California officials used drones to track addresses allegedly tied to fireworks

[AMann]

My point is whatever problem we have, we find solutions that don't violate the Constitution. I guess Cali's problems are so "huge and important" they need to infringe on rights to solve them. We disagree and we plan to litigate our disagreement in court. I think you'll find our argument has little to do with fires and more to do with legal principles. Tired of the unique excuses Cali continues to use to abuse the marginalized population.

Two words- “Paradise “ and “Altadena”. I know they were started by powerlines and electric equipment, but we’ve had several other fires that also killed people and destroyed homes, including those started by fireworks. Not only do wildfires destroy lives and property, over 30 people died in the state in 2025 directly from wildfires, the fires are also very expensive.- California spends over $3-billion each year on its wildfire budget. So yeah, we do have a “huge and important” wildfire problem here.

One of our neighbors in town lost their house due to fireworks this year, so it’s because of idiots why the counties out here have prohibitions against fireworks that fly in the air and start fires. If people can’t follow those rules, I don’t feel sorry for them if they get busted by the fire department using a drone to catch them. I don’t see how a drone flying around imaging skyrockets being shot off high in the sky above people’s homes, even if lit off from a backyard, can infringe on constitutional rights. The fire department could’ve also found him by driving by the house on the street, and we don’t know if the drone was above his house, within his fence line, or off over the street nearby. If you live in a county or parish that allows any types of fireworks, that’s fine, there’s no need to fly drones over your streets, but it’s a little different out west, and it is getting a lot worse every Fourth of July.

Our county started putting up gunshot detectors in random areas in town as well, and our neighbor about three houses down the street had a bullet come through their bedroom roof, through their ceiling, and it landed on their bed just this last fourth of July. That type of equipment can easily triangulate where a shot was fired from, and probably even from where fireworks are exploding, but I don’t know if they caught the guy who shot the gun (I can PM the investigation report that is online if interested, I just don’t want to post it publicly for it has the street where I live). It’s a great system and we really do need it, but it has also been deemed unconstitutional by some people. But think about it, there really isn’t any difference between capturing the light that comes out from above somebody’s yard onto a sensor of a drone mounted camera, to the sound waves from someone’s gun going beyond their yard out into the neighborhood and being captured and recorded by a microphone.

 

[mavic3usa]

Two words- “Paradise “ and “Altadena”. I know they were started by powerlines and electric equipment, but we’ve had several other fires that also killed people and destroyed homes, including those started by fireworks. Not only do wildfires destroy lives and property, over 30 people died in the state in 2025 directly from wildfires, the fires are also very expensive.- California spends over $3-billion each year on its wildfire budget. So yeah, we do have a “huge and important” wildfire problem here.

One of our neighbors in town lost their house due to fireworks this year, so it’s because of idiots why the counties out here have prohibitions against fireworks that fly in the air and start fires. If people can’t follow those rules, I don’t feel sorry for them if they get busted by the fire department using a drone to catch them. I don’t see how a drone flying around imaging skyrockets being shot off high in the sky above people’s homes, even if lit off from a backyard, can infringe on constitutional rights. The fire department could’ve also found him by driving by the house on the street, and we don’t know if the drone was above his house, within his fence line, or off over the street nearby. If you live in a county or parish that allows any types of fireworks, that’s fine, there’s no need to fly drones over your streets, but it’s a little different out west, and it is getting a lot worse every Fourth of July.

Our county started putting up gunshot detectors in random areas in town as well, and our neighbor about three houses down the street had a bullet come through their bedroom roof, through their ceiling, and it landed on their bed just this last fourth of July. That type of equipment can easily triangulate where a shot was fired from, and probably even from where fireworks are exploding, but I don’t know if they caught the guy who shot the gun. I can PM the investigation report that is online if interested, I just don’t want to post it publicly for it has the street where I live.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Quote: https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/3902...safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century

If the city wants to say on the 4th of July and on the 1st of January, the city will make an exception and police drones will be able to temporarily leave their normal duties and expand their role as first reporter to include extra surveillance on high-risk neighborhoods for the purposes of combating the illegal use of fireworks and related. Other than these days, law enforcement drones are prohibited from adopting the practice for any other similar activities.

Also, the fee schedule for these offense will be triple on those days but jail time is prohibited by statute. Our contract with the 3rd party will make an exception and none of the fees will be paid to contractor on fireworks related fines instead 100% of the fines will be used for the purposes of combating fires. All records and video records shall be made available in accordance with California's open records laws. In addition to a new exception (due) process we'll put in place for offenders to appeal their fines in front of a magistrate, we will create a fire-duty volunteer program as part of the community service option for partial repayment of fines as allowed by law.

