Man shoots down a drone flying over his backyard

[TBoneTX 45,267]

Not a lawyer, and don't know about disagreements between private parties, but if the government (e.g., police) were to send a drone in that fashion, there might be a loophole under the concept of "curtilage." The Fourth Amendment is on life support at best.

I wrote the above early in this thread, and we've swung back to it below:

Once drone use becomes popular with domestic government agencies and law enforcement the ACLU will have a field-day filing lawsuits against any agency that attempts to use evidence obtained by drones!

I've done some surfing, which has evoked a headache and a vivid reminder that I Am Not a Lawyer. If any of what follows is germane to the situation, it would be fascinating to hear takes on it from Maven and from lawyers here:

It seems to me that the Fourth Amendment does not protect against searches of objects and places that anyone can see. The point seems to be "police breach of private property."

It appears that the police may trespass onto our land and observe us from an undeveloped or unoccupied portion of the property that lies outside the "curtilage of a dwelling." "Curtilage" appears to mean the area around the home to which one's home life extends. The precise definition of this appears to depend on a property's characteristics and judicial interpretation.

If my increasing headache permits, these cases seem to deal with the above:

Rosencranz v. U.S., 356 F2d 310, 313 (1st Cir. 1966), and

Wattenburg v. U.S., 388 F2d 853, 857-8 (9th Cir. 1968).

For example, an open but fenced-in field with No-Trespassing signs can be subject to criminal trespass but won't offend the Fourth Amendment, which seems to protect merely privacy and not possessory interests. The police can trespass and snoop around this area simply because it's used less than one's porch or back yard.

Plain View: The police can, without a warrant, seize any contraband or criminal evidence that is in "plain view" and to which he has lawful access. It appears that "probable cause" is mandatory.

Aerial Surveillance: It appears that the police can fly over one's back yard (nominally within the "curtilage") and it doesn't qualify as a "search." They can obtain a search warrant if what they see gives them probable cause.

It appears in addition that "minimum altitude" doesn't come into play. A helicopter (or drone?) could hover 100 feet over one's home and take pictures of interior activities with use of a telephoto lens.

Sense-Enhancing Technology: Kyllo v. U.S. (2001) seems to be a ruling that using a thermal-imaging device constituted an unreasonable search, because the device was not in "general public use." I'm nagged by the idea that after a formerly advanced technological device is in general use and its capabilities are known, there is no longer a reasonable expectation of privacy -- so after drones are sold by means of mail-order, they might no longer be prohibited in warrantless searches. Accordingly, I'm not sure whether ACLU-type lawsuits against this behavior would hold up, as Robby999 envisions.

Maven and lawyers, feel most free to correct any misinterpretations in any of the above, and to speculate about future judicial interpretation of whatever the prevailing rulings now are.

[Neonred 3,562]

Nonsense. You don't have any right to disturb the peace of the neighbourhood. The guy who did this isn't a hero, he's an arrogant bonehead

Funny thing is his neighbors are not complaining, only a couple of know it all loud mouths on VJ.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Funny thing is his neighbors are not complaining, only a couple of know it all loud mouths on VJ.

And you know this exactly how exactly? Do you have a window into these people's lives!? Don't be ridiculous.

Why is it so difficult to understand the concept of common courtesy? Unless you were brought up by wolves in the forest - it shouldn't be a profound revelation.

[Neonred 3,562]

And you know this exactly how exactly? Do you have a window into these people's lives!? Don't be ridiculous.

I saw the interview with his neighbors. Or are you asking about the know it all loud mouths on VJ? LOL

Edited August 9, 2015 by Neonred

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I saw the interview with his neighbors. Or are you asking about the know it all loud mouths on VJ? LOL

Translation: Don't respect your neighbours. Do whatever the hell you like, when you like, without any consideration of others.

Beautiful.

[Neonred 3,562]

Translation: Don't respect your neighbours. Do whatever the hell you like, when you like, without any consideration of others.

Beautiful.

#######?

