DJI Mavic, Air and Mini Drones
Friendly, Helpful & Knowledgeable Community
Join Us Now

Had my first semi "confrontation"

Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989)

Issue

Whether surveillance of a greenhouse in a residential backyard from the vantage point of a helicopter located 400 feet above is a 'search' for which a warrant is required under the Fourth Amendment.

Answer

No, because having a helicopter hover at 400 feet above your house does not violate a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Facts

The Pasco County FLA Sheriff got a tip that Riley was growing marijuana on 5 acres of rural property. A deputy sheriff investigated the tip and went to Riley's mobile home. Unable to see inside a greenhouse, which was behind the defendant's mobile home, the deputy returned with a helicopter and circled over the property at 400 feet.

The absence of two roof panels allowed the deputy to see, with his naked eye, what appeared to be marijuana growing. This gave probable cause for a judge to issue a search warrant which led to the discovery of a grow operation in the greenhouse. Riley successfully argued before the FLA trial court that the aerial search violated his reasonable expectation of privacy and Fourth Amendment rights but the case wended its way through multiple appeals before ending up in the US Supreme Court which held that police officials do not need a warrant to observe an individual's property from public airspace.

The Supreme Court held that the accused did not have a reasonable expectation that the greenhouse was protected from aerial view, and thus that the helicopter surveillance did not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment. However, the Court stopped short of allowing all aerial inspections of private property, noting that it was "of obvious importance" that a private citizen could have legally flown in the same airspace:

Any member of the public could legally have been flying over Riley's property in a helicopter at the altitude of 400 feet and could have observed Riley's greenhouse.

Note: The court emphasized that the helicopter did not interfere with the normal use of the property:

As far as this record reveals, no intimate details connected with the use of the home or curtilage were observed, and there was no undue noise, no wind, no dust, or threat of injury.

So, having a sheriff's helicopter hover over your house at 400 feet looking for illegal activity is perfectly safe and does not violate a reasonable expectation of privacy requiring a warrant.

View attachment 46424


But according to FLA legislature, hovering this Tello over someone's house presumptively violates a reasonable expectation of privacy. Make sense?

View attachment 46425
Leave it to Pasco, right? LMFAO
 
Primarily it's for PR - I'm pretty sure the very early alpha/beta of streetview didn't have this and many people were uneasy about it. It generated quite a backlash among early adopters. People _felt_ their privacy was being violated even though they had no reasonable expectation of it.

Rather than have lots of negative press Google added the auto blur feature to keep the public happy which was a small technical cost that doesn't impact the usefulness of streetviews image's primary purposes.

Shortly after facial blurring they added license plates for similar reasons.
Nothing to see here....mooooove along! Google blurred a cow to protect it's privacy!Blurred_cow_header.jpeg
 
Well there have been cases where even the most well behaved dogs have attacked a person, so have a leash law means that if that ever happened, you would have control and not the guilt that your extremely obedient dog lost it one day and tore the face off a child. I m not against dogs, but if the law says to leash it, you should. Since it is so obedient, then a leash on it makes no difference since the dig is healed right by your side anyway, so I don't se a reason for a discussion about it.
Thanks, have a nice day.
 
But I think my main feedback that works best is, "I'm trying to get the landscape and the interesting objects, I'm trying my best NOT to get people in the shots, as it spoils the intent of the shot = uspoilt landscape..." ....So I'm basically waiting for you to leave now :)e
At little OT here but as a semi-professional photographer I've always been fascinated by the difference between European and American photographers.
American photographers very much have the "unspoiled" wilderness outlook where most Europeans actually don't mind having people and man-made items in their photos.
My big beef is phone/power poles and wires. I wish to God that we here in America would mandate burying those ****** things.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
At little OT here but as a semi-professional photographer I've always been fascinated by the difference between European and American photographers.
American photographers very much have the "unspoiled" wilderness outlook where most Europeans actually don't mind having people and man-made items in their photos.
My big beef is phone/power poles and wires. I wish to God that we here in America would mandate burying those ****** things.

Not to mention if we buried them it would hold up against weather events much better too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brojon and JSKCKNIT
Not to mention if we buried them it would hold up against weather events much better too.
In a lot of areas in the midwest, all new service has to be underground. The only poles going in anywhere, are replacements for damaged ones.
All newly developed subdivisions and commercial areas are going 100% underground.
 
