

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
The Department of Justice said on Tuesday that it will not bring federal charges against the six police officers involved in the death of Freddie Gray.
AP reports:
The officers were charged by [Maryland] state prosecutors after Gray's neck was broken in the back of a police transport wagon in April of 2015. The 25-year-old was handcuffed and shackled at the time, but he was unrestrained by a seat belt.
Three officers were acquitted at trial. Baltimore State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby dropped the remaining state cases.
The Gray family's attorney, Billy Murphy, says the Justice Department informed him on Tuesday that no charges would be filed.
Five officers face internal disciplinary trials, scheduled to begin Oct. 30.
The investigation into Gray's death has been ongoing since 2015.
A report released by the Justice Department last year in the aftermath of Gray's death found that the Baltimore Police Department (BPD) "routinely conducted unlawful stops and used excessive force, disproportionately targeting black residents."
In a statement on Tuesday reacting to the news, Sherrilyn Ifill, president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, said: "We know that spines do not break without cause, and the DOJ and BPD's credibility to make change a reality in Baltimore hinges not just on their ability to institute much needed reforms to police training, policies, and practices, but also on their success in bringing to justice officers who abuse their power and take the lives of innocent residents."
"The onus is now on the BPD to hold these officers accountable at their disciplinary trials this fall and winter," Ifill concluded. "Baltimore will be watching."
Since January, the Baltimore Police Department (BPD) has been using small aircrafts to spy on residents for as much as 10 hours a day, without informing the public, in a project financed by a private donor and facilitated by a private company, Bloomberg reported on Tuesday.
The BPD, Bloomberg's Monte Reel wrote, has been using aerial surveillance to investigate "all sorts of crimes, from property thefts to shootings." The cameras capture an area of roughly 30 square miles and transmit images to analysts on the ground, while footage gets automatically saved to hard drives for later review.
The technology comes from a company called Persistent Surveillance Systems. Its president, Ross McNutt, developed a similar tool for the Pentagon while working for the U.S. Air Force in 2006. Over time, he modified the technology for commercial use. McNutt eventually pitched the service to the BPD after his company had faltered in finding a department for a long-term contract. He opened his office in Baltimore in January, above a parking garage, denoted only by a piece of paper taped to his door that reads, "Community Support Program."
The Cessna used for the surveillance project circled overhead crowds of protesters chanting for justice after the death of 25-year-old black Baltimore resident Freddie Gray, whose spine was severed in police custody, on the day the verdict came in not guilty for Caesar Goodson--the only officer involved in Gray's death facing a murder charge.
Reel described the day of June 23, when it became clear that a protest over Goodson's verdict would not break out: McNutt became "frustrated," Reel wrote. "He wanted to please the cops."

The BPD became the first police department to contract with McNutt, but it was not the first to test drive the technology. The Los Angeles County Sheriff's office approved a nine-day trial run in 2012 in Compton, California, a majority-black city near Los Angeles, but would not sign a contract over concerns about image quality. The secret program led to outcry from residents, as well as the mayor, when they finally found out about their constant surveillance--a year later.
"There is nothing worse than believing you are being observed by a third party unnecessarily," Compton Mayor Aja Brown told the Los Angeles Times in 2014.
After Compton came Dayton, Ohio, as McNutt improved the technology. Finally, Bloomberg reports, there was Baltimore:
[In 2015] McNutt got an e-mail on behalf of Texas-based philanthropists Laura and John Arnold. John is a former Enron trader whose hedge fund, Centaurus Advisors, made billions before he retired in 2012. Since then, the Arnolds have funded a variety of hot-button causes, including advocating for public pension rollbacks and charter schools. The Arnolds told McNutt that if he could find a city that would allow the company to fly for several months, they would donate the money to keep the plane in the air. McNutt had met the lieutenant in charge of Baltimore's ground-based camera system on the trade-show circuit, and they'd become friendly. "We settled in on Baltimore because it was ready, it was willing, and it was just post-Freddie Gray," McNutt says. The Arnolds donated the money to the Baltimore Community Foundation, a nonprofit that administers donations to a wide range of local civic causes.
Reel's revelations come as the city is already grappling with a damning report from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) which found "systemic deficiencies" at the BPD that included explicitly discriminatory directives, such as orders to "arrest all the black hoodies" in a certain neighborhood, and a pattern of targeting black and minority residents for unwarranted stops and searches.
