10 ms·
Town Repeatedly Surveilled Man's Yard with Drone Without a Warrant
- blueflow 3y agoWhatever this guy does with his property, i think its cool and i want to do that, too.
- aifooh7Keew6xoo 3y agodude has a pretty sweet junk collection what's the point of owning land if you can't keep your junk on it
- phero_cnstrcts 3y agoCan’t use the vehicles for storage? Well that’s a pretty shit law anyway.
- bongobingo1 3y agoSure you can, you just have to be on the local council.
- 0dayz 3y ago>The Michigan Supreme Court heard a case Wednesday that will determine if it was legal under the Fourth Amendment. Is this something that's common in the USA? That you use the constitution right of the bat instead of federal laws like civil rights act? And while I'm no lawyer, if I were to armchair; at first the title alone makes it a slam dunk for the house owner. Unless the defendant can argue either there's a consent clause to surveillance/inspection in the zoning agreement the house owner agreed upon or that drone footage is evidence in plain sight[1]. [1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_view_doctrine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_view_doctrine
- tyingq 3y agoIt's complicated. It's in their state supreme court because the appeals court decided unreasonable search and seizure laws are excluded from a civil case (as opposed to a criminal one).
- giantg2 3y agoThe government can do practically anything to you using civil laws because there's so few protections. That's why they keep expanding those sorts of civil actions like red flag laws, civil asset forfeiture, etc since they're much harder to fight.
- someguydave 3y agoWhat if the title were: “government employee drove down the nearby road to look at the property”? Seems fine. The only question is: “at what altitude does the airspace over your property become the same as a road?”: ie public right-of-way
- troupe 3y agoAnother question would be what would happen if they had of kept the drone over the road. From the looks of it, they could have gotten all the pictures they wanted without flying above his property.
- someguydave 3y agoAgree, so it seems this is a very narrow case about whether a cessna at 500 feet (which is clearly legal) is more invasive of 4th amendment rights than a drone at 400 feet which sounds like a dumb question
- mission_failed 3y agoHow many times can a government employee drive by your property for the single aim to conduct surveillance including taking detailed photographs?
- jameshart 3y agoOn a public road? As many times as they like.
- h2odragon 3y ago> use the constitution right of the bat If a government action is unlawful under the Constitution, there's the case won bing nice and easy. If it is lawful under the Constitution, then there may be hope still but it gets enormously more complicated. The chance of winning the case and still being held liable for court costs and other fines goes way up. Basically "I fought the law" will cost even if you do win. So people jump for the big gun first, they've seen it work and its comprehensible. Lawyers like to go for the detail points that make careers out of fence disputes.
- zdragnar 3y agoThe lowest courts hear issues related to legality of actions. Appeals courts may overturn if the government is acting outside of its authority (the constitution). In this case, he's already gone through the appeals court, which made a bad decision. The supreme Court only hears cases on constitutionality.
- tyingq 3y agoOther documents suggest the drone was below 400 feet of altitude, to comply with FAA regulations. That makes the surveillance fall outside some established case law that law enforcement can surveil from "publicly navigable airspace (above 400 feet)" without a warrant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_surveillance_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_surveillance_doctrine
- placatedmayhem 3y agoThe 400 feet AGL rule has nothing to do with the FAA's definition of publicly navigable airspace. FAA considers anything above "blades of grass" to be subject to under their authority. There's some question about what makes a given airspace "publicly navigable", but it's generally understood (at least by hobby drone operators like myself) that if there's nothing overhead and there are no tall structures close by, the FAA considers that airspace publicly navigable. On the 400' rule: Outside of specially-granted permission and certain other specific situations (e.g., around tall buildings), the FAA requires all unmanned aerial systems ("drones", although that includes things like RC planes) to operate lower than 400' AGL within Class G airspace. The LAANC system is a somewhat automated way to obtain permissions in some controlled airspace. More info on UAS airspace use: https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/where_can_i_fly/airspace_101 https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/where_can_i_fly/airs... Since the surveillance in this case appears to be from publicly navigable airspace (according to the FAA's definition), I would expect established case law discussed in the aerial surveillance doctrine Wikipedia page to allow it, regardless of the use of a drone. The use of a private contractor might be of some interest in the case, but I'd wager it's viewed by the court as irrelevant so long as the pilot was complying with the Part 107 rules.
