Town Repeatedly Surveilled Man's Yard with Drone Without a Warrant
404media.co
404media.co
I understand it if someone is doing it in view of other people, causing an eyesore, but if you have to go to such lengths to see what they're doing, then whom exactly are they harming with what they're doing on their own property?
In a city I can't even leave a garbage bin in front of my garage. Rural, I could burn it in my front yard
Big country is big, isn't homogeneous.
The county government does little and our property taxes reflect that.
I can and have burned very large piles in my yard, but we're not savages. I have to notify the local volunteer fire department first, or they're libel to show up, and not happily.
In the history of the world, there has never been a law enforcement institution that enforced the rules equally to itself. The same is true of every power structure e.g. governance; financial elites; ...
Like New York? The above commenter said law enforcement advised them to get guns which is what I've experienced growing up rural; tyrannical power mongers who are as you said, the sole power, try to take people's guns away.
Dictators don’t strike me as generally inclined to recommend having the capacity for self defense. I think you are just trying to come up with the worst possible interpretation of intention.
https://www.quora.com/Who-originally-said-To-my-friends-ever...
We left because over the last 15 years the decay of uniform public law enforcement has essentially led to "norms" being enforced by the local landowning elites. And they have certain characteristics that make them highly identifiable. IOW, if you look like them, you get all the space you have said you prefer. If not, well, there's not a lot to limit the potential downsides.
This has also led to a large increase in trash behavior out on the public lands. Lots of new wildcat trails/double track for instance. For us it got pretty uncomfortable a few times in the last 5-6 years. We began to post the shotguns in a highly visible place in the camp, or in the truck. That definitely helped.
There's a high fire risk in this area and smoke watchers will report it, and the VFD gets dispatched. They don't respond individually.
Americans also feel more taxed, again, at every level above.
Ironically, I think the more centralised power is, the more uniformly its managed, the more free one feels under it -- since there arent as many competing interests to worry about
Where I'm at, the city doesn't even care if you put up a fence blocking sight triangles at an intersection, much less what you do with your property that they can't see.
The obsession with reminding us how flawed and comedic our checks and balances are, how little accountability there is. how “but at least you can talk about it” will be used to invalidate the issue by people indoctrinated by our compromisestitution
Literally on an article documenting the state being checked. A corollary to those who choose security over freedom deserving neither is those who choose nihilism over truth and activism are choosing a weak form of mental security.
Quite a sweeping generalization considering we're talking about a headline of a single, unusual case.
I don't know how much this applies to that comment, but "the Land of the Free" is actually full of Calvinist predestination.
"A bad thing happened to someone so they must have deserved it. I'll never have a town surveilling my yard from the sky searching for any excuse to fine me."
Where?
The important part about a downward spiral is to not continue it. This is doubly true in a context where the parent post is using questionable rhetorical tricks.
They don't choose to live there, they have to because a lot/almost all of new developments is done under HOA rules and you gotta live somewhere.
Zoning and the use of police powers generally seem to have almost no limits.
Failing to adhere to HOA rules (which may not be readily apparent) results in fines and conflict with a group that's empowered to make decisions about your property. When homeowners have these decisions taken away and are forced to shell out, it becomes a financial and psychological strain that prompts people who would otherwise be enjoying the property to leave (or to not purchase it in the first place).
My neighborhood has an HOA. I'm not allowed to use a grill on my deck. I can't just leave piles of trash in my yard. I can't install a garbage disposal unit in my sink. There are rules and the kind I would have really rolled my eyes at when I was younger.
But these rules, the HOA, they are required by state and federal law: https://www.hopb.co/new-hampshire
Condos are "common interest living spaces", if someone's house caught fire it can spread to the others. If the septic tank gets screwed up we all need to contribute to get that fixed. There are certain liabilities involved here that require some kind of legal entity to adjudicate, this is the role our HOA fills.