And just a week ago, a coalition of civil rights groups filed a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that said the BPD's unlicensed use of a different surveillance technology known as the Stingray, which tricks mobile devices into connecting with it by mimicking a cell phone tower, is racially discriminatory and willfully impedes emergency calls.
Despite all this, according to Reel, the rest of the city, from officials to residents, was not even aware that they were being spied on from the air.
Reel concludes: "McNutt says he's sure his system can withstand a public unveiling and that the more people know about what his cameras can--and can't--do, the fewer worries they'll have. But the police ultimately decide who and what should be tracked. In a city that's struggled to convince residents that its police can be trusted, the arguments are now Baltimore's to make."
In response to an ACLU Freedom of Information Act request, the FBI has released more than 18 hours of video from surveillance cameras installed on FBI aircraft that flew over Baltimore in the days after the death of Freddie Gray in police custody in 2015. The videos, which were released to the ACLU before being posted online by the FBI this week, offer a rare and comprehensive view of the workings of a government surveillance operation. While the release of the footage addresses some questions, it leaves others unanswered.
Last year, the ACLU obtained records from the FBI showing that the agency had flown at least 10 surveillance flights over Baltimore from April 29 through May 3, 2015, when the streets of the city were filled with people protesting and mourning Freddie Gray's death just days before.
Records from the Federal Aviation Administration showed that the FBI's aircraft, which were registered to front companies to conceal their ownership, carried sophisticated camera systems on board, complete with night-vision capabilities. FBI evidence logs showed that the agency had retained copies of surveillance videos and perhaps other electronic surveillance information from the flights, but the agency initially declined to release the actual videos. To its credit, the FBI reconsidered, and the footage is now a part of the public record.
We have been able to review most of the footage. Here are some of the most significant questions and observations we have after viewing it.
1. What was the FBI watching and why?
The FBI's cameras captured hours of protests, from major marches and rallies on city thoroughfares and public squares, to smaller gatherings on sidewalks and in neighborhood intersections. At times, the cameras followed individual people walking or cars driving through the city. There are undoubtedly situations where aerial surveillance by law enforcement is appropriate, but there should be protections against mass surveillance of people engaged in First Amendment-protected protests and gatherings. At a time when the Movement for Black Lives is urgently mobilizing across the country, community members and activists shouldn't have to worry that the government eyes in the sky will be capturing images of everything they do during a protest.
2. Oh, government, what big eyes you have!
The FBI's planes weren't flying low; when zoomed out, their cameras captured large swaths of the city at once. But the cameras' magnification capability is strong, and they frequently focused on a single intersection, followed a single car, or tracked the movements of small groups of people on the streets. Because the planes were so high in the sky, they probably escaped the notice of most people on the ground. But the cameras on board could quickly pan from one spot to another, even toggling between street corners in different neighborhoods. The cameras could also switch instantly to infrared mode, allowing high-resolution nighttime recording. The infrared video does not appear to have captured information about people inside of buildings, but it did clearly capture people and cars moving around in public spaces.
3. What happens to the footage
The FBI has retained (and now released) what it says is the "Complete collection of aerial surveillance footage of Baltimore protests from April 29, 2015 to May 3, 2015." What are the retention rules for these videos? And are there limits on FBI agents revisiting them in the future, as part of specific investigations or just at their whim? The videos show people engaged in First Amendment-protected activities, people entering and exiting homes and other buildings, images of private back yards and roof decks, and other similar scenes and spaces. The videos sometimes track individual drivers as they traverse city streets.
This footage can reveal a great deal of potentially sensitive information. Moreover, these videos are just the tip of the iceberg. A recent BuzzFeed News investigation tracked more than four months of FBI and Department of Homeland Security surveillance flights, identifying nearly 2,000 flights by FBI aircraft alone. The camera footage from those flights adds up fast, and could create a detailed catalogue of people's activities in cities across the country. This quantity of surveillance requires strong controls.
4. Whose drones are those?The FBI videos come from traditional aircraft, with pilots and other law enforcement personnel on board. But, incredibly, on numerous occasions, the videos capture small drones flying over the streets of Baltimore. At one point, the frame zooms out to reveal what appear to be three drones simultaneously flying over one Baltimore neighborhood. Most of the drones are captured on infrared camera feeds, obscuring some of their details, but they appear to be a mix of quad-rotor and helicopter-style devices. Because drones generally fly relatively close to the ground, the potential for privacy violations can be even greater than with video captured from traditional aircraft.
