Reminds me of something from an old Mad Magazine. An old lady calls the police on a man walking around his apartment naked with the windows uncovered. The cop comes and looks out her window and says he doesn't see anything. The old lady says, "of course not, you need these!" and hands him a pair of binoculars.
Applying this to an HOA. Arizona courts have ruled that unless a violation of HOA rules had been reported by a person who can be lawfully present from where the reported violation was observed, the alleged violation cannot be enforced. In other words, the manager can’t open your gate and look into the back yard looking for something. Which makes sense.
@@hautehussey You can legally own and use binoculars too. Spying on people in their private property with them isn't necessarily legal just because owning and general use of them isn't prohibited.
@@5467nick "spying" involves circumventing measures taken for privacy, such as planting hidden cameras. At what magnification does viewing something from a publicly-accessible place become "spying?" Do +3 eyeglasses count?
I used to work as a County Noxious Weed director in Kansas. We were required to do random surveys of 10 sections of ground for Noxious Weeds each year. These were chosen randomly and sent to me each year by the state. There were of course very few people that were happy about this, and since I am huge believer in personal property I tried to only survey from the road and not enter. However there was one piece that was land locked in the middle of a large piece of ground that had no roads. The owner consulted a lawyer and agreed we had the right to do it and so he wouldn’t stop us. I made the decision to just not survey it at all and respect his desire for privacy. I left the county two years ago and have always felt good about my decision. Thanks for all you do to give people a voice, love the channel!
I think the underlying problem is the use by local governments of civil charges as an end run around the constitution. We’ve had a couple of cases in New Mexico that stopped that practice. As Steve have pointed out, the constitution talks about the rights of the citizens, and not about whether or not it’s a civil or criminal case.
@@JP-gi7dw I never understood that concept. The ENTIRE POINT of the Constitution is to Protect "The People" from "The Government". Not "From Criminal Actions". So why does the case being Civil, instead of Criminal, suddenly allow unfair trials, no free lawyers to defend yourself, and the rules and laws to heavily punish the public and favor the government unconstitutionally? Like seriously, I was always taught "If you go to court, if you didn't have a lawyer, one would be appointed to you." It wasn't till I was like 23 I learned Civil and Criminal were different not just in name, but that you don't get a free lawyer, and forced to get one or defend yourself. It blew my fucking mind.
@@tedkaczynskiamericanhero3916 Oh I know. Too bad the Country is full of Cowards. 100 years ago, and the shit going on wouldn't have happened. Biden would have been Executed for Treason publically, and most of these corrupt officials would have been found dead and their homes and assets burned. But we live in a time of weakness, with weak men, that allow corruption to grow and destroy everything.
I bet that if they flew drones over the Michigan State Supreme Court Justices' Houses and took pictures of THEIR backyards, the Justices would change their tune REAL quick!
It will be someone from code enforcement too. They will use the same 'line' as to why they violated the Justice's rights to privacy. Would love to just watch that Justice's facial expressions as the code enforcement person explains away. Definitely record that.
That's the next step. I fly, so I am in an interesting position. The airspace is open to any pilot, but privacy is the most important thing to respect and I take extra steps to show that to people I work with. This move by the state definitely invites drones to strat flying over judges and officials. We want to preserve their obviously bodacious standards and share that with the world.
My State amended the trespass statute to include flying drones over private property below a couple of hundred feet. If flying one over property is trespass, then a warrant would be needed. In addition, the State Supreme Court ruled some while back that even in civil matters enforced by the government, a warrant would be necessary to authorize an intrusion into private affairs of people. A right without a remedy is no right at all.
Personally I think Google Earth is trespassing and it should not be allowed. I have heard that Google Earth is used by California, to look for building code violations such as buildings constructed without a permit. I live in Montana and the county where there are no building codes so it doesn't matter to me.
@@duanejackson6718 Google Earth can't be trespassing as there was no encroachment on the property, as the images are taken from well beyond the property (AKA satellite and/or planes).
@@duanejackson6718 Yes but there they are comparing images taken years apart, and looking for differences that then are investigated, from ground level. Here it was a fishing scheme, targeting all those in an area, or just some civil servant wanting to fix a slight they got from the one party. If this then is allowed all drone operators should fly by the houses and offices of the city councillors, taking video of them through all windows, as this ruling has said that this is legal so long as you are not law enforcement, and you are allowed to do it.