While I don't have the numbers, I speculate that the majority of HOAs in the United States were likely created for similar reasons. Fundamentally an HOA is kind of like the residential version of a workers cooperative, they enable high density housing where everyone gets to have equity. Living under an HOA will always be better than living under a landlord, yet I feel few make this connection, especially when considering who is more likely to discriminate.
It’s almost always just related to standards of appearance. Landscaping, building modifications, having junk laying around, etc.
Let me tell you about mine. Apart from snow removal and mowing the common lands, we handle curbside trash collection, repairs to water mains, flushing hydrants, maintaining streetlights (and paying for the electricity to light them), capital projects to manage stormwater, paving, sewer maintenance, installing fiber, forest management, etc. We also negotiate group rates for utilities like gas and electricity. A recent major project is replacing the pumps in our sewer lift station to the tune of $17k (an expense we budgeted for, thankfully). So yeah, apart from things like education and emergency services, we are basically a 19 house municipality.
But garbage pickup was as far as I know managed by the county.
My HOA does. It mows lawns and removes snow. That's almost it: the rules are largely about not storing explosives in your house, which is apparently a thing in Wyoming.
With many people who push the boundaries, one thing often leads to another, which leads to more costly measures of getting violators back into compliance.
Yes, often the first violation doesn't seem too big, but those violations are often indications of more to come.
HOA mentality is cult like or a mini police state and the comment here is a perfect example of that. Nothing happening in that HOA is that important, and ultimately does not matter. In other parts of the world people are dying of hunger and being slaughtered, in America there are tent cities, and people in HOA are so isolated and safe that they take to freaking out about Betty 2 streets down not getting approval before putting a sign in her front yard. Spend your lives worried about more important shit, both HOA and zoning (who will roll up on properties snapping pictures too), because the things you are losing your minds over are things that do not matter. At all.
It seems like you folks have never read zoning bylaws which a municipalities use to say what can and can't be done in certain areas. Believe it or not, city planning is incredibly important to ensure that a town can efficiently tax its inhabitants to fund the services that have become an expectation of normal life.
If you don't like your zoning laws, you should get involved in local politics and try to change the things you don't like.
In fact Long Lake Township has a 238 page document that lays this out.
https://longlaketownship.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Zoni...
And your recommending that the solution is to become an expert in a 238 book, which is larger than some of the worlds most infamous novels, then, spend the rest of your life doing the recommended "If you don't like your zoning laws, you should get involved in local politics and try to change the things you don't like." fighting for years to get any attention on your issue, mostly being ignored because they already talk shit about you in the entire zoning department (I used to date a woman who worked zoning and they have nicknames for people, call them trashy, etc), then maybe one day, years down the road, you might get some compromised version of what you wanted, that still doesn't allow you to do as you wish on your property so long as it's legal and out of sight, and you've wasted a bunch of your life's free time, spent most of it frustrated, and ultimately don't get what you want and just say fuck it and go back to doing what you want and saying screw the zoning rules anyway.
The "if you don't like it, get involved and change it from the inside" solution doesn't work well in individual issues (or large issues honestly), and shouldn't be needed in cases like this anyway.
HOA is a whole different ballgame, not the same as zoning.
It’s weird this is a story about the USA and not somewhere I’d expect it more like Russia.
You're saying this on an article documenting how this is likely illegal.
FAA considers anything above "blades of grass" to be subject to under their authority. There's some question about what makes a given airspace "publicly navigable", but it's generally understood (at least by hobby drone operators like myself) that if there's nothing overhead and there are no tall structures close by, the FAA considers that airspace publicly navigable.
On the 400' rule: Outside of specially-granted permission and certain other specific situations (e.g., around tall buildings), the FAA requires all unmanned aerial systems ("drones", although that includes things like RC planes) to operate lower than 400' AGL within Class G airspace. The LAANC system is a somewhat automated way to obtain permissions in some controlled airspace.
More info on UAS airspace use: https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/where_can_i_fly/airs...
