Drone Surveillance and the Fourth Amendment: A New Case
In a recent decision, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that persons have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their property against drone surveillance conducted without a warrant or pursuant to a recognized exception to the warrant requirement. The case, Long Lake Township v Maxon, involved a civil zoning dispute in which the Township used a drone to take aerial images of the Maxon property without consent or any other specific legal authorization.
The Court of Appeals found that drone surveillance of private property is necessarily more intrusive and “qualitatively different” than the use of airplanes and helicopters permitted under California v Ciraolo and Florida v Riley. The Court noted that drones can fly at lower altitudes and hover in place, allowing them to collect more detailed images and information about private property.
The Court also found that the use of low-altitude unmanned drones to conduct targeted surveillance of private property is more like the use of thermal imaging devices found to be a “search” in Kyllo v United States. In Kyllo, the Supreme Court held that the government’s use of a thermal imaging device to monitor the radiation of heat from a home was a Fourth Amendment search. The Court reasoned that the government’s use of the thermal imaging device was a physical intrusion into the home’s curtilage, which is an area around the home that is considered to be part of the home itself.
The Court of Appeals in Long Lake Township v Maxon found that the Township’s use of a drone to take aerial images of the Maxon property without consent was a similar physical intrusion into the Maxon property. The Court also noted that the existing law in Michigan recognizes a reasonable expectation of privacy and other legal protections against drone misuse.
The decision in Long Lake Township v Maxon is significant because it is one of the first cases to address the Fourth Amendment implications of drone surveillance. The Court’s decision provides clear guidance to law enforcement and other government agencies that they cannot use drones to conduct surveillance of private property without a warrant or a recognized exception to the warrant requirement.
Implications for Law Enforcement
The decision in Long Lake Township v Maxon has important implications for law enforcement agencies that use drones for surveillance purposes. Law enforcement agencies should review their policies and procedures to ensure that they are consistent with the Fourth Amendment requirements set forth by the Court of Appeals.
In general, law enforcement agencies should obtain a warrant before using a drone to conduct surveillance of private property. However, there are a few limited exceptions to the warrant requirement, such as when the surveillance is conducted in response to an emergency or when it is conducted in a public area where there is a diminished expectation of privacy.
Law enforcement agencies should also be aware that the Fourth Amendment may apply to the use of drones even if the surveillance is not conducted directly by the agency itself. For example, if a law enforcement agency contracts with a private company to conduct drone surveillance on its behalf, the agency may still be required to comply with the Fourth Amendment.
Have you been charged with driving while high?
Want to fight that charge!
Call Our Office for a Free Case Evaluation
The decision in Long Lake Township v Maxon is a significant development in the law of drone surveillance. The Court’s decision provides clear guidance that the Fourth Amendment protects people from warrantless drone surveillance of their private property. Law enforcement agencies and other government agencies should review their policies and procedures to ensure that they are consistent with the Court’s decision.
The Court found the use of low-altitude unmanned
drones to conduct targeted surveillance of private property
to be more like the use of thermal imaging devices found
to be a “search” in Kyllo v United States when used to
monitor the radiation of heat from a home, and further
noted the existing recognition of a reasonable expectation
of privacy and other legal protections against drone misuse
as found in MCL 259.322(3) and MCL 259.320(1) (See Below)
Act 436 of 2016
259.322 Operation of unmanned aircraft system; harassment, violation of order, or invasion of privacy prohibited; definition; individual registered as sex offender.
Sec. 22.
Act 436 of 2016
259.320 Criminal liability; offense committed with aid of an unmanned aircraft system; exception.
Sec. 20.
Did You Know
Michigan State Police Legal Updates
MSP Legal Update No. 153 (01/2023)
- Search & Seizure: The smell of marihuana, standing alone, no longer constitutes probable cause to search for that substance
- Vehicle Code: Violation for impeding traffic requires evidence the accused’s conduct actually affected the normal flow of traffic.
Legal Update No. 153 (01/2023)
MSP Legal Update No. 150 (01/2022)
- Vehicle Code: Persons under the age of 21 may be prosecuted for operating a motor vehicle with the presence of marihuana in their system
- Criminal Law: Ethnic intimidation based on gender includes harassing or intimidating another person because of the actual or perceived gender of that person.
Legal Update No. 150 (01/2022)
Legal Update No. 148 (09/2021)
Legal Update No. 148 (09/2021)
Legal Update No. 147 (03/2021)
More Posts
Medical-Marijuana Patient Alleges Prosecutors Swayed Crime Lab Drug Tests
Fri, 10/30/2015 - 4:11pm A Michigan medical-marijuana patient claims in court papers that state police crime labs are bending to pressure from prosecutors in analyzing marijuana samples, leading to harsher punishments. Maxwell Lorincz, 35, was originally...
Allegations: MSP falsely reporting marijuana, targeting card-carrying patients
SPRING LAKE, Mich. – The defense representing a Spring Lake father facing a felony marijuana charge is accusing Michigan State Police Forensic Science Division crime labs of misreporting marijuana intentionally. It’s an allegation with statewide implications. ...
When Being Hated…Is Revered
By Attorney Michael Komorn " Lieutenant, this lawyer is a pain in the ass, I can't stand him, I really hate him" This was my client's observation of the prosecutor after exiting the conference room she and I had been in for over an hour discussing and...
Lawyer slams decision to deny cannabis to autistic kids
"Allowing medical marijuana for those with autism was supposed to be the clinical trial," Komorn said. "Instead, we're going to have criminal trials." Lawyer slams decision to deny cannabis to autistic kids The Detroit News Article August 28, 2015 - Lansing —...
Father fighting to use medical marijuana concentrates
April 23, 2015 - In Western Michigan yet another Michigan Medical Marijuana patient is fighting for his freedom in a system of confusing laws. He is also fighting for the right to see his child all while the State of Michigan possibly destroys his family and...
Prosecutors drop marijuana charges against Michigan mom
Aug 5, 2015 - After a year long battle, Michigan Attorney Michael Komorn and his staff have chalked up another positive conclusion for a client caught up in the medical marijuana and forfeiture debacle. Some may consider it a win, but this slow ruination of a family...
Security Systems – You should have one!!
For most... a security video system is a tool to protect themselves from liability, false accusations and identify activities around their home or business. For some, such as thieves, those who make false accusations and liars...it works against them. There...
What’s required of you in a Michigan traffic stop?
July 24, 2015 Dashcam video released this week from a traffic stop shows how a confrontation between a Texas woman and the arresting officer escalated. Given the circumstances in the aforementioned Sandra Bland case, we wanted to find out what is allowed and not...
Detroit police make arrests at marijuana dispensary
The Detroit police raided and made arrests at marijuana dispensary in an article in the Detroit Free Press from July 14, 2015. Detroit police arrested two people and confiscated two firearms and drugs during a raid on a marijuana dispensary Tuesday afternoon. Police...
Michigan Medical Marihuana Patient Bill of Rights
On November 8th, 2008, by a majority of 63 percent, the citizens of the State of Michigan voted into law the constitutional initiative, Initiated Law 1 of 2008, ratified into law December 4, 2008, herein referred to as the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act, MCL 333.26421...