(MSNBC) The Illinois appeals court that found Rahm Emanuel unqualified to run for mayor of Chicago ruled today that while he is unquestionably qualified to vote in the election, he isn’t qualified to be a candidate because he hasn’t lived in the city for a year before the election.
The case turns on the meaning of an Illinois law providing that a person cannot run for a city office “unless that person is a qualified elector of the municipality and has resided in the municipality” for at least a year preceding the election.
It’s an issue for Emanuel — a Chicago native and former congressman representing the city — because he went to Washington to become White House chief of staff when President Obama was elected. At first, he lived in an apartment while his family remained in Chicago. Then, in June 2009, he and his family rented a Washington, DC house while leasing the Chicago house to another family.
The 2-1 ruling said Emanuel meets the less restrictive state law test of being “a qualified elector,” because he clearly intended to live in Washington temporarily and then return to Chicago. What’s more, Illinois law says no voter can be found to have lost his legal residence “by reason of his or her absence on business of the United States.”
But the court found that the legal test for the residence of a candidate is more narrow. The requirement that a candidate must have “resided in” the city for a year before the election means, the court said, to “actually live rather than having legal voting residence” — a qualification that Emanuel “unquestionably does not satisfy.”
Sunday, January 23, 2011; 12:56 AM
But when drones come to perch in numbers over American communities, they will drive fresh debates about the boundaries of privacy. The sheer power of some of the cameras that can be mounted on them is likely to bring fresh search-and-seizure cases before the courts, and concern about the technology’s potential misuse could unsettle the public….
Overseas, the drones have drawn interest as well. A consortium of police departments in Britain is developing plans to use them to monitor the roads, watch public events such as protests, and conduct covert urban surveillance, according to the Guardian newspaper. Senior British police officials would like the machines to be in the air in time for the 2012 Olympics in London….
In a 1986 Supreme Court case, justices were asked whether a police department violated constitutional protections against illegal search and seizure after it flew a small plane above the back yard of a man suspected of growing marijuana. The court ruled that “the Fourth Amendment simply does not require the police traveling in the public airways at this altitude to obtain a warrant in order to observe what is visible to the naked eye.”…
In a 2001 case, however, also involving a search for marijuana, the court was more skeptical of police tactics. It ruled that an Oregon police department conducted an illegal search when it used a thermal imaging device to detect heat coming from the home of an man suspected of growing marijuana indoors….
(these excerpts are taken from the attached link. Some precedent case information is here that some may want to hold onto for future reference)