Since the surveillance in this case appears to be from publicly navigable airspace (according to the FAA's definition), I would expect established case law discussed in the aerial surveillance doctrine Wikipedia page to allow it, regardless of the use of a drone. The use of a private contractor might be of some interest in the case, but I'd wager it's viewed by the court as irrelevant so long as the pilot was complying with the Part 107 rules.
Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989)
"Because there is reason to believe that there is considerable public use of airspace at altitudes of 400 feet and above, and because respondent introduced no evidence to the contrary before the state courts, it must be concluded that his expectation of privacy here was not reasonable. However, public use of altitudes lower than 400 feet -- particularly public observations from helicopters circling over the curtilage of a home -- may be sufficiently rare that police surveillance from such altitudes would violate reasonable expectations of privacy, despite compliance with FAA regulations."
General property rights are 500 ft in uncongested airspace and 1000 ft in congested areas, but case law is vague.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Causby
In this particular instance, I would be much more interested if the overflight was legal to maintain compliance in response to the original judicial ruling.
They could order 6 inch resolution satellite photos or even better from companies like Maxar and Airbus, too.
Wonder if the township will recoup that $1200?
But it isn't; they're not going after him for having too much junk, they've redefined some of his covered trucks as buildings, presumably because he hadn't violated his agreement.
Is that right?
earsore
I think they are saying there are many more vehicles & the amount of junk is increasing.
https://www.planet.com/pulse/tasking-dashboard-50cm-12x-revi... ("Planet Announces 50 cm SkySat Imagery")
I love how the RGB Bayer (?) grid turns moving cars into tiny rainbows! You can identify the lane directions by which way the colors go.
We are the land of the free, it’s true. Free to do whatever we want inside the invisible box restricting our freedoms that we don’t see around us our entire lives. But go live your life, you’re totally free to do so! Evenings after work, and maybe the weekends! If you make enough to enjoy that limited time off, and aren’t too tired.
/tangent
/rant
It wasn't always the case that land claimed with eminent domain was for public use, either. There's a long history of the government taking people's land, throwing money at them and using it for things not in the best interest of the public.
> The Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) went a step further and affirmed the authority of New London, Connecticut, to take non-blighted private property by eminent domain, and then transfer it for a dollar a year to a private developer solely for the purpose of increasing municipal revenues.
> Eminent domain has been used to acquire land from African-Americans for urban renewal redevelopments[25] and in other cases to dispossess them and remove them from areas where their presence was not desired by white neighbors, e.g. Bruce's Beach subdivision in Los Angeles, California.[26] Seneca Village was an African-American majority settlement in an area of what became New York City's Central Park. South Glencoe was an African-American neighborhood in Glencoe, IL[27] Central Avenue was an African-American neighborhood in Tampa, Florida.
> Eminent domain was used to take property from Japanese-Americans incarcerated by the United States government during World War II. For many, their homes and businesses were then sold while they were incarcerated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain_in_the_United_S...
So, you're right, people are paid when their property is taken without consent, as they should be, but the whole practice is still a shit one to have happen to you. I think my main point, that owning land, the thing America was built on and was preached to me growing up, isn't a thing you are ever guaranteed, even after you purchase the land.
what's the point of owning land if you can't keep your junk on it
Is this something that's common in the USA? That you use the constitution right of the bat instead of federal laws like civil rights act?
And while I'm no lawyer, if I were to armchair; at first the title alone makes it a slam dunk for the house owner.
Unless the defendant can argue either there's a consent clause to surveillance/inspection in the zoning agreement the house owner agreed upon or that drone footage is evidence in plain sight[1].
If a government action is unlawful under the Constitution, there's the case won bing nice and easy.
If it is lawful under the Constitution, then there may be hope still but it gets enormously more complicated. The chance of winning the case and still being held liable for court costs and other fines goes way up. Basically "I fought the law" will cost even if you do win.