If the constitution restricts the actions of the government, it shouldn't matter whether the government employee in question is a police officer, secretary, janitor or college football coach (or for that matter a private contractor hired by the government), their actions represent the government and thus the restriction of action should apply to them.
In my LEO training, i seem to remember that a plain view search cannot use something like a ladder to gain advantage in seeing over a fence, seems like a drone is far beyond that...
I would think that if you need a drone to see it it falls outside the definition of in plain view. If you’re flying a drone you’re taking and extraordinarily measure to see something that is not in plain view.
I'd have to agree. 4th amendment bar on unreasonable searches and seizures without a warrant/probable cause is not restricted to police, but all government actors. Which would include municipalities, town councils, etc. This is a bar on government action for protection of the people from the government, not just a single arm of the government that comes to mind most common being the police. Funny enough now that I'm thinking about it, even the courts accept this, since there's a legal concept of "Agent of the State", if you're acting as an agent of the state in any capacity, you're bound to the laws and restrictions set forth in the constitution and local state constitution and any local county, city, town, or municipality laws, regulations, or codes that would otherwise restrict state action; which includes police actions but is not limited to police actions.
And when government uses a civil action it's often a back door to criminal charges if the defendant doesn't comply with the Civil judgment, it can become a criminal matter, child support is a good example.
I don't see any sensible argument against that position, but the courts have worked very hard at coming up with "reasons" that our 4th amendment protections are more limited than most people would think is indicated by a simple reading of what it says. That said, from what I've seen SCOTUS has mostly upheld warrantless administrative searches only in relatively limited circumstances where people (including companies) have a reduced expectation of privacy because they're engaged in businesses that are closely regulated. If these people are running a junkyard that is regulated there's a good chance the 4A requirement wouldn't apply, but I gather they're just people who (might) treat their no-commercial property like a garbage dump.
The fourth amendment makes no exclusion for private entities, either. The courts have made that distinction out of deference and probably outright bribery from the wealthy and big corporate. There is absolutely no reason to allow a private entity to search and seize without a warrant in most cases, other than on one's own property against an intruder or a thief. To allow a private detective to enter and search a private citizen's home, land, or person is exactly what our founders intended to bar in the 4A along with the same actions committed by government actors. Otherwise, the wealthy can make themselves into a private government.
As you pointed out, I too, read law plainly. I would hope, that any first law student understands, the PURPOSE of the Constitution is to LIMIT the "government". In my law enforcement training (many years ago) we were instructed just that. The Constitution limits government period. 👍👍 Good job Steve. Bob in Nevada
Yeah, I'm trying really hard to understand how Washington et al would have been like, "Oh King George, your soldiers can't conduct this search, but if you send your court functionary bureaucrats in, that's perfectly fine!" I seem to recall a big fight over tax collectors; pretty sure the folks in government - the ones who would support this local government's argument - would NOT consider them police!
My ex wife was a cop. They do not know much law at all. Their jobs don't require much knowledge of the law, and they aren't all that smart or they wouldn't be cops.
"If there's a rule on the books but no one gets in trouble for breaking it? Why is the rule there?" Steve isn't that a description of the problem of qualified immunity?
Qualified immunity is even better as that’s not even a write law. It was a BS ruling from the Supreme Court which is unconstitutional as the Supreme Court can not write law.
Junk that cannot be seen without entering or overflying the property should be treated the same way as someone getting offended while peeking into our window and seeing us naked.
@@thewhitefalcon8539 Way to twist shit around. Not gonna spend all day looking it up, but the first case that comes up if you search for this, is a guy who stood around nude in front of his window in full public view. When you can easily be seen from public spaces or other people's property, you aren't in "the privacy of your own home" and acting like there's a meaningful difference between whipping your whang out in your front yard and standing around with it out in front of your window, because of a plate of glass is laughable.
How hard would have it been for the township to have gotten a warrant? If there weren't drones, the city would have to get a warrant to go on the property.
Here's a concept: helicopters and planes. They could have seen what they wanted without getting a warrant or using a drone, but they chose to try a sensible and inexpensive approach.
I side with the warrant, but there are probably drones that allow angling the camera which would allow surveillance from just outside the property without a violation of airspace. That would be a whole new can of worms.