- FuriouslyAdrift 3y agoUS v Causby is one of the few rulings in this area and it was 83 ft (Causby won) General property rights are 500 ft in uncongested airspace and 1000 ft in congested areas, but case law is vague. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Causby https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Causby In this particular instance, I would be much more interested if the overflight was legal to maintain compliance in response to the original judicial ruling. They could order 6 inch resolution satellite photos or even better from companies like Maxar and Airbus, too.
- yardstick 3y ago> Maxon and the township signed an agreement in 2008 that Maxon would not face any zoning action if he did not increase the number of cars he had on his property. In 2010, 2016, 2017, and 2018, the township hired a company called Zero Gravity Aerial to do aerial drone surveys of Maxon’s property to ensure he was complying with the settlement. Is there a reason why they couldn’t just use Satellite data from Google Maps? Or pay for existing commercial satellite images? Can’t believe it’s cheaper to pay for a drone for multiple years to validate the number of cars in his yard.
- tyingq 3y agoThey didn't say he increased the number of vehicles, rather they argued he was using existing trucks as storage which violated some other ordinance. I'm guessing they tried Google maps, which didn't pan out because the number hadn't increased. So they wanted more detail to find more technicalities.
- eddyg 3y agoThat’s not how I read it: “significantly increased the scope of the junk cars and other junk material being kept on their property,” as determined by “aerial photographs.” “scope” reads to me as “amount” (in violation of the agreement).
- tyingq 3y agoThey use "scope" rather than "count" or something more clear because they never use an actual count showing the number of vehicles being higher, which would be straightforward. They mention the trailers being used as storage, and phrases like "significant increase in the amount of junk". Note "junk" as opposed to "vehicles". The original settlement isn't easy to find, but you can find this document from the township...their answer to the homeowner claiming unreasonable search/seizure: https://www.courts.michigan.gov/49bcc0/siteassets/case-documents/briefs/msc/2022-2023/164948/164948_105_01_answer.pdf https://www.courts.michigan.gov/49bcc0/siteassets/case-docum...
- c22 3y ago
- denton-scratch 3y agoThe article seems to skimp on selected detail. It looks like a violation of his agreement as to how many junk vehicles he can keep on the property. But it isn't; they're not going after him for having too much junk, they've redefined some of his covered trucks as buildings, presumably because he hadn't violated his agreement. Is that right?
- troupe 3y ago> The town filed a complaint against Maxon stating that he and his wife “significantly increased the scope of the junk cars and other junk material being kept on their property,” as determined by “aerial photographs.” I think they are saying there are many more vehicles & the amount of junk is increasing.
- j-bos 3y agoAren't those junk vehicle (by)laws meant to prevent eyesores? If a drone is needed to see them, what's the issue?
- stavros 3y agoIt seems like a weird bit of culture in the Land of the Free, where it's somehow acceptable to be surveilled by drone so people can see what you're doing in your own yard, so they can fine you. I understand it if someone is doing it in view of other people, causing an eyesore, but if you have to go to such lengths to see what they're doing, then whom exactly are they harming with what they're doing on their own property?
- mjburgess 3y agoi've always taken this to explain why americans are so obsessed by 'dont tred on me' freedom -- they have so little of it where its actually experienced: at the daily, local, level
- yostrovs 3y agoI've always taken comments like this to explain why [whoever you are] are so obsessed by 'dont tred on me' freedom -- they have so little of it where its actually experienced: at the daily, local, level
- bravetraveler 3y agoYou'd be surprised, most of those types I know are from rural areas where there is far more of that liberty In a city I can't even leave a garbage bin in front of my garage. Rural, I could burn it in my front yard Big country is big, isn't homogeneous.
- hirundo 3y agoAnd it's self-reinforcing. I live in a rural county the size of Connecticut with just 5k people in it. The people that choose to live out here are frequently the ones who particularly value that extra freedom ... including law enforcement. It is almost routine here for the sheriff to announce that he will not enforce some state or federal code or another. Talk to a deputy about crime and he'll ask if you have guns, and then recommend that you buy one if you don't. The county government does little and our property taxes reflect that. I can and have burned very large piles in my yard, but we're not savages. I have to notify the local volunteer fire department first, or they're libel to show up, and not happily.