So people jump for the big gun first, they've seen it work and its comprehensible. Lawyers like to go for the detail points that make careers out of fence disputes.
In this case, he's already gone through the appeals court, which made a bad decision.
The supreme Court only hears cases on constitutionality.
Is there a reason why they couldn’t just use Satellite data from Google Maps? Or pay for existing commercial satellite images? Can’t believe it’s cheaper to pay for a drone for multiple years to validate the number of cars in his yard.
“significantly increased the scope of the junk cars and other junk material being kept on their property,” as determined by “aerial photographs.”
“scope” reads to me as “amount” (in violation of the agreement).
They mention the trailers being used as storage, and phrases like "significant increase in the amount of junk". Note "junk" as opposed to "vehicles".
The original settlement isn't easy to find, but you can find this document from the township...their answer to the homeowner claiming unreasonable search/seizure: https://www.courts.michigan.gov/49bcc0/siteassets/case-docum...
What does the owner do with waste disposal? Various fluids and solids from the vehicles must be dealt with according to regulations. Are there any? What about leak abatement? Effects on groundwater and waterways? Tires? Other hazardous waste? Air pollution?
The latter is covered by airspace rights: 49 USC 40103, and US v. Causby.
<https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/40103>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Causby>
Those might be limited by harassment or stalking principles.
It’s difficult to assert that you intended for parts of your property that can easily be observed from the air to be private. It’s not like they used a drone to peer through his window and see the contents of his safe or something.
> the FAA ... confirmed that shooting down a drone is a federal crime and cited 18 USC 32. That statute makes it a felony to damage or destroy an aircraft.
Advocating for breaking the law is also, generally speaking, kosher.
At least people in Canada have to register it with Nav Canada for any drone flight over 250g but still it would be nice to know people can't fly in the airspace above my yard an spy on me.
Although I was thinking of a shotgun not a rifle, I'm not sure who could hit a done with a rifle. I think a half blind grandmother could hit a drone with a shotgun with a full choke that would be a 1m diameter spread of ~10mm 000 shot at 40m away.
Anyways, the common understanding among lawmakers and armed forces in early 10s was that land owners do not own the airspace above their land. Now this is more clearly enshrined in laws in many different countries.
It is often either:
1. You don't own the airspace above the tallest construction on your land.
2. You don't own the airspace above a certain altitude above your land (often 50 meters or less in Europe).
3. You don't own the airspace above a "reasonable" height. This is more common in common law countries like the US or the UK. It usually involves owning the airspace above your land that is necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of the land, and the structures on it. You don't own high altitude space, you do own the land, and everything else depends on the courts either case-by-case or based on precedent.
4. You don't own any airspace above your land, but navigational easement and zoning laws prevent any aircraft including drones flying at low altitudes above your land.
The drone in the article was a purpose-built commercial surveillance UAV that almost certainly flew outside the airspace this man could have owned, even if it was in a case law country. It would have been quite criminal to shoot it down.
The consumer drones, you can probably take down in most of the world if they fly close to your structures and not too high above your land. Though still, it makes a lot of sense to check the laws before doing so. If the privacy invasion with a drone is repeated, that means you have enough time to look it up.
Lots of people act irrationally and shoot down or take down other people's drones with cameras believing they have the right. But from a legal perspective, they are shooting down an aircraft, which is not usually a very wishy-washy thing in laws. Especially in civil law.
So when I say you can PROBABLY do so in some situations, what I mean is it's not very likely you will go to prison for it. I don't want it to sound like "yeah, just do it lol". Depending on the country, it can still be treated as a serious criminal offense. And if this incident is properly reported to the aviation authority, you will probably have to provide at least a written or in-person statement about what happened. Even if you are totally in the right. So I would say it's still almost never ever worth the hassle.