@@suedenim9208 the point is even from an airplane of helicopter the evidence should be suppressed without a warrant. It is a literal violation as there was no probable cause to look.
The key word here is Enforcement. Code enforcement are by the nature of their primary function, a policing action. We don't call them "police" only because they are tasked with a narrow section of law, but they are still law enforcement. EVERYONE in the administrative branch is, to one extent or another, part of a policing organization.
If they don't pay the fine and stand their ground, at what point does it escalate to a criminal matter, and would that criminal matter be enforceable if it stems from an unconstitutional action?
Here they attach a lien to the deed of the property, with a 20% interest. Does not take long until they are due enough money to foreclose on the property. They are also selective on who they go after. They target the working poor who they know cannot afford a lawyer, if they could even find one that will take on the county.
Wow. Talk about angels dancing on pinheads, this is CRAZY. Even by California standards, that's an absurd decision. Your indignation is well-placed. Thanks Steve. Hopefully sanity will prevail.
The Constitution doesn’t once mention “Police”; the constitution establishes the powers of government as well as limiting the power of “GOVERNMENT”. If you fail to limit the power of “regulators” they will forever increase their power. Civil v criminal is meaningless when government is bringing the action as there is a penalty that is faced.
absolutely agree. my take is the difference between civil and criminal is mostly "is this from another citizen or from the government" this city wants to say the difference is "could this have jail time?"
It limits the power of the Federal Government. The 10th Amendment acknowledges the expansive police powers of State Government, as has been upheld by the courts innumerable times.
@@barryomahony4983 : The federal constitution may allow the states more powers than the federal government but in no way can rights be restricted by the states beyond constitutional enumerations. The constitution is like minimum code, it is the bare minimum of what must be done. States can however grant more rights than the federal constitution but they cannot restrict things as they’re governed by the constitution.
Thanks for explaining how the exclusionary rule is a direct implication of the Fourth Amendment, although many people might consider it "Judicial Activism". There is no right without a remedy is a fundamental principle of law. And since the exclusionary rule applies only in a criminal situations, the Supreme Court created the "Bivens Action" for civil cases where the Fourth Amendment has been violated but no criminal charges were filed. This latter is also based on the principle that there is no right without a remedy.
It’s mind boggling to me that any government, run and mandated in authority through law, can enact a civil suit. Private individuals suing each other in civil court is one thing but to have a govt entity do that? I balk at the notion. Virtually unlimited resources payed by the taxpayer (to include the defendant). What I’m getting here is basically if the govt can’t get its way through law it’ll do it in civil court instead as if it’s a private citizen. Shameful.
There are plenty of things which warrant legal action, but don't deserve criminal prosecution. I don't think we want to tell the government they're only allowed to use the biggest hammer to react to everything.
When it comes to government power being used against the people there should be no distinction between criminal and civil when it comes to gathering evidence and other intrusions. According to the current logic, as long as something is labeled as being a civil action, government is not barred from compelling you to be a witness against yourself and they can torture you.
At one time in Fairgrove Michigan the council had local police enter back yards to check for expired plates on parked cars after midnight!!!!! Today that would be insanely dangerous! I hate zoning!!!
Shouldn't the original agreement to clear the property have included an inspection agreement and stipulated how and when the inspection would take place?
If it had, then this case would have been thrown out on day 1, as it would no longer have been deemed "unreasonable". You know full well from this day on, that any agreement they enter into regarding zoning complaints will include a search allowance.
The town I lived in in the mid 90's passed a "junk" ordinance. I had a 59 Cadillac that I was restoring behind a privacy fence and a evergreen hedge, could not be seen from the street. One day soon after the ordinance went into effect I noticed a bright orange sticker on the windshield, it was a violation notice. There was a address to send a request for hearing application too. At the hearing I asked the employee of the city how they saw the car. He freely admitted that he came into the property and opened the gate in the fence, checking for violations. When the official hearing the case (not a judge) heard that he dismissed the violation and read the poor guy the riot act and asked him on the record how many citations he had given out doing the same thing. It was in the hundreds. When asked why he thought that was allowed he said "my supervisor said to do it." The official then told me I could go if I wanted but he was getting the guys boss in immediately and if I wanted to stay I could, so I did. It wasn't 15 minutes later that I watched the supervisor get torn a new one. Ended up that the city had to recind all of the citations that they had given out up to that point since they had no idea which ones were or were not good.
