if the north dakota police want to use it to sur veil their wives on their shopping trips, that's another thing. if the north dakota police wants to use it in a hostage situation or follow a suspected drug dealer, that's obviously a good and lawful purpose in pursuit of of a legitimate public end. why would we begin from a premise of purposefully making ourselves inefficient, purposefullying -- purposefully making ourselves limited. i can certainly see in the end saying that that evidence might not be used in court or something like that, if you feel real strongly about the particular use. but to my mind, the right answer is to define, what are the lawful uses. no, c.d.p. can not use this to look in on a local meeting of the north dakota tea party or north dakota aclu. to -- no, they can't use it for purposes that would be outs the zone. if the end is legitimate, it seems to me we make a mistake in suing. the right method is the consequence at the other end. how that is used. whether or not we -- that evidence shouldn't be used unless it reaches a reasonable suspicious standard or some el

if the north dakota police want to use it to surveilled their wives on their shopping trips, that's a different thing but the north dakota police force wants to use it in a hostage situation or to follow a suspected drug dealer, that is obviously a good and lawful purpose in pursuit of a legitimate public and. you know, why would we begin from a premise of purposely making ourselves and inefficient, purposely making ourselves limited? i can certainly see in the end, saying that evidence might not be used in court or something like that if you feel really strongly about its use, but to my mind the right answer is to find what are the lawful uses and no cbp cannot loan this to north dakota to go and look in on a political meeting of the north dakota tea party or the note the kharga alc you. no, they can't use it to surveilled in ways and means and for purposes that would be outside the zone of their legitimate law enforcement concern. but at the end is legitimate, it seems to me that we make a mistake in healing to the purposeful institution, to the right method. how that is used, wheth

if the north dakota police want to use it to surveil their wives on a shopping trip, that's a different thing. if the use it in the hostage situation, that is a good unlawful purpose in pursuit of a pursuit blic end. why would begin from a promise of making ourselves inefficient or limited? i can certainly see in the end saying that evidence might not be used in court if you feel strongly about the particular use. to my mind, the right answer is to define what are the lawful uses. it cannot be flown to north dakota and to look in on a political meeting of the north dakota tea party or the north dakota aclu. they cannot use it to surveil in ways and means that would be outside of the zone of their legitimate law-enforcement concern. if the end is legitimate, it seems to me that we make a mistake in hewing -- the right method -- whether or not -- that evidence should not be used unless it meets a reasonable suspicion standard. but i don't believe in and forced self-inefficiency of government. >> i will try to keep it brief. we placed limitations on technology all the time. you can add to

if the north dakota police want to use it to surveil their wives on a shopping trip, that's a differentif the use it in the hostage situation, that is a good unlawful purpose in pursuit of a public end. why would begin from a promise of making ourselves inefficient or limited? i can certainly see in the end saying that evidence might not be used in court if you feel strongly about the particular use. to my mind, the right answer is to define what are the lawful uses. it cannot be flown to north dakota and to look in on a political meeting of the north dakota tea party or the north dakota aclu. they cannot use it to surveil in ways and means that would be outside of the zone of their legitimate law-enforcement concern. if the end is legitimate, it seems to me that we make a mistake in hewing -- the right method -- whether or not -- that evidence should not be used unless it meets a reasonable suspicion standard. but i don't believe in and forced self-inefficiency of government. >> i will try to keep it brief. we placed limitations on technology all the time. you can add to a title for it

i mean, if the north code -- dakota police want to use it to surveilled their wives on their shoppingps, that's a different thing but the north dakota police force wants to use it in a hostage situation or to follow a suspected drug dealer, that is obviously a good and lawful purpose in pursuit of a legitimate public and. you know, why would we began from begin from a premise of purposely making making ourselves inefficient, purposely making ourselves limited. i can certainly see in the end, saying that evidence might not be used in court or something like that if you feel really strongly about, about the particular use. but to my mind, the right answer is to define what are the lawful uses and no, cbp cannot loan this to north dakota to go and look in on a political meeting of north dakota tea party or the north dakota aclu. no, they cannot use it to surveilled in ways and means and for purposes that would be outside of the zone of their legitimate law enforcement concerns. but if the end is legitimate, it seems do we that we make a mistake in hewing to the purpose opal, the right me

