Yes. Aerial surveillance of protests is actually very common. According to
that May.
protests following Freddie Gray's death in police custody in 2015. Democrat
Barack Obama was president during both of those events. Law enforcement
Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017 that turned deadly. Republican Donald
Trump was president at that time.
Obama administration. The AP traced the planes to at least 13 fake
companies designed to obscure the identity of the aircraft and the pilots.
least 92 surveillance aircraft as of 2011 under Obama. The U.S. Marshals
Service also has operated its own aerial surveillance program.
Trump was president.
“The result here was particularly aggressive,” she said. “It does seem the
Pilots can shoot video of the scenes below them using standard cameras,
infrared sensors that pick up body heat and light sensors with enough
resolution to show building features, basic vehicle features and movements
such as people walking or riding bicycles. The planes also can carry
technology that mimics cellphone towers, enabling agencies to track
people's cellphones even if they're not making a call or in public. Much of
the technology was developed for use by the U.S. military in Iraq as part
of a project dubbed Gorgon Stare after the mythical Greek monster that
could turn men to stone with a glance.
Even if the video images are blurry, agencies can still use them in
combination with other data to discover people's identities.
IS THIS LEGAL?
Generally, yes. Aerial surveillance of people in public places is legal and
is no different than a video camera mounted on a light pole, said William
McGeveren, a University of Minnesota law professor who specializes in data
privacy and free speech. Government agencies do not need a warrant to
conduct such surveillance, he said.
However, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2018 that extended surveillance of
an individual over a large area is illegal. And the 4th U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals ruled in June that the Baltimore Police Department's six-month
trial aerial surveillance program was unconstitutional because the planes'
wide-angle cameras put virtually all city residents under surveillance for
12 hours a day. The ruling came after Black activists sued the city.
Government agencies can impose limitations on their own programs as well.
The Air Force report found that the National Guard never got the required
authorization from the secretary of defense or the secretary of the Army to
launch aerial surveillance of the Floyd protests. A spokesman for the FBI's
Milwaukee field office, which is responsible for Kenosha, didn't
immediately respond to a message seeking comment. The FBI’s national press
office also didn't reply to an email.
IF AERIAL SURVEILLANCE IS LEGAL, WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?
Such surveillance can help police respond in real time to demonstrations
that turn violent and identify and arrest bad actors after the fact,
protecting public safety.
But civil rights advocates fear that such surveillance leads to government
agencies tracking people's every move, making people afraid to leave their
homes or be seen associating with others at political functions and
amounting to violations of constitutional freedom of speech and association
guarantees. The mere presence of government aircraft can intimidate those
on the ground; two military helicopters buzzed protesters at a Floyd
protest in Washington last summer, blasting protesters with high-speed wind
from their rotors.
And the programs' very existence can erode trust in the government,
especially among Black leaders. One of the Black plaintiffs in the
Baltimore case, for example, argued that she routinely visits murder scenes
and was afraid that the surveillance program would result in police
gathering specific information about her.
WHAT SORT OF IMPACT COULD THE AERIAL VIDEO HAVE ON RITTENHOUSE?
It's too early to tell. Prosecutors contend that the video will show
Rittenhouse chased Rosenbaum before the situation reversed itself and
Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse — possibly chipping away at Rittenhouse's
self-defense claims. Portions of the infrared video prosecutors played in
court on Tuesday — shot from nearly 9,000 feet — showed dozens of small,
fuzzy and indistinct images of people standing or moving along the streets
and sidewalks.
But on Wednesday, with superimposed images identifying the two men, a
Kenosha police detective testified under questioning from defense attorney
Mark Richards that it appeared at one point that Rosenbaum had been
“hiding” as Rittenhouse arrived at that location. Richards called the
confrontation “the classic ambush” — words that were struck after the
prosecution objected, but were heard by the jury.