- perihelions 3y agoYou can count cars now with commercial satellite photography. (I'm not trying to articulate any point about the thread topic; I just think this is neat). https://www.planet.com/pulse/tasking-dashboard-50cm-12x-revisit-announcement/ https://www.planet.com/pulse/tasking-dashboard-50cm-12x-revi... ("Planet Announces 50 cm SkySat Imagery") I love how the RGB Bayer (?) grid turns moving cars into tiny rainbows! You can identify the lane directions by which way the colors go.
- troupe 3y agoIf the city had used commercially available photos from an airplane or satellite, I doubt if there would be an issue. In many situations, flying a drone over someone's property can be considered trespass. However in many states tax assessors have the right to come onto your property to look around--code inspectors might have a similar right. What they were looking for could probably have been obtained with drone photographs without going over the individual's property which would have probably given the town a stronger argument for being able to say they were "observing from outside the property." What I'm curious about is what would happen if the property owner hired the company to fly over the city commissioners houses or government buildlings to take pictures.
- psychlops 3y agoTax and Code inspectors ask for permission to enter the property. I do not believe they have the right to open trespass in any state. I'd be interested if you could provide a link.
- indymike 3y agoYou are correct. They may act like they have the right to do so, but you can always say, get a warrant.
- troupe 3y agoThe position of the Attorney General in KS. While usually they do ask in order to preserve peace, the state doesn't feel they are required to. > We believe the duty enjoined upon the appraiser to value real property from an actual view and inspection of the property carries with it the implied authority for the appraiser to enter upon real property to perform this duty, without such action constituting a trespass. However, we also believe that all persons, perhaps especially governmental officers, owe a duty to preserve the public peace. Therefore, it is our opinion that for the limited purpose of appraising a taxpayer's real property and the improvements made thereon, by actual view and inspection, an appraiser may enter upon such property, at a reasonable time, without the prior permission of the taxpayer.
- teeray 3y ago
- dghughes 3y agoUnknown unmarked mysterious drone harassing you? I'd say it's skeet shooting time.
- justin66 3y agoYou get that the guy in question could go to prison for committing a felony if he did that, right?
- MSFT_Edging 3y agoWe need a court case arguing anti-drone weapons are covered under the second amendment.
- demondemidi 3y agoWould it kill you to think one move ahead? Policy controlling drone usage is far more effective than arming every wacko with a grudge.
- NovemberWhiskey 3y agoA regular rifle is covered by the 2nd Amendment but you're still going to jail if you shoot at an aircraft with it.
- everforward 3y agoThe issue isn't getting the capability to take down drones, it's getting assurances you won't be imprisoned for doing so. Net cannons are legal to own, and I would imagine directed energy weapons are probably legal to own but not use. Even bird shot in a 12 gauge is probably enough, and I don't think would pose a significant risk when it falls back down.
- justin66 3y agoIt turns out the second amendment doesn’t help you if you use your weapon to commit a crime.
- Frenchgeek 3y ago
- wutwutwat 3y agoAh, the American dream, owning land! Land that you can’t have any privacy on, or do with as you wish (in a resident capacity), because of the militant department called zoning who’s jobs consist of harassing the citizens they work for, sneaking around and snapping pictures, sending out threatening legal action warnings (yet rarely have the funds to persue legal action). But hey, it’s your land! Your chunk of America! You made it! Except, is it really yours when at any time, with or without the need to compensate you, the land can be taken by the local or federal government if they decide they want it for something else? We are the land of the free, it’s true. Free to do whatever we want inside the invisible box restricting our freedoms that we don’t see around us our entire lives. But go live your life, you’re totally free to do so! Evenings after work, and maybe the weekends! If you make enough to enjoy that limited time off, and aren’t too tired. /tangent /rant
- cma 3y agoThey can't "take" it without compensating you. And very few people created their land from their inner mind or something anyway, it is being taken from everyone else for you to have possession of it, in exchange for hopefully you (or as it is set up, someone who willed it to you) having contributed to society as imperfectedly reflected in the markets.
