I have a column in Civil Beat this week after a hiatus of several month’s. This column looks at a case to be argued before the Hawaii Supreme Court next week which focuses on the limits of police surveillance (“Ian Lind: Police May Be Blocked From Aerial Surveillance In Hawaii“).

From the comments so far, I would say people are eager to argue about the proper balance between privacy and law enforcement without the benefit of actually reading the column.

The case before the Supreme Court is an appeal from a ruling last year at the Intermediate Court of Appeals, in which that court enunciated a new rule-of-thumb narrowing the window for warrantless searches from the air.

The generally accepted understanding has been that if something is in open view, not covered or hidden, then police do not need a warrant to observe and gather evidence.

But, as one person commenting at Civil Beat noted, in the age of highly maneuverable, camera-equipped drones, this approach leads to the end of privacy, since it would theoretically allow a drone to move around until it was able to see between curtains or through small openings in windows.

The intermediate court took the position that the so-called “open view” doctrine doesn’t apply to “targeted surveillance,” where a police helicopter has to maintain prolonged or repeated surveillance of a particular property in order to obtain enough information to apply for a search warrant. That “targeted” observation sets this apart from other instances of “open view.”

Anyway, take a look at the column. And remember that Civil Beat has taken down its paywall, although it encourages readers to make tax deductible contributions to keep the news flowing.