3 ms·
>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?
by 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.