> But, as we pointed out in our brief, drones are fundamentally different from helicopters or airplanes. Drones can silently and unobtrusively gather an immense amount of data at only a tiny fraction of the cost of traditional aircraft. In other words, the government can buy thousands of drones for the price of one helicopter and its hired pilot. Drones are also smaller and easier to operate. They can fly at much lower altitudes, and they can get into spaces—such as under eaves or between buildings—that planes and helicopters can never enter. And the noise created by manned airplanes and helicopters functions as notice to those who are being watched—it’s unlikely you’ll miss a helicopter circling overhead when you’re sunbathing in your yard, but you may not notice a drone.
Just bc something is easier and cheaper to use, it doesn't pteclude its use by govt. officials in public spaces. They could have hired a helicopter instead, and then the eff wouldn't have an argument. The motivations behind the action needs to be addressed, not the tools used to carry out the actions. However, without the privacy angle this wouldn't be an eff case.
Were the drone oeprators even allowed to use the airspace at the altitude they did? Any illegally acquired evidence can't be used by them. I have no specifics of this situation so I can't say.