I can’t imagine what agreement would allow for a private company to place equipment on city-owned property just because the federal government say’s its okay.
The feds have no power to absolve the company of state crimes. Though I think it’s just littering in this case. The city is within its rights to just take the cameras down.
While that’s partially true, the DOJ has a LOT of leverage, especially with how closely this version is tied to the executive branch. It wouldn’t take much to simply lean on a state legislature or even a local one and say “hey you either cut our guy loose or bad things might happen.”
I’m sure you could make an argument for destruction of government property for disturbing the ground they install them on. Almost surely won’t stick, but might until thing start getting charged and in the system, nothing will happen.
I can’t imagine what agreement would allow for a private company to place equipment on city-owned property just because the federal government say’s its okay.
Agreement to pardon anything that might stick in exchange for a full surveillance network.
The feds have no power to absolve the company of state crimes. Though I think it’s just littering in this case. The city is within its rights to just take the cameras down.
While that’s partially true, the DOJ has a LOT of leverage, especially with how closely this version is tied to the executive branch. It wouldn’t take much to simply lean on a state legislature or even a local one and say “hey you either cut our guy loose or bad things might happen.”
Welcome to the Mafia oligarchy.
I’m sure you could make an argument for destruction of government property for disturbing the ground they install them on. Almost surely won’t stick, but might until thing start getting charged and in the system, nothing will happen.