The city is committed to fighting the fire problem, properly managing the water supply, and preventing fires first, not lining the pockets of contractors and generating revenue with excessive fines for other bogus city projects so we can lower the taxes on the wealthy and shift the burden to the middle and lower classes who are disproportionately affected by the wildfires.

Finally because we are so committed to tackling the fire problem, we will hold accountable all city and state officials who are most responsible for preventing these fires by not doing their job when we need them the most and before we look to the community to shoulder most of the blame. Merchants who sell fireworks into the community will be held accountable as well as the person who uses the fireworks. It's a comprehensive plan where *everyone* has skin in the game and everyone will benefit equally.

Have at it; case dismissed. No one will say a word (as long as you stick to the plan) and....the fires just might get put out.

 

[anotherlab]

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Quote: https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/3902...safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century

If you read the article that you linked to for the quote, you'll find that it wasn't about privacy or surveillance; it was about taxation.

WITTES: He was writing about a tax dispute between the Pennsylvania General Assembly and the family of the Penns, the proprietary family of the Pennsylvania colony who ruled it from afar. And the legislature was trying to tax the Penn family lands to pay for frontier defense during the French and Indian War. And the Penn family kept instructing the governor to veto. Franklin felt that this was a great affront to the ability of the legislature to govern. And so he actually meant purchase a little temporary safety very literally. The Penn family was trying to give a lump sum of money in exchange for the General Assembly's acknowledging that it did not have the authority to tax it.

SIEGEL: So far from being a pro-privacy quotation, if anything, it's a pro-taxation and pro-defense spending quotation.

WITTES: It is a quotation that defends the authority of a legislature to govern in the interests of collective security. It means, in context, not quite the opposite of what it's almost always quoted as saying but much closer to the opposite than to the thing that people think it means.

That's the risk when trying to apply a statement from a quarter of a millennium ago to a modern situation.

Every time you go through a security screening at an airport, you are giving up an "essential liberty" to purchase some temporary safety. The checking of shoes was dumb, but checking bags for weapons and other devices needs to be done.

Which part do you have concerns with? The law that fines owners/renters for discharging fireworks or that a drone was used to collect the evidence. Or do you think it's targeting a specific part of the population?

As long as that law provides some protection from owners who had no knowledge or involvement with the fireworks, I'm fine with it. I'm fine with drones being used to collect evidence. No crime, no evidence. I think the problem is that the police allowed the fireworks show to go on. If the sole reason was to run up the charges, then the charges should be capped.

 

[mavic3usa]

If you read the article that you linked to for the quote, you'll find that it wasn't about privacy or surveillance; it was about taxation.

I did. We have evolved the quote, no one should have a problem with it because it's true. We just prefer not to come up with another quote. You get the point.

I provided a reasonable and more acceptable solution that's fair to everyone, we can adopt it (or parts of it) or we can go to court and risk losing it all. My guess is the city will choose the latter which is why nothing will ever get done about the fires.

 

[Cafguy]

Our county started putting up gunshot detectors in random areas in town as well,

Those shot spotters are pretty cool We have them all around town here. As for the fireworks..
I think someone got a ticket, saw the huge fine, and decided to make an issue, The first year Bakersfield used them they posted the videos of the violators being fined, and well those are some pretty good Cams they got mounted to those Drones, and yes for the most part even in the dark...They got the violator,Violating.

 

[mavic3usa]

Those shot spotters are pretty cool We have them all around town here. As for the fireworks..
I think someone got a ticket, saw the huge fine, and decided to make an issue, The first year Bakersfield used them they posted the videos of the violators being fined, and well those are some pretty good Cams they got mounted to those Drones, and yes for the most part even in the dark...They got the violator,Violating.

The city fines the property owner no matter who is shooting off the fireworks or whether you are at home or not. If you go on vacation and the criminals come to your property and use fireworks, you'll pay for it. You can't claim it was someone else. the government has no facial recognition (in the dark) software they can use. The criminals know this and they also know the police won't show up while fines are being collected. Just like most government programs, the process hurts the honest and the innocent more than it does the criminal. I guaranteed you no criminal shooting fireworks against the law has $100k to spend on fines; they'll never pay it.