A few issues here, now cops can use this method to gather evidence to get a warrant! Also, if a couple set up a privacy fence so they could set up a hot tub and skinny dip into it. Now you have a HUGE privacy issue because you are taking naked pictures of people who believed they have privacy because they took every precaution to ensure they were given privacy. It is no different then a peeping Tom looking into a woman's bathroom window to catch her getting dressed!
City should not have access to Willy -Nilly as they see fit ! It's outside the city limits so why are they worried about it? Because they can't tax them as that wish ?
Without the exclusionary rule for civil cases the police might just get municipalities to investigate a code violation for them and sneak it through as part of a criminal case.
This reminds me of the Idaho Township using Google Satellite images to create building code violations over property improvements or modifications that couldn't possibly be seen or discovered any other way.
Steve, thoughts of an old retired cop. The The 4th amendment of the US Constitution, simply stated, was written to protect "We the People" from the government. Any part of the government. Code inforcerment officers are a part of the government, same as the police. Therefore they are restricted from violating the right of the people to be secure in their person, places and things. It has already been determined that the police, a government agency, using a drone to search is a violation of the 4th amendment if done so without a warrant. Just my thoughts on the U S Constituition. I do not know the Michigan Constitution. I greatly enjoy your channel... Wish I could sit with you , with a cup of coffee and talk...
So if they just climbed over the fence and walked around taking pictures would those pictures still be allowed? Break into your house and whatever evidence they come up with has to be allowed because it's civil LAW rather than criminal LAW? If they found illegal activity while investigating the civil violations by climbing over the fence could the pictures be allowed to justify a warrant for criminal investigation?
Most of the public would likely consider the constitution written for the people, not police, FBI, CIA or local Government. It applies to all. Why this matter is in front of the Supreme Court is telling me someone with the city has an axe to grind with this property owner. If the case was being financed personally by the city attorney and manager, I doubt very much the matter would still be alive. this is another example of how the bullies in city Government will pursue things no matter how trivial when its not their money they are spending. This is how the legal system continues to be unjust to the public due to the cost of getting justice.
I have never understood the massive distinction between jail time and fines. Both result in loss of freedom. If I have to work to earn the money to pay off a fine, I most likely have lost my freedom to do what I want to do during the time it takes to do the work to pay off that fine.
That's why there's very little distinction between criminal and civil actions brought by the government. Suppose the government decides that illegal drugs are a civil violation instead of a criminal violation? Does any reasonable person think they can patrol the highways with drug code enforcement officers that can stop you and search your car with out probable cause as long as there's no possibility of going to jail?
107 pilot here so take my answer in stride. They will claim it was used as a public safety action (a designation for search and rescue operations). The question should be if the drone itself complied with the Remote ID requirement. Illegal equipment = illegal search.
My take is that the actual question should be the applicability of any government employees actions that intersect with a private citizens enumerated rights. The prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures is applicable to ALL governments within the jurisdiction of the United States
Q: if the township used a drone launched outside the homeowners' property and flew straight up, from either a public place or an authorized parcel (permission granted), isn't that an example of legal photography? Q: if they flew the drone over the homeowners' property without permission, isn't that criminal trespass? Seems to me, a countersuit alleging criminal trespass might have legs, regardless of whether the photographs are admitted or not in the township's lawsuit. Interesting case!
There are some vantage points that people normally don't expect others to have. An eight foot privacy fence is normally adequate to shield people swimming in an in ground pool or sunbathing in the back yard from a ground level neighbor's view. Frosting the lower half of a bathroom window would usually be adequate shielding from the view of someone on the same level across the back yard or walking along a public sidewalk. Aviation wouldn't be feasible if property rights extended into, or even TO space. At some point there needs to be an upper boundary. Many countries have a range of altitudes where aircraft can fly wherever and whenever their pilots desire with the exception of military reserves and the vicinity of busy airports. Minimum altitudes are specified to keep planes clear of things like trees, high voltage power lines all but exceptionally tall buildings. Most dones are required to remain below the minimum altitude for other aircraft to prevent collisions.
There are multiple ways the evidence could have been gathered without a warrant, because the only places people can't legally go is some poorly defined low altitudes above the ground the people own. Because there aren't any well established laws or court rulings about exactly how much airspace you own I don't see a valid argument for trespassing or the search being illegal.
