting us?
Find a lost child in the woods, kill terrorist, hell, there are lots of uses!!
But, opening the door too (big brother watching over us) is scary!!

[blkmusclmachine]

7. Too bad Obama's drones don't go to Wall Street, but then I suspect the DOJ isn't much interested in

that.

[DontTreadOnMe]

9. ... exactly. It seems the NSA and the drones only go after the "little people".

I want to see the NSA going after corporate crimes and banking crimes.

[lovuian]

10. You have to be Kidding me

a multi million dollar drone is being used for "cattle rustling"

that seems like Such a WASTE of MONEY