Who was flying these drones? Baltimore Police? Curious city residents? Journalists? What were they looking for? And were the flights legal? FAA rules require drones to remain within the line of sight of the operator, and to fly at relatively low altitude.
5. What comes next?
The FBI's videos show a lot, but the magnification isn't enough to identify individual faces. Existing and developing technologies raise concerns about even greater invasions of privacy. An aircraft-mounted surveillance camera with higher magnification or greater resolution, coupled with facial recognition technology, would give the government the power to easily identify and follow any protester or pedestrian. More sensitive infrared and thermal sensing technology can see through the walls of houses, apartment buildings, and other private spaces. Electronic surveillance devices like Stingrays can vacuum up data about many people's cell phones at once (and have already been used aboard surveillance planes). Automated license plate readers, through-the-wall radar arrays, and other gear give additional cause for concern.
Strong controls should be placed on these surveillance flights now, to ensure that developments in technology don't outpace the protections that are in place. We must be wary of encroaching surveillance that can chill protesters from exercising their First Amendment rights and violate the privacy of innocent people on the ground.
| #FreddieGray Tweets |
Baltimore prosecutors have dropped all remaining charges against the police officers involved in the death of Freddie Gray, bringing an end to the case that has spurred mass protests throughout the country for seven months.
The sudden decision on Wednesday means there is unlikely to be any accountability in Gray's death, as it follows several acquittals for three other officers charged in the case.
Baltimore State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby said Wednesday that the decision to drop the charges against Officer Garrett Miller--who physically arrested Gray--Officer William Porter, and Sgt. Alicia White was "agonizing," but that there was a "dismal likelihood" of securing a conviction.
"After much thought and prayer it has become clear that without being able to work with an independent investigatory agency from the very start, without having a say in the election of whether cases proceed in front of a judge or jury, without communal oversight of police in this community, without substantive reforms to the current criminal justice system, we could try this case 100 times and cases just like it and we would still end up with the same result," she said.
The Baltimore Sun reports:
Officer William Porter's trial ended with a hung jury and a mistrial in December, before [Circuit Judge Barry G. ] Williams acquitted Officers Edward Nero and Caesar Goodson and Lt. Brian Rice at bench trials in May, June, and July, respectively.
[....] The decision Wednesday to drop all charges came during what was expected to be a contentious hearing surrounding the prosecution's ability to proceed with Miller's trial without using anything he said on the witness stand in Nero's trial against him.
Gray, 25, died after his spine was severed during an arrest in April 2015. Footage of officers dragging him into the back of a police van went viral, sparking widespread outrage.
The news devastated those who hoped Mosby, who has made passionate demands for justice in the case, would be able to convict.
"The system we allow has failed him," tweeted director and activist Ava DuVernay. "Our shame."
Journalist Shaun King also wrote: "To be honest, I'm beyond words with the #FreddieGray case right now. The brother arrived at the hospital in a coma with a severed spine." In a separate tweet, he called the decision "infuriating."
Tessa Hill-Aston, the president of Baltimore's NAACP chapter, told the New York Times on Wednesday, "I personally wanted them to go through with it, even if it was a no-win situation." She said justice had not been served "as far as people on the streets, and people seeing that the police officers got away with murder."
"Because at the end of the day right now," she said, "Freddie is dead and someone caused his death."
Baltimore Police Lt. Brian Rice, the highest ranking officer charged in the death of Freddie Gray, was on Monday acquitted on all counts.
It marks the fourth time prosecutors have failed to secure a conviction in the case, the Baltimore Sun notes, and in turn "is likely to renew calls for Baltimore State's Attorney Marilyn J. Mosby to drop the remaining charges[...] including from the union that represents the city's rank-and-file officers."
Rice was found not guilty of involuntary manslaughter, reckless endangerment, and misconduct in office by Circuit Judge Barry Williams in a bench trial. Williams previously handed down acquittals for officers Caesar Goodson and Edward Nero. The trial for Officer William G. Porter ended with a hung jury in December. A retrial is set for September 6.