Another interesting thing to note is that the large commercial surveillance UAVs tend to weigh between 230 and 2500 kilograms, or 500 to 5000 pounds. When you see such an aircraft at an altitude of 500 meters or more, it doesn't look that different from a manned glider or a helicopter. The drones don't all look like GA Predator drones in movies. And if it's a small drone (around 2.5 kilograms, just slightly bigger than most consumer ones), then you won't be able to see it or hear it when it's at the altitude from which pictures like the ones in the article would be taken. If you shoot at a large commercial drone you can see at significant altitude, it might not even be unmanned at all. Consider what that means.
Finally, a disabled drone is considered far more dangerous to people on the ground than when it stays in the air. So there are often laws about that. If the UAV falls onto a person, at best it will cause a small injury, at worst it will maim or kill them. Even drones that weigh 2.5 kilograms have propellers that can cut through cheeks, eyeballs, ears, and fingers. It is no joke. This is why there are often such strict laws about UAVs flying above people - not because the sound is annoying or the privacy may be invaded, but because it can fail.
Overall, it's complicated. Appreciate the complexity and don't do anything that would endanger the aircraft, unless in very specific cases where the laws allow it and it can really be done safely.
What they were looking for could probably have been obtained with drone photographs without going over the individual's property which would have probably given the town a stronger argument for being able to say they were "observing from outside the property."
What I'm curious about is what would happen if the property owner hired the company to fly over the city commissioners houses or government buildlings to take pictures.
> We believe the duty enjoined upon the appraiser to value real property from an actual view and inspection of the property carries with it the implied authority for the appraiser to enter upon real property to perform this duty, without such action constituting a trespass. However, we also believe that all persons, perhaps especially governmental officers, owe a duty to preserve the public peace. Therefore, it is our opinion that for the limited purpose of appraising a taxpayer's real property and the improvements made thereon, by actual view and inspection, an appraiser may enter upon such property, at a reasonable time, without the prior permission of the taxpayer.
In zero situations. As regulations are written, drones are aircraft navigating through federal airspace in the same way as fixed-wing, helicopters, ultralights, hot air balloons, etc. That airspace extends from your shoelaces to the heavens.
The method of obtaining the photos is not the question here, because the photos were taken from public property (the airspace). It’s the overall strategy of the town basically hiring a private investigator.
I'm not entirely sure that's correct.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights
> Specifically, the Federal Aviation Act provides that: "The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States" and "A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace."[3] The "navigable airspace" in which the public has a right of transit has been defined as "the airspace at or above the minimum altitudes of flight that includes the airspace needed to ensure safety in the takeoff and landing of aircraft."[4]
> The exact altitude(s) at which the airspace over private land can become subject to "substantial impairment" is often debated. Case law in the past has used the height of 500 ft (150 m) in urban or suburban areas,[5] and 360 ft (110 m) above the surface or tallest structure in rural areas[6] as the demarcation of where impairment of property rights can occur.
There’s a list here - look for privacy and you’ll find both laws like California’s (which does class it as trespass) and Florida’s (which refers to it as surveillance):
https://www.findlaw.com/consumer/consumer-transactions/drone...
There is nothing in Title 14 of the CFR preventing you from doing that. It would fall under the same laws (harassment, peeping tom laws, etc.) as you standing on the street 24x7 with a massive telephoto lens pointed towards your neighbors bedroom windows.
They need some kind of probable cause that leads them (and a judge) to believe the landowner might be in violation of the agreement
"We just want to make sure" is not probable cause
If they cannot get a warrant, then they cannot do the search. Done and done.
I'm not sure what are you talking about?
It's kind of the whole point of this escapade. If they had the probable cause to get a warrant they would've just done it and not paid the money for a drone flight.
They believe that because this search did not involve going into his private property behind a locked gate by government agents and instead the evidence was gathered by flying above his property in airspace that he does not control it was not a search that is subject to court review or the need for a warrant under the Fourth Amendment
If they could've gotten a warrant they would've just done that, and because they couldn't they came up with this alternate scheme