Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Latest Breaking News

csziggy

(34,189 posts)

14. I think he was a hot shot pilot

Reply to Blus4u (Reply #12)

Mon Oct 19, 2015, 10:24 PM

Oct 2015

And pretty full of himself. I was sorry the son was killed but not surprised.

I was damned pissed off that he was endangering my horses that way. Much of his father's property overlooks the lower pasture where he was hovering. We would have been stupid to have grown marijuana there where anyone could look over the fences and see it. Frankly we never considered growing pot on our farm - too much chance of getting caught and losing the property.

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

16 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Court finds aerial surveillance unconstitutional in pot case [View all] Judi Lynn Oct 2015 OP

Cops have been doing this for years. Blus4u Oct 2015 #1

Our neighbor's son was a helicopter pilot for the DEA and FDLE csziggy Oct 2015 #11

Whoa! Blus4u Oct 2015 #12

I think he was a hot shot pilot csziggy Oct 2015 #14

good for the court gopiscrap Oct 2015 #2

That's interesting because there was already a US Supreme Court case on similar aerial surveillance. PoliticAverse Oct 2015 #3

In this age of drones, this ruling might need to be revisited. n/t eggplant Oct 2015 #4

This helicopter was just 50 feet above the guy's house. mhatrw Oct 2015 #6

So at what altitude does a flyover become subject to the 4th amendment? n/t PoliticAverse Oct 2015 #7

The SCOTUS ruling you linked says ... mhatrw Oct 2015 #8

Good point, I see in the Nevada case the claim was in fact that... PoliticAverse Oct 2015 #9

That sounds like a pretty intrusive search without a warrant. mhatrw Oct 2015 #15

Could the same be said of "sneak and peek"? Spitfire of ATJ Oct 2015 #5

In "Sneak and Peak" warrants, to get the warrant the Police MUST have Probable Cause. happyslug Oct 2015 #13

Here is the actual opinion happyslug Oct 2015 #10

Interesting post, thanks! (n/t) thesquanderer Oct 2015 #16