The Sun reports of Williams' verdict on Monday:
The prosecution did not show Rice acted in a "grossly negligent manner," required of manslaughter, he said. It did not show that Rice acted in an unreasonable way or ignored the substantial risk in placing Gray in a police van without a seat belt, required for reckless endangerment, he said. And, it did not show Rice acted "corruptly," which is required for misconduct in office, he said.
Williams said a "mistake" or an "error in judgment" by Rice was not enough to prove the crimes alleged. He also briefly noted the difference between criminal negligence and civil negligence, an apparent nod to the fact that the city previously negotiated with Gray's family attorney, William H. "Billy" Murphy, on the civil side and agreed to pay the family $6.4 million.
According to Baltimore Sun crime reporter Justin Fenton, "the scene outside of the courthouse is very calm."
But some voiced their frustration on social media:
There are two officers still facing charges. Officer Garrett Miller is scheduled to go to trial later this month and Sgt. Alicia White heads to court in October.
A third trial for a Baltimore police officer for their role in the death of Freddie Gray still hasn't returned a conviction, with Officer Caesar Goodson being acquitted of all charges on Thursday.
Prosecutors had charged that Goodson, who drove the van in which Gray suffered his fatal spinal cord injury, purposefully gave Gray a "rough ride," ultimately leading to his death.
He faced the most serious charges of the six officers indicted in Gray's death--second-degree depraved-heart murder--as well as charges of three counts of manslaughter, assault, reckless endangerment, and misconduct in office.
As Common Dreams previously reported,
Gray, who was black, was arrested after a foot chase in West Baltimore on April 12. He was bundled into a transport van while in handcuffs and shackles, and was not secured with a seatbelt. Gray reportedly asked for medical attention twice during a ride between the site where he was taken into custody and a police booking center.
He died a week later from a spinal injury. His death, ruled a homicide by the medical examiner, quickly became one more symbol of police violence against black people in the United States and sparked angry protests in Baltimore.
Not putting a seatbelt on Gray "is not what a reasonable officer would do," prosecutor Janice Bledsoe said in closing arguments. She added that "repeatedly failing to get medical care" goes to the "depraved heart" murder charge.
ABC News reports:
During the trial the defense argued that the neck and spinal cord injury occurred simultaneously in a "catastrophic" moment before arriving at the police station. The prosecution argued that the neck injury resulted from the alleged "rough ride" and progressively worsened through the remaining stops, and that the officers neglected to get Gray medical care, which led to his death.
But Judge Barry G. Williams rejected the prosecution's claims, the New York Times reports. "The court finds there is insufficient evidence that the defendant gave or intended to give Mr. Gray a rough ride," Williams said.
Williams added that the court failed to see "evidence presented at this trial that the defendant intended for any crime to happen."
Local news WJZ reports that protesters outside the courthouse chanted "Murderer" after the verdict was read.
Baltimore Police Officer Edward Nero was found not guilty of all charges in May for his role in Gray's death, and Officer William G. Porter's trail in December 2015 ended with a hung jury. The next trial for one of the officers implicated in the killings begins in July.
This story may be updated.
Baltimore Police Officer Edward Nero was found not guilty of all charges by a judge Monday morning for his role in the arrest and subsequent death of 25-year-old black man Freddie Gray.
Nero, who is white, had faced charges of second-degree assault, reckless endangerment, and two counts of misconduct in office, all related to his role in Gray's initial detention and arrest on April 12, 2015. Gray died one week after being taken into custody, having suffered a broken neck and severe spinal cord injury in the back of a police transport van.
According to the Baltimore Sun:
Prosecutors alleged that Gray's arrest was an assault because it did not meet the standards of a legal detention. Legal analysts had called the theory unusual. Nero was also accused of endangering Gray by failing to secure him in the back of a police van with a seat belt.
Nero's attorneys, meanwhile, had sought to minimize his role in the arrest, saying that he had limited contact with Gray. They also argued that Nero followed his training.
Nero was the second of six city police officers charged in the case to stand trial; he chose a bench trial instead of a jury. The William G. Porter trial ended in a hung jury in December.
The Baltimore Sun is providing live updates here.
The outcry was swift on social media.
"In spite of today's verdict," the NAACP said in a statement, "we await justice for Freddie Gray."
Follow the response on Twitter:#NeroTrial Tweets
The Black Lives Matter movement that swept the country in 2015 has--among other accomplishments--forced global media outlets to afford victims of police killings the most basic acknowledgment: a public record of their names and deaths.