Remember when the red light cameras would automatically issue tickets to the license plate holder? Sometimes the fine would not hold up but you couldn't issue points to the driver since you couldn't prove who was driving. Until the service provider decided to spend a little bit extra and capture the driver's image, now that we have better and affordable high-resolution cameras; they also upped the fees to pay for it. Instead of the car's owner getting the ticket, you could provide the actual driver's details. I don't think you get this option in Cali for fireworks. My state quickly recognized the scam and refused to do business with cheats. We'll take care of the small problem we have with traditional proven (legal) methods and tools which are just as effective as red light cameras.

 

[anotherlab]

The city fines the property owner no matter who is shooting off the fireworks or whether you are at home or not. If you go on vacation and the criminals come to your property and use fireworks, you'll pay for it.

That is a flaw with how the city wrote the law and how they enforced it. The police should have been sent over while the fireworks were being discharged,

 

[Meta4]

Well, that's pretty rich coming for a government that won't allow the best and most effective tools to be used in their banking system to identify, sanction, freeze, and/or repatriate illicit, corrupt, or illegal funds especially when it is clearly being abused by the worst kinds of people from all over the planet.

Having an objection to banking policies in the country a member comes from is the strangest reason to completely ignore him when he asks a perfectly reasonable question.
So I'll ask the same question from a different country.

In that example in the OP it looks like the government/police both enforced a reasonable law and did so with the tool that was most effective at doing so.
So what's your point? That having the ability to do the right thing means the wrong thing could be done too? If so you don't need drones for that.

My point is whatever problem we have, we find solutions that don't violate the Constitution. I guess Cali's problems are so "huge and important" they need to infringe on rights to solve them. We disagree and we plan to litigate our disagreement in court. I think you'll find our argument has little to do with fires and more to do with legal principles. Tired of the unique excuses Cali continues to use to abuse the marginalized population.

If constitutional violations are your issue, there are much more egregious violations already taking place that make your imagined potential violations pale into insignificance.

 

[mavic3usa]

Having an objection to banking policies in the country a member comes from is the strangest reason to completely ignore him when he asks a perfectly reasonable question.
So I'll ask the same question from a different country.

In that example in the OP it looks like the government/police both enforced a reasonable law and did so with the tool that was most effective at doing so.
So what's your point? That having the ability to do the right thing means the wrong thing could be done too? If so you don't need drones for that.

I've already answered those questions a couple times in separate posts and the article addresses them as well. In addition, I've answered the same questions in past posts about similar incidents. I'm starting to feel like I'm not getting thru which is fine because sometimes legal issues don't resonate for some people. When one person says "Use whatever tools you wish so long as you use them in accordance with the Constitution", for other people that means: "Use whatever tools you want."

I don't have a problem if someone doesn't get it, that's what a courtroom is for. To help you get it. Constitutional questions are often confusing, especially for those who reside in countries where there is real constitution and freedom is often fleeting. I've tried it before and it often turns into a waste to time to make the connection to your government and rights violations and I get that. Why don't we just wait for the results and then we can discuss what happened and something everyone will clearly understand: the verdict.

IANAL and all I have is my personal opinion on the topic; I posted the article and I agree 100% with the content.

If constitutional violations are your issue, there are much more egregious violations already taking place that make your imagined potential violations pale into insignificance.

You're right, there is so much work to be done. Some will say "Why are you fighting on behalf of a Chinese military drone company spying on America?" We have other more important issues to tackle in this country; let DJI go down the drain, we don't need them, and focus building your own. It's just a stupid drone. I guess you gotta pick your battles. Fortunately there are more important people than me doing the heavy lifting in Cali but I wanted to share my thought on the overall big picture so when it comes to your town, you immediately recognize it and you know what you are up against. Like for example, if a company called Flock shows up at your city council meeting..... Cali has a way of being first in the nation with a lot of things which spread from West to East so we learn from it and non-Cali residents get a preview of what to expect and know how to summarily reject it instead of the usual "we're different, we'll give it a try."

 

[Kilrah]

I'm starting to feel like I'm not getting thru which is fine because sometimes legal issues don't resonate for some people.

I think you're getting through, just people again don't agree with you.

Use whatever tools you wish so long as you use them in accordance with the Constitution

It seems an offence was committed. Does the Constituiton specifically say that a police officer should see the offence directly through their own eyes to be able to prosecute it instead of seeing it on a screen through a drone's camera, with proof recorded through said camera? If not then there's probably no difference.