- wutwutwat 3y agoYou're right, they now are required by federal law to provide "just compensation", but that wasn't always the case, and even so, they are not required to reach a settlement with you. If you like the price or not, that's what they are paying and that's what you're getting. It's also true that if we go back in time far enough, the land is always being taken from someone. I am speaking about the times since the government was established, because it would be hard for me to say things about something before it existed. It wasn't always the case that land claimed with eminent domain was for public use, either. There's a long history of the government taking people's land, throwing money at them and using it for things not in the best interest of the public. > The Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) went a step further and affirmed the authority of New London, Connecticut, to take non-blighted private property by eminent domain, and then transfer it for a dollar a year to a private developer solely for the purpose of increasing municipal revenues. > Eminent domain has been used to acquire land from African-Americans for urban renewal redevelopments[25] and in other cases to dispossess them and remove them from areas where their presence was not desired by white neighbors, e.g. Bruce's Beach subdivision in Los Angeles, California.[26] Seneca Village was an African-American majority settlement in an area of what became New York City's Central Park. South Glencoe was an African-American neighborhood in Glencoe, IL[27] Central Avenue was an African-American neighborhood in Tampa, Florida. > Eminent domain was used to take property from Japanese-Americans incarcerated by the United States government during World War II. For many, their homes and businesses were then sold while they were incarcerated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain_in_the_United_S... So, you're right, people are paid when their property is taken without consent, as they should be, but the whole practice is still a shit one to have happen to you. I think my main point, that owning land, the thing America was built on and was preached to me growing up, isn't a thing you are ever guaranteed, even after you purchase the land.
- paulcole 3y agoI didn’t see this mentioned in the article (but also I admittedly skimmed the article) but is it legal for me, a private citizen, to hire a drone company to fly over this guy’s yard? If so, I don’t see why the town can’t do it.
- dredmorbius 3y agoThe distinction is between legal search (as in the article) and tresspass (as in a neighbour's incursion). The latter is covered by airspace rights: 49 USC 40103, and US v. Causby. <https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/40103 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/40103> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Causby https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Causby> Those might be limited by harassment or stalking principles.
- demondemidi 3y agoI still don’t see an explanation for why they didn’t just get a warrant. Did I miss it?
- mixdup 3y agoYou can't just "get a warrant" They need some kind of probable cause that leads them (and a judge) to believe the landowner might be in violation of the agreement "We just want to make sure" is not probable cause
- demondemidi 3y agoHuh? If they cannot get a warrant, then they cannot do the search. Done and done. I'm not sure what are you talking about?
- mixdup 3y agoPresumably they didn't get a warrant to search his property because they didn't have probable cause for what they believed would be a Fourth Amendment search It's kind of the whole point of this escapade. If they had the probable cause to get a warrant they would've just done it and not paid the money for a drone flight. They believe that because this search did not involve going into his private property behind a locked gate by government agents and instead the evidence was gathered by flying above his property in airspace that he does not control it was not a search that is subject to court review or the need for a warrant under the Fourth Amendment If they could've gotten a warrant they would've just done that, and because they couldn't they came up with this alternate scheme
- demondemidi 3y agoRight, I agree with your speculation, but I was hoping there was a real answer and not speculation.
- aingisni_del 3y agoIt’s interesting to note that the county restricted the amount of cars that could occupy the property, but did not otherwise control the environmental effects of running a maintenance yard. What does the owner do with waste disposal? Various fluids and solids from the vehicles must be dealt with according to regulations. Are there any? What about leak abatement? Effects on groundwater and waterways? Tires? Other hazardous waste? Air pollution?
- NovemberWhiskey 3y agoFrom a Fourth Amendment perspective, the doctrine is “people, not places”. It’s difficult to assert that you intended for parts of your property that can easily be observed from the air to be private. It’s not like they used a drone to peer through his window and see the contents of his safe or something.
- m3047 3y agoSeems reasonable to me that they'd hire a commercial company to do the drone surveillance instead of their own LE for the same reason that LE purchases e.g. cell phone data: to avoid an easily discoverable record and maintain plausible deniability.