Translation is : the neighbors were just as unhappy about it as he was and were fine with his actions.

Edited August 9, 2015 by Neonred

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Rubbish.

[Darnell 8,478]

I wrote the above early in this thread, and we've swung back to it below:

I've done some surfing, which has evoked a headache and a vivid reminder that I Am Not a Lawyer. If any of what follows is germane to the situation, it would be fascinating to hear takes on it from Maven and from lawyers here:

It seems to me that the Fourth Amendment does not protect against searches of objects and places that anyone can see. The point seems to be "police breach of private property."

It appears that the police may trespass onto our land and observe us from an undeveloped or unoccupied portion of the property that lies outside the "curtilage of a dwelling." "Curtilage" appears to mean the area around the home to which one's home life extends. The precise definition of this appears to depend on a property's characteristics and judicial interpretation.

If my increasing headache permits, these cases seem to deal with the above:

Rosencranz v. U.S., 356 F2d 310, 313 (1st Cir. 1966), and

Wattenburg v. U.S., 388 F2d 853, 857-8 (9th Cir. 1968).

For example, an open but fenced-in field with No-Trespassing signs can be subject to criminal trespass but won't offend the Fourth Amendment, which seems to protect merely privacy and not possessory interests. The police can trespass and snoop around this area simply because it's used less than one's porch or back yard.

Plain View: The police can, without a warrant, seize any contraband or criminal evidence that is in "plain view" and to which he has lawful access. It appears that "probable cause" is mandatory.

Aerial Surveillance: It appears that the police can fly over one's back yard (nominally within the "curtilage") and it doesn't qualify as a "search." They can obtain a search warrant if what they see gives them probable cause.

It appears in addition that "minimum altitude" doesn't come into play. A helicopter (or drone?) could hover 100 feet over one's home and take pictures of interior activities with use of a telephoto lens.

Sense-Enhancing Technology: Kyllo v. U.S. (2001) seems to be a ruling that using a thermal-imaging device constituted an unreasonable search, because the device was not in "general public use." I'm nagged by the idea that after a formerly advanced technological device is in general use and its capabilities are known, there is no longer a reasonable expectation of privacy -- so after drones are sold by means of mail-order, they might no longer be prohibited in warrantless searches. Accordingly, I'm not sure whether ACLU-type lawsuits against this behavior would hold up, as Robby999 envisions.

Maven and lawyers, feel most free to correct any misinterpretations in any of the above, and to speculate about future judicial interpretation of whatever the prevailing rulings now are.

it be great if'n some manufacturers in the USA (and not China) start putting out tenting stuff to offer aerial privacy. Most folk don't wanna be seen naked in the back yard, but it was the point, ages past, to fence in the back yard.

Thermal imagery with the cops drones. OK. anything from 'not a cop org' not ok.

[Ban Hammer 13,333]

A helicopter (or drone?) could hover 100 feet over one's home and take pictures of interior activities with use of a telephoto lens.

the FAA may have an issue about it........

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

So I'll give it a shot (though take what I say with a grain of salt because IANYL and IANAUSL (I am not a US lawyer)) :

It seems to me that the Fourth Amendment does not protect against searches of objects and places that anyone can see. The point seems to be "police breach of private property." If it's in plain view, without use of any enhanced surveillance gear (like telescopes), nope. If I can see it on your property from where I am, it is not protected.

It appears that the police may trespass onto our land and observe us from an undeveloped or unoccupied portion of the property that lies outside the "curtilage of a dwelling." "Curtilage" appears to mean the area around the home to which one's home life extends. The precise definition of this appears to depend on a property's characteristics and judicial interpretation. Correct.

If my increasing headache permits, these cases seem to deal with the above:

Rosencranz v. U.S., 356 F2d 310, 313 (1st Cir. 1966), and

Wattenburg v. U.S., 388 F2d 853, 857-8 (9th Cir. 1968). Correct. See also Care v. United States, 10 Cir., 231 F.2d 22, 25, which talks about how the definition of "curtilage" is a question of fact, not law.