The Guardian and the Washington Post maintained such a grim tally this year following the consistent failure of the U.S. government to keep adequate records.
According to the Guardian, 1,126 people were killed by police so far in 2015, averaging more than three a day, with 27 percent of those slain facing mental health issues.
The numbers confirm the racial injustices highlighted by nationwide protests. Among black people in America, 6.9 per million were killed by police, compared to 2.86 white people per million. In other words, African Americans were nearly 2.5 times as likely to be killed by police as their white counterparts.
Native-Americans and Latinos were also disproportionately likely to have their lives taken by law enforcement, with 3.4 per million and 3.35 per million killed respectively.
The high number of killings was corroborated by the Washington Post, which only tracks fatal police shootings--not killings by taser, beating, and other forms of force, such as the high-profile death of African-American man Freddie Gray in Baltimore. The paper concluded, nonetheless, that nearly 1,000 civilians were shot and killed by police this year.
What's more, the Post's analysis found that the FBI, which is tasked with tracking such shootings, is dramatically undercounting killings because "fewer than half of the nation's police departments report their incidents to the agency."
"The Post documented well more than twice as many fatal shootings this year as the average annual tally reported by the FBI over the past decade," journalists Kimberly Kindy, Marc Fisher, Julie Tate, and Jennifer Jenkins reported this week.
However, Jim Naureckas, editor of Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting's watchdog journal Extra!, argued Tuesday that the Post also "held back" key information by downplaying the connection between the high number of police killings and the grievances issued by racial justice movements.
For example, Post journalists wrote that "the kind of incidents that have ignited protests in many U.S. communities--most often, white police officers killing unarmed black men--represent less than 4 percent of fatal police shootings."
But in fact, the Black Lives Matter movement has condemned killings by officers of all races, killings of people who were armed, and killings of black women--such as Mya Hall and Rekia Boyd--by police as well as vigilante violence.
Even still, the Post's numbers are damning.
"Although black men make up only 6 percent of the U.S. population, they account for 40 percent of the unarmed men shot to death by police this year," the paper's database found. "In the majority of cases in which police shot and killed a person who had attacked someone with a weapon or brandished a gun, the person who was shot was white. But a hugely disproportionate number--3 in 5--of those killed after exhibiting less threatening behavior were black or Hispanic."
There are many things that the databases don't track, including beatings, abuse, and sexual assaults. For example, police officer Daniel Holtzclaw's serial raping of African-American women would not make it on this list of atrocities.
But perhaps, more than anything, both databases show that heightened visibility, in itself, will not end police killings or bring justice to its victims.
The end of 2015 is being marked by ongoing protests demanding "Justice for Tamir Rice," a 12-year-old African-American shot to death by a white police officer while playing with a toy gun. An Ohio Grand Jury decided Monday not to indict officers Timothy Loehmann or Frank Garmback despite video evidence that neither provided first aid to the dying child.
In a statement released Monday night, Tamir's mother, Samaria Rice, declared: "I don't want my child to have died for nothing, and I refuse to let his legacy or his name be ignored. We will continue to fight for justice for him and for all families who must live with the pain that we live with."
A judge in Baltimore on Wednesday declared a mistrial after jurors said they could not agree on the guilt or innocence of Baltimore Police Officer William G. Porter, charged on four separate counts related to the death of 25-year-old Freddie Gray.
The jury deliberated the case for three days before coming to the conclusion they were hopelessly deadlocked and would not be able to reach an unanimous verdict. The mistrial declaration means that Porter's trial is now over, but the prosecutors have the right to try the case again.
As the Baltimore Sun reports:
The panel had informed the judge on Tuesday that it was deadlocked, and Judge Barry G. Williams ordered them to continue deliberations.
Porter, 26, was charged with involuntary manslaughter, second-degree assault, reckless endangerment and misconduct in office. He is the first of six police officers to stand trial in the death of Freddie Gray.
Gray, 25, suffered a broken neck and severe spinal cord injury in the back of a police transport van after his arrest on April 12.
In the wake of the announcement, law enforcement officers were lining up around the downtown courthouse where the trial was held as local residents began to gather.
Baltimore State's Attorney Marilyn J. Mosby was widely praised for charging Porter and five other officers over Mr. Gray's death. With Porter the first among the officers to stand trial, many people both inside Baltimore, and beyond, have watched the proceedings closely.
