Should police need a warrant to collect evidence with drones?

[HVYMTL]

I saw this article on ZDNET and thought I would share it with everyone.

 

[Captain Lou]

I would say yes if it means them peering into my windows and no if it means them seeing me from a place the public would be able to see me also... but it’s really not that black and white unfortunately... a lot to think about ...

 

[Thomas B]

Agree with the above. However, I’ll let someone else fight/define it. Legal costs are incredible! I protested the pulling of my horse’s papers by the registering horse club and after 33 trips to district court, 2 trips to appellate court and a hearing with the AZ Supreme Court we never got to the real question and I had over $80K in legal fees.

 

[Prmath]

NO...... whatever method they can use to beat crime

 

[Mr.cleo]

Well it would depend ...
State to state laws vary...
If it is " in plain sight " than no warrant necessary... BUT
what if there is a reasonable expectation of privacy ? Than yes, warrant needed.
so
Through a window one would expect privacy.

but what if in a back yard with a high fence ?
what if in back yard and no fence and can be seen from the street ?

Anyway you look at it, there are many factors involved.

 

[W2EJ]

Here in the US, we used to have a 4th amendment, but it’s been gutted like all the rest.

 

[philbr118]

ripa or the regulation of investigatory powers act applies in UK.

 

[ac0j]

They would have to possess a part 107 I would think.

 

[theDRONEranger]

Perhaps this would be a question best answered by a knowledgeable drone attorney or other legal beagle.
We could second guess all day long, but in the end that's all we would be doing, second guessing.

 

[grendeljaeger]

Here in the U.S. I believe you stick with the Constitution! Just as Captain Lou stated so well in his reply. Having a drone above the street is really not much different than the light pole cameras that are showing up more and more. But looking into cars and buildings on private property that you can not see inside of from the street should require a warrant.

 

[Chip]

Here in the U.S. I believe you stick with the Constitution!

Yes, I agree. But, one caveat. Here in the US, you should also stick with each state's constitution which may confer greater privacy protections to its residents than the US Constitution's 4th Amendment. The state of Washington Supreme Court has said this exact thing which is why the idea of one privacy standard governing UAV operations nationwide is absurd under current system.

 

[Chip]

Each state may enact its own laws limiting the use of drones to conduct "surveillance." For example, here are key excerpts from Florida law:

Florida State Statute 934.50 Searches and seizure using a drone
“Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act”

Excerpts:

(3) PROHIBITED USE OF DRONES

(a) A law enforcement agency may not use a drone to gather evidence or other information.

(b) A person, a state agency, or a political subdivision… may not use a drone equipped with an imaging device to record an image of privately owned real property or of the owner, tenant, occupant, invitee, or licensee of such property with the intent to conduct surveillance on the individual or property captured in the image in violation of such person’s reasonable expectation of privacy without his or her written consent. For purposes of this section, a person is presumed to have a reasonable expectation of privacy on his or her privately owned real property if he or she is not observable by persons located at ground level in a place where they have a legal right to be, regardless of whether he or she is observable from the air with the use of a drone.

(4) EXCEPTIONS

This section does not prohibit the use of a drone:

(a) To counter a high risk of a terrorist attack by a specific individual or organization if the United States Secretary of Homeland Security determines that credible intelligence indicates that there is such a risk.

(b) If the law enforcement agency first obtains a search warrant signed by a judge authorizing the use of a drone.

(c) If the law enforcement agency possesses reasonable suspicion that, under particular circumstances, swift action is needed to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect or the destruction of evidence, or to achieve purposes including, but not limited to, facilitating the search for a missing person….

“Surveillance” means:

With respect to an owner, tenant, occupant, invitee, or licensee of privately owned real property, the observation of such persons with sufficient visual clarity to be able to obtain information about their identity, habits, conduct, movements, or whereabouts; or

With respect to privately owned real property, the observation of such property’s physical improvements with sufficient visual clarity to be able to determine unique identifying features or its occupancy by one or more persons.

 

[Goin Up]

As a FL resident and hobby pilot, I use the FL Statute, shown above, for anyone that insists that I cannot fly over their property in my FAA established "zone" - 1-400 ft. The key words are "with the intent to conduct surveillance...." . I point out that I am; not conducting survelliance of them or their property, and; within FAA regulated airspace AND above established property and privacy considerations (in my county). In general, privacy and property rights expire 100 feet above the tallest building on the property, unless otherwise established by local/state ordinance/statute. I also offer to let them view my footage, which has always resulted in their realizing the person seen in their back yard cannot be identified, or, in many cases, cannot determine what sex they are.