For example, an open but fenced-in field with No-Trespassing signs can be subject to criminal trespass but won't offend the Fourth Amendment, which seems to protect merely privacy and not possessory interests. The police can trespass and snoop around this area simply because it's used less than one's porch or back yard. More or less, yes, if there is probable cause.

Plain View: The police can, without a warrant, seize any contraband or criminal evidence that is in "plain view" and to which he has lawful access. It appears that "probable cause" is mandatory. Yes.

Aerial Surveillance: It appears that the police can fly over one's back yard (nominally within the "curtilage") and it doesn't qualify as a "search." They can obtain a search warrant if what they see gives them probable cause. I believe this is correct.

It appears in addition that "minimum altitude" doesn't come into play. A helicopter (or drone?) could hover 100 feet over one's home and take pictures of interior activities with use of a telephoto lens. Not sure about this one -- the telephoto lens might fall under the enhanced surveillance exception. From my cursory reading in this area just now, it seems to be rather what can be seen by an observer using the naked eye. "[A]n aerial surveillance is not a search for Fourth Amendment purposes if the objects observed are in open view from a legal vantage point." State v. Davis, 2014-NMCA-042, 10 (N.M. Ct. App. 2014) (emphasis added).

Sense-Enhancing Technology: Kyllo v. U.S. (2001) seems to be a ruling that using a thermal-imaging device constituted an unreasonable search, because the device was not in "general public use." I'm nagged by the idea that after a formerly advanced technological device is in general use and its capabilities are known, there is no longer a reasonable expectation of privacy -- so after drones are sold by means of mail-order, they might no longer be prohibited in warrantless searches. I see -- the dissent raised the issue about the nebulous definition of "general public use," which is relevant and worrying. Scalia didn't seem fazed at all by this. At Footnote 5, Justice Stevens envisions evidentiary hearings to determine whether or not a device is in general public use. Accordingly, I'm not sure whether ACLU-type lawsuits against this behavior would hold up, as Robby999 envisions. I guess this is a matter of wait and see. Some states, including New Mexico, have more stringent constitutional protections against this kind of search, so it might come down to the jurisdiction.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

Thinking more about this -- as drones get more accessible, private irritations and invasions by drones are more likely to occur than unlawful (or otherwise...) searches that law enforcement may perform. So while the Fourth Amendment claims are way more sexeh, the reality is likely to be Billy Bob done flew his drone into my garden AGAIN while Tanya was out sunbathing, which of course doesn't concern the Fourth Amendment. It's police blotter stuff at most.

[TBoneTX 45,267]

Gracias for your analysis, Maven. Now that you point it out, it makes sense that jurisdiction might indeed rule, until and unless a case goes Supreme.

I think that the Fourth Amendment in general has been subjected to so much "whittling away" that a couple more adverse Supreme Court rulings will put it on its deathbed. It often seems to be on life support, at best.

[Teddy B 17,252]

Thinking more about this -- as drones get more accessible, private irritations and invasions by drones are more likely to occur than unlawful (or otherwise...) searches that law enforcement may perform. So while the Fourth Amendment claims are way more sexeh, the reality is likely to be Billy Bob done flew his drone into my garden AGAIN while Tanya was out sunbathing, which of course doesn't concern the Fourth Amendment. It's police blotter stuff at most.

We're just beginning to scratch the surface with these drone issues. Mark my words, it will get much worse. The amount of devious things people will come up with to do with these things is endless. I personally do not believe that they should be available to the general public.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

We're just beginning to scratch the surface with these drone issues. Mark my words, it will get much worse. The amount of devious things people will come up with to do with these things is endless. I personally do not believe that they should be available to the general public.

Just look at what cell phone cameras have done for the perverts of the world.

[Teddy B 17,252]

Just look at what cell phone cameras have done for the perverts of the world.

Drones have the potential to be much worse, especially seeing the controller can be hundreds of feet away or more. I see drones being used in all sorts of criminal activity including terrorism.