Without a Warrant: Police Drones—Recording Telephone & Private Conversations In Your Home & Business To Forfeit Property?

It is problematic local police will want to use drones to record without warrants telephone and private conversations inside Americans’ homes and businesses: Despite some U.S. cities and counties banning or restricting local police using drones without warrants to invade citizens’ privacy—local police have a strong financial incentive (Civil Asset Forfeiture of Property) to use their drones or Federal Drones. Should (no-warrant) drone surveillance evidence be allowed in courts—circumventing the Fourth Amendment, for example drones covertly recording private conversations and electronic communications in Citizens’ homes and businesses, expect federal and local police Civil Asset {Property Forfeitures to escalate. Civil asset forfeiture requires only a mere preponderance of civil evidence for federal government to forfeit property, little more than hearsay: Any conversation, phone call or other electronic communication captured by a drone inside a home or business, police could take out of context to initiate arrests and civil asset forfeitures to confiscate a home, business and related assets. 

Local police now circumvent state laws that require someone first be convicted of a crime before police can civilly forfeit their property—by (referring their investigation to a Federal Government Agency) that may legally rebate to local police up to 80% of assets the Feds forfeit. Federal Government is not required to charge anyone with a crime to civilly forfeit property. There are more than 400 laws and violations that can subject property to state and federal government asset forfeiture in addition to illegal drug forfeiture laws. Increasingly local police are paid part or all their salary from proceeds realized from civil and criminal asset forfeiture. Police need to confiscate Citizens' property to keep their job. This is a clear conflict of interest. Congress should require that Federal Government prove by (Clear and Convincing Evidence) that a property is subject to Civil Asset Forfeiture, not a mere preponderance of civil evidence, little more than hearsay. 

The passed Federal “Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000” effectively eliminated the “five year statue of limitations” for Government to Civilly Forfeit Assets: the statute now runs five years (from the date) police claim they “learned” an asset became subject to government forfeiture. If courts allow (no warrant-government drone searches) e.g. electronic surveillance admitted as evidence, police will relentlessly sift through Citizen and businesses’ recorded private conversations (drone captured emails, Internet data, and phone communications seized on private property in hopes of discovering a crime or civil violation to cause arrests and civil forfeiture of private property. Without stringent public oversight, a corrupt U.S. Government agency or local police may use (no-warrant) drone seizures of Citizens’ private conversations, emails, Internet data and phone call communications to extort and blackmail Americans; sell drone seized electronic communications that belong to Americans and private businesses to e.g. business competitors including foreign governments.

Almost every week the media reports police arrested and convicted for selling drugs, robbing drug dealers, falsifying reports to cause arrests; committing perjury in court. It is foreseeable this kind of corruption will find its way into government / police drone search and seizures of Citizens’ private property, private conversations and electronic communications.

Under U.S. federal civil asset forfeiture laws, a person or business need not be charged with crime for government to forfeit their property. Most U.S. Citizens, property and business owners that defend their assets against Government Civil Asset Forfeiture claim an “innocent owner defense.” This defense can become a criminal prosecution trap for both guilty and innocent property owners. Any fresh denial of guilt made to government when questioned about committing a crime “even when you did not do the crime” may (involuntarily waive) a defendant’s right to assert in their defense—that the “Criminal Statute of Limitations” past for prosecution; any fresh denial of guilt even 30 years after a crime was committed may allow Government prosecutors to use old and new evidence, including information discovered during a Civil Asset Forfeiture Proceeding to launch a criminal prosecution. For that reason many innocent Americans, property and business owners are reluctant to defend their property and business against Government Civil Asset Forfeiture.

Re: waiving Criminal Statute of Limitations: see USC18, Sec.1001, James Brogan V. United States. N0.96-1579. U.S. See paragraph (6) at:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-1579.ZC1.html

If they can build drones to "think" without people controls, then they can build robots to do the same. If they can build robots to do it, then they don't need people for anything... because they can program the robots to do it all, including building other robots.

The results of this all fall into 3 categories... at least with regard to humans:
1. People will be wiped out totally;
2. People will be herded into "zoos" and placed on LSD like in "Wild in the Streets;"
3. People will go on welfare and live a life of ease with the robots supplying all their needs.

The question is, will the economy collapse before the robots become entirely self-sustaining, with no need for humans to even supply the raw materials to make new robots? A system of "living" robots won't need natural life or ecology to survive.