talked to the mayor and governor and police, fire, e.m.s. folks and chiefs and command staffs and a lot of people that had been working on fighting the flood in north dakota for literally -- much longer, but this part of it for two weeks. and sometimes i think we miss things and we forget things. but for total devastation, they did not lose one life. that is incredible. if you can view the damage that happened there. and the reason that is, is because they prepared. they took the time. they were exhausted. but they saved lives. devastating, it will take years to rebuild which but it makes a difference that th

talked to the mayor and governor and police, fire, e.m.s. folks and chiefs and command staffs and a lot of people that had been working on fighting the flood in north dakota for literally -- much longer, but this part of it for two weeks. and sometimes i think we miss things and we forget things. but for total devastation, they did not lose one life. that is incredible. if you can view the damage that happened there. and the reason that is, is because they prepared. they took the time. they were exhausted. but they saved lives. devastating, it will take years to rebuild which but it makes a difference that they took time to prepare. it saved lives. here, what struck me a lot about reading about loma prieta was how the community came together. how people in the faith-based initiative community and non-profits and if public in general and private sector worked to get the community back together. to recover. i mentioned i was in joplin moreless right after it happened and ied that opportunity to go back just two weeks ago and to see that the devastation, which was seven miles long, 3/4 of a mile wide and nothing left standing except a little bit of the hospi

police off his property. here is what a attorney in north dakota said.eged crimes were committed long before a drone was going to be used. it was only used to make the arrest safer for both the brousarrads and law enforcement. they had a warrant, right. >> they did have a warrant. i worry about slippery shroefplt you can geslope here. a crime was committed, the crimes on the cows. you can get a warrant for that. where do we end with that? gregg: he was allegedly terrorizing police with high-powered rifle. >> i got that, you need a drone for that? go in with an arrest warrant, it's over, don't bring in a drone. gregg: isn't it safer if you know where on this huge property where he is and you can see whether he has some weapons? >> i will agree with you under these particular facts and circumstances the use of the drone is not soee tkpwaoepblg just, but if liz brings up if they are bringing in a drone for six cows can you imagine what the federal government would do if they believed you were tony montana or pablo escobar? every citizen of the united states

police departments and federal agencies. there is not a lot of usage right now. i believe in north dakota, they used a drawn to help get a family that was stealing cattle and conducting other illegal activities. there is a lot of controversy over this. one of the problems that exists is that this is not a revolution in military hardware or avionics. it is just the next e. aleutians. evolution. you have a pilot flying 20,000 miles over the battlefield and he pushes a button and conducts an attack. it is remote control warfare and in the case of drones the pilot does not happen to be in the aircraft. this is just the natural evolution. one concern with the drones being used domestically which is an issue of a fear of the increasing surveillance by the federal and state and local governments on americans. that is not a problem with the drones. if you have a concern, you have to pick up that concern with your government. host: next call is from reno, nev., independent line. >caller: i was curious about the legal ramifications and other countries. i would assume that we would not permit the us

the drones are being used by border patrol and by some local police departments and federal agencies. not a lot usage in north dakota where they use a drone to help get a family that was stealing cattle. a lot of controversy over this. this is not a revolution in military hardware. it is just the next evolution. in the case of conducting strikes overseas, you have a manned strike with a pilot flying over the battlefield. he is pushing a button and conducts an attack. it is remote-controlled warfare. the case of drones, the pilot this happens not to be in the aircraft. they are 9,000 miles away. again, they are pushing a button and connecting remote control warfare. this is a natural evolution. i think it is more an issue of fear of the increasing surveillance by the government on americans. that is not a problem with drones. the drones are not a problem. if you have a concern, if you have to take that up with your government as far as how they are conducting surveillance. host: the next call for bill roggio is from reno, nev., on the independents line. guest: i was wondering about the legal justification we use for