Of course it's still alleged, that's why they're investigating. No one's sending them to prison. It's perfectly reasonable to conduct surveillance based on reasonable suspicion.
Or do you think they deserve a jury trial before the police even have a chance to investigate?
> It’s perfectly reasonable to conduct surveillance based on reasonable suspicion.
OK, let’s talk about what’s reasonable. Do you think it’s “reasonable” to fly a helicopter low at 10 PM based upon nothing more solid than a police officer’s belief that stolen goods might be around?
The article also mentions that they kept getting buzzed, and that this had gone on for quite some time. Quite aside from the likely cost of putting a bird into the air many times, is that reasonable, based upon a police officer’s belief that there might be stolen goods to be found?
And why a low-flying helicopter anyway? If the cops had nothing stronger than a belief, why not a squad car? Or two? Or ten? You could put lots of squad cars quietly in the field for the cost of one helicopter flite. If I were the Senior Sergeant that would be an easy answer to make (based on what little info the article gives us).
The story makes no mention of warrants or of any better reasons for these low flights to take place. Let’s say it was happening in your neighborhood. Would you like it?