In prosecuting the case against Porter, the state's attorneys alleged the officer disregarded his sworn duty by not strapping Gray into the van, which is proper department procedure, and also failed to provide or summon medical help. At one point, according to witness testimony, Gray had asked for help and claimed he couldn't breathe. Later, however, when the van reached a local police station, Gray was found unresponsive. He died in a local hospital one week later and his death was ruled a homicide by the coroner.
During her closing argument, state prosecutor Janice Bledsoe alleged that Officer Porter had "abused his power" and "failed in his responsibility" to protect Gray from harm. She said that jurors should "hold him responsible" for what happened to Gray inside the van, which she at one point referred to as "his casket on wheels."
Due to the gag order that pertains to all cases related Freddie Gray's death, the Office of the State's Attorney for Baltimore City said it was unable to make any comments regarding the mistrial.
Meanwhile, a rapid-response editorial by the Baltimore Sun declared that whether or not "justice for Freddie Gray" ultimately results from the trial of Officer Porter, or the other officers who face charges in the case, the city's police department deserves the deep scrutiny it is now receiving:
Time will tell whether justice for Freddie Gray will involve criminal convictions of any of the officers involved in his arrest, but the process has already served as a stinging indictment of the police department. As the jurors in Baltimore were giving up, reports emerged from Ferguson, Mo., that officials were near an agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice on reforms related to the federal civil rights investigation into that city's policing practices that stemmed from the killing of Michael Brown last year. It is expected to involve extensive re-training of officers and federal monitoring to ensure compliance. Baltimore is in the midst of its own federal civil rights investigation, and if the testimony we've heard in recent days is any indication, this city's police force is in need of a major overhaul, too. Officer Porter may have gotten a mistrial, but the verdict on the department for which he serves could not be more clear.
Not only did the FBI fly surveillance aircraft over the city of Baltimore during the protests following the police killing of Freddie Gray, the ACLU revealed Friday that it used advanced technology like infrared and night-vision cameras to do so.
What's more, new internal documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request show that the agency is holding on to surveillance video it recorded from the sky.
According to flight logs, evidence logs, and internal memos, the FBI helped local law enforcement watch protests between April 29 and May 3 by making 10 flights over the area, comprising a total of 36.2 hours.
In a blog post on Friday, ACLU staff attorney Nathan Freed Wessler acknowledged that "in its Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide, the FBI takes the position that no Fourth Amendment protections apply to 'aerial surveillance conducted from navigable airspace'."
However, Wessler argued, "While that is an accurate statement of Supreme Court precedent when it comes to visual observation and use of normal cameras from a plane, it fails to grapple with the effect of advances in surveillance technology."
"Use of infrared and night-vision camera technology changes the equation by raising the potential for invasions of privacy," he continued. "The capabilities of the surveillance gear matter. If the infrared camera is capable of observing information about the inside of private homes and offices, for example, the Supreme Court has already explained that the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement applies."
Friday's revelations raise additional questions about what kind of surveillance equipment the FBI was using, what data the agency gathered and saved, with whom that information is being shared, and "whether aerial surveillance has the effect of chilling First Amendment-protected speech and assembly," said Wessler, who works with the ACLU's Speech, Privacy & Technology Project.
"It also raises concerns about whether the intelligence gathered could lead to racial profiling of the protesters, who were predominantly people of color," he added.
As Ars Technica pointed out:
The records show that the FBI not only provided live video intelligence to the Baltimore police, but also collected and saved high-resolution video footage of hundreds of people participating in protests on the streets of Baltimore--footage that may be used in the future to build profiles on those people.
FBI Director James Comey told a U.S. House Judiciary Committee hearing last week that the agency also used its aircraft above Ferguson, Missouri, last year to help local law enforcement keep track of unrest on the ground.
"There undoubtedly are times when aerial surveillance is an appropriate law enforcement tool for public safety or investigative purposes," wrote Wessler.
"But it is essential that accurate information about such surveillance be available to the public, and that strict rules be in place to protect against unjustified mass surveillance or warrantless collection of private information," he said. "As the government's technological capabilities improve, we must ensure that old legal rules from the pre-digital era are not blindly applied to newer and more powerful forms of digital surveillance."