@@suedenim9208 I wouldn't call the broadly-defined status quo rigorous. But I think the courts are pretty comfortable deferring to the FAA. If it's air space the FAA controls and regulates, then it doesn't belong to the property owner. So a drone that pops up 20 feet and has a look around, from airspace the FAA isn't interested in, over property where the drone operator and his flying thingee have a right to be, can probably take videos and photos all day long. Unless there are local ordinances adding restrictions. Which local governments can be expected to be within their rights to create. After all, flying thingees landing on people's heads might be considered a nuisance. Which means, what's permitted probably varies. A lot. Depending on where you are. Which doesn't answer the question posed in this case: if a law or ordinance was broken to obtain evidence, can it be excluded from a civil case? That's why we pay justices the big bucks: to decide questions like that one.
@@robertvirginiabeach I don't think airspace controlled and regulated by the FAA comes into it if we're talking about a drone flying up 20 feet from a property where drone and operator are permitted to be. The expectation of privacy is a slippery concept. A middle-aged Karen walks by a house and glances in the window, sees an adult man standing inside, naked, curtains open, grinning at her. Whose rights were violated? Answer: neither. A girl props binoculars on her second floor bedroom window sill to spy on a fenced backyard next door, where two boys are playing catch with a football. The boys can't be seen from ground level, but they are in sight from her vantage. Whose rights were violated? Answer: neither. The boys are nudists! Does that change anything? The girl snaps photographs. Does that change anything? I think, as a general rule, if you have the uncontested right to be where you are, it's legal to use your eyeballs, no restrictions. But there are a whale of a lot of laws and ordinances on the books. Your mileage may vary. And you might want to be wary of child pornography violations. (I deliberately didn't mention how old the hypothetical boys were.) Expectation of privacy probably isn't a magic wand you can wave to win every case everywhere. And I would not be surprised if the various courts deliver conflicting rulings. Slippery! There seem to be a lot of folks who think they can't be photographed in public without their consent. Including some police officers, as it happens. That's usually wrong. Maybe always wrong, at least in the US. It gets a little messier when eyeballs are located where they are permitted to be, and what they see is on private property. But I think, in most instances and most jurisdictions, the expectation of privacy varies considerably between inside a residence with blinds drawn, and in a yard which can be viewed from a legally-permitted vantage. That's my opinion, but I'm not issuing it from a bench, and I don't own a gavel.
I'm a helicopter pilot. The Civil Aviation Authority, a precursor to the FAA, established the original rule for airspace such that you must fly aircraft at a minimum altitude of 42' above ground level. Why? Because at THAT time, 42' was the minimum altitude determined by the CAA that would not disturb chickens on farms. Yes, chickens. Technically, that 42' height has not changed, which means you DO own the airspace from the ground to 42' above ground level. Above 42' that airspace belongs to the people, and the government manages that airspace for safety. Modern FAA regulations require you to maintain a "safe altitude above the ground," which is usually dictated by the type of aircraft, speed, balance and weight... for helicopters that's usually a minimum of 600' above ground, but it depends. Now, if you are flying a drone for recreation purposes, you do NOT need a license (depends on how close you are to an airport). If you are a government agency or flying a drone to make money (i.e., taking pictures for real-estate websites), you need a license under PART107 (available to anyone 16 years old if you pass the exams). Most fire departments use drones as part of their emergency response. In my opinion, you have NO right to privacy from the air based on historical precedence. In fact, ask your local tax assessor what tools they use to determine the value of property when it is fenced and not visible from the road. Many tax assessor offices use Google earth or fixed-wing aircraft GIS (Geographic Information System) surveys to determine if someone has increased the value of their property by adding a pool or other improvement, which is legal. If your city has a GIS map, guess what? You've been spied on from the air! Deal with it. Many cities pay fixed-wing pilots to take specialized GIS photos from the air to map boundaries, water erosion, changes in vegetation, development projects, streets, pollution, etc. Check your city's website. They usually make portions of that data available to the public. You aren't going to restrict satellites. You aren't going to restrict fixed-wing aircraft photography. You aren't going to restrict UAS (unmanned aerial system) photography. In 1990 Horton vs California, 496 U.S. 128, the Supreme Court held that the seizure of evidence in plain view does not constitute the invasion of privacy that the Fourth Amendment is meant to prohibit. I bet your state will decide something similar. By the way, I like this channel.
a friend of mine has a pool in back yard, he also two sets of twin girls 14/16 years old. at times a drone would hover over pool when the girls are swimming or sun bathing. the dad was afraid to shoot it down worrying the FAA could come after him. dad called me and was telling me about drone, i asked the dad to come over and bring his visa card. i found dad a powerful drone jammer that dropped the drone into the pool. PROBLEM SOLVED!!!
If a warrant was given for a reason that was not substantiated as probable cause, and the warrant was served, can the issuance of the warrant be contested in court? I once had a warrant where probable cause included, "because the owners would not agree to consent to the search". I don't think that is cause....but a Magistrate signed it.
Steve, I love your show and the issues that you present. Were I in this fight here's what I'd present and where I'd go: 1) The municipality is an arm of a government. 2) The 4th amendment protects (as you said) the PEOPLE to be secure in what I call the 4P's: Person, Property, Papers & Possessions. The rights in the Bill of Rights are INALIENABLE, and thus cannot be 'excluded' for ANY reason. 3) A drone overflight below 300 ft constitutes a form of Trespass in the same context as a person crossing over a property without actually touching the property (re: corner crossing). Therefore, as a member of a government, a drone overflight to effectively Search a property by anyone involved constitutes a criminal trespass and, as such, I would file criminal trespassing charges against the municipality and all the individuals involved in that action. Secondly, I would argue that NO EXEMPTIONS to the law are allowed when it comes ANY of the rights in the Bill of Rights as they are Inalienable, meaning they cannot be voided. These rights are meant to limit government from acting in a form of tyranny against the freedom, privacy and security of the people and, as such, cannot be blithely excluded at ANY level of government. I consider the argument that, as these folks are not police, they get a free pass to violate civil rights, especially in a civil action as mendacious. If that isn't sufficient, their ignorance of the law is not a defense in any state or at the federal level, so that argument is fallacious and moot. This would mean, in effect, regardless of prior case law or precedent, that the municipality violated their rights, regardless of the reason or nature of the conduct of the illegal search via drone. Again, love your show. I hope the IFJ manages to clobber the local municipality and protect the rights and security of the individuals who were wronged. Christopher
That's interesting that if you're a normal citizen that doesn't understand the law like lawyers and police, "ignorance of the law is no excuse" and they're punished anyways. But when it's a municipal employee that doesn't understand the law like lawyers and police we just allow ignorance of the law to be an excuse and just let it slide?
That's the entire concept of "Qualified immunity" For the police. "Well, the Officer didn't know that would break the law! So he gets Qualified immunity!" Can understand how stupid, ignorant, and hypocritical "Qualified immunity" is, huh?
@@Jirodyne Except it's worse than that. There are cases where officers intentionally violate the law knowing they can claim "Qualified immunity" later.
@Nickle : Just be careful to keep your "drone" at 400 feet AGL, oh, and check with the FAA before you overfly anybody's private property that they've designated a "no fly zone", you COULD be charged with trespassing, AND violation of FAA regulations! 🙂
I would love to hear your take on the original agreement about the conditions of the property. I wonder if it has an inspection clause that that is not mentioned in the news article's. If the city has an infection clause and the fence is stopping that and the owner is preventing the inspection a drone is permissible without a warrant. If there is no inspection clause then a warrant is required. It all goes back to the first agreement. Agree with your take oon the facts as posted.
"Our freedom's were not taken in a flood of new laws. It was like the drip, drip, drip from a slow leaking faucet". Quote from a survivor of Nazi Germany 1947.
It seems to me the 4th should stand against any part of government trying to penalise people for money or “power “ which in effect is exactly what the police do.
A government must have a warrant, an HOA doesn't need one. A Township is Government. The photos are inadmissible AND the Township is in violation and subject to punitive damages.
So if the Michigan Supreme Court allows municipalities to overfly private property for the purpose of assessing fines without a warrant when the same type of police operation would require that warrant, how long would it take for the police to start using code compliance officers to gather information for police investigations without a warrant? And would the courts allow that to happen?
remember property rights? This cities and townships gone way too far w code enforcement. I cannot even use my carport for anything besides a licensed/registered car
Logically, if the zoning search were found legal, could evidence found during a drone search be turned over to the police for criminal investigation because the information was legally obtained and not poisoned fruit?
I agree that the 4th Amendment should apply to any and all government actions, including those carried out by private actors on behalf of the government. The part that I can't believe it's that this 10-year abatement agreement did not provide for inspection to ensure compliance. A simple clause to this effect might be, "Parties agree that the Township, or its designee(s), may inspect the property at any time without prior notice or consent." Yes, the 4A matter is much more important generally, but if such a provision exists, then the 4A issue with respect to this one case is obviated. Hopefully, they stick to the 4A case and get a good result. Then get a warrant and get these people to clean up their property.
Ten years ago, when I needed to study for my naturalization exam, one of the crucial topics was the Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights. The Constitution consists of seven primary articles that explain how the government should function and list the duties and rights of each governmental body. On the other hand, the Bill of Rights states what the government is not allowed to do. Whether it's a criminal or civil court (although I'm not entirely sure why the government can bring a case to a CIVIL court), the rights protected by the Bill of Rights should apply in every court against any governmental entity. This means that if you can be are fined or jailed, the Bill of Rights should protect your rights, regardless of the governmental body involved. Unfortunately, the Bill of Rights did not cover private entities that essentially function like a government, such as HOAs. But that's a separate topic...
Thank you again Steve for bringing these actions to light. Who would've thunk it could happen? I'm thinking that if those people own that property, its NOT city property. Or are we to believe that no one can fully own any property unless co operated with the city. If the "junk" in behind their house wasn't visible to busy bodies spying on others activities, then putting a camera over that property seems like intrusion on the home/property owners privacy rights and protection from unreasonable illegal searches resulting in prosecution.
"Hey, we just flew a microphone and camera up to your window, hope you don't mind since we aren't going to press criminal charges, just post the video on the internet."
No expectation of privacy is easier to prove when the drone is directly above the public right of way. Flying above the property is more like peeping into a window.
@@suedenim9208 : "Unreasonable" search is really not difficult to understand. Does the government agent have a warrant? Does the government agent have a reasonable, articulable suspicion that you have "violated the law"? A "yes", or a "no" answered to either of those questions gives you the answer to whether the search is "reasonable". 🙂
Several aspects of this .... 1. The owners of the property had already entered into an agreement - to not violate zoning (junk) on their property. As such, they have (may have) voluntarily entered into an agreement to have limited enforcement of that agreement. 2. I have ... neighbor issues, they want me to repair their fence, and I don't want to. They now call the city on a regular basis; and the city finds something on my property; and cites me for it. As such, the city zoning people are not only police, they are also judge, jury and executioner. DANG STRATE they should be held to the same standard as police. If I don't pay the find by the city - vs not paying a fine for a criminal citation - what is going to happen? My neighbor also is not held to the same standard that I am (what you said about arbitrary standards); in (one of) my citations, they noted the similarity between my "junk" and their "junk"; however - they offered an excuse for the neighbors junk ... in my citation! I also read the standards for having a shed (almost none). I build a shed - and placed everything in it. The zoning person didn't 'like' the shed; and (knowing the end outcome) asked if I were to place walls on it; what "gap" could I have between the boards. Two inches? One inch? One half inch? (Keeping in mind... there is no standard); and he said he would allow one half inch. I then informed him that I would keep the shed to city standards -- and not alter it and that his 'decision' was arbitrary and capricious. Other quick points: They tried to fine me when I had an active / open building permit for stacked construction materials; they are not allowed to trespass - and in one instance they had to come onto my property to see the "offending" item (I dropped it and forgot to pick it up); they can't tell the difference between a fence and a spool of wire. Oh, and none of my 'complaints' on my neighbors property are investigated - even though they are the same 'issue' as mine.
Sounds like you live in Mesa County Colorado. I have the same issues here, they even violate state laws, and the local judges do not care. I gave them a list of almost 100 property's within 1 mile that have the same issues. The media gets us so bound up over the national elections, but it is the local ones that affect us the most. Yet we cannot find much on those running to make a good choice.
You are 100% correct. Just like in the Bruen decision, when dealing with any constitutional provisions, the text and history should be applied. A plain reading should suffice, but as you said, it sounds like the court is overthinking the issue. As in Bruen, and other 2A cases lately, there are courts and prosecutors that still argue against recent supreme