I just wear my bright orange vest that says on the back, part 107 FAA certified pilot. Stand back. No one seems to bother me as long as I wear that
 
I just wear my bright orange vest that says on the back, part 107 FAA certified pilot. Stand back. No one seems to bother me as long as I wear that
It probably has nothing to do with what the vest says on it. That is just you bragging to other drone enthusiasts :D.
Pretty sure John Q public has no idea what that means if they dont know about drones so would not pay attention to it.
So just a plain off the shelf orange vest would probably have the same effect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brojon

Yikes. Complex decision.
All the lines are buried where I live and mostly within th province but the transmission lines are still above ground. So I can brown outs and spikes every time there is a decent wind. Also if it’s super cold out and they do wow thing to the power lines to heat them to avoid ice build up and breaking lines my electronics don’t seem to enjoy that

I can see how expensive it is. It’s good to control costs but I also like my service availability when we get major events. And losing power for a day or two because a tree branch fell on it is not fun either.
 
So I was walking along a walking/bike path with my Mavic2 about 150 feet above me when a man coming from the other way, at first seemingly with a "oh, cool, a drone" look on his face. We exchanged "hellos" and as we pass each other, he asks if I am recording. I say yes. He then asks if I am recording him. I tell him that he might happen to be in the video but that I wasn't actually recording him (mind you, I was 150 feet up, so we were specks anyway) he then jumps in my face and asks me why I was recording him. We exchange some unpleasant words and I tell him that this is public property, blah blah blah. I ignore whatever he was saying and go on my merry way. What a jerk.
Turns out that I wasn't even recording like I thought I was!

There is NO expectation of privacy in Public. If Im in a public place I can take pictures or record video of ANYTHING I can see from that public place. Where you Might have an issue is if your over NON public property. So far I dont think they have made a law about this but it will be comming. The ONLY possible reason MIGHT have a valid complaint is if your re recording AUDIO. There are still some OLD laws on the books about audio recording because there wasnt video recording when these laws were made. THink of watergate. THe department of homland security published a memo about this in 2010 and made it known that its LEGAL to record ANY public, government or federal building as long as your in a Public accessble area.
 
There is NO expectation of privacy in Public. If Im in a public place I can take pictures or record video of ANYTHING I can see from that public place...

Maybe. But not with a drone in some states like Idaho if you publish or disseminate the photo:

Idaho State Statute 21-213 Restrictions on Use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (Excerpts)

(b) No person, entity or state agency shall use an unmanned aircraft system to photograph or otherwise record an individual, without such individual’s written consent, for the purpose of publishing or otherwise publicly disseminating such photograph or recording.

(3) Any person who is the subject of prohibited conduct under subsection (2) of this section shall:

(a) Have a civil cause of action against the person, entity or state agency for such prohibited conduct; and

(b) Be entitled to recover from any such person, entity or state agency damages in the amount of the greater of one thousand dollars ($1,000) or actual and general damages, plus reasonable attorney’s fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred.
 
Sometimes people making laws and regulations, are just idiots.

If the issue is privacy, then photos of a drone, are the same as photos of a camera, a phone or a kid's toy.

People voting for those, should feel responsible for all the stupidity expressed in those "regulations".
 
  • Like
Reactions: JSKCKNIT
If you're uploading videos to YouTube, there's an option for blurring faces.
 
Do you mean YouTube can automatically do it ? Where do you find this.... I’d like to give it a try.
It's on the "Enhancements" tab. I've never tried it, so I don't know how great it works.
 
  • Like
Reactions: drone_video
It's on the "Enhancements" tab. I've never tried it, so I don't know how great it works.

Cool

I’m going to try it. Any face I need 100 percent done perfect I will do on my own by using that for strangers faces I’m sure will be good enough. We don’t have any laws that require it. But I will consider doing it when and where it makes sense. Thanks for the info.
 
Leave it to Pasco, right? LMFAO

I find this very hard to believe, an officer at 400’ with his naked eye was able to view through an open roof panel marijuana growing!?! Seriously? At 400’ unless his plants were super massive (some are!) it’s difficult to make out what kind of green things are growing except it’s green! I’d love to have that kind of resolution on my Mavic Pro or my Phantom 4 Pro!! Heck any of my AC cameras!!! Wouldn’t that boost sales!!!
 
If he requests that you delete it, some states require you to do so. Not everyone wants to be recorded by a complete stranger, so YOU need to be mindful of what you're doing.

This is a new one to me! What states actually have these laws? Not trying to hassle you, I’m seriously curious about this, I’ve never heard of it before!
 
I would like to know what states and see a link to that section of law if that's true.

No one has the reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place.

This isn't North Korea.

He did nothing wrong and your reply sounded like you were scolding him.

You don't need to talk to anyone like that in this forum.

"YOU," as you addressed SpiderSkeets, need to offer him an apology.

I’d like to know this also! Never heard of that one and I’ve been flying for s number of years! Way before we had satellite positioning gps etc! Before we attached cameras to our quads! LoL and I’ve never heard of any states that had this type of law! Seriously not wanting an argument just the facts lol!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Elton Hammonds

DJI Drone Deals

New Threads

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
131,231
Messages
1,561,066
Members
160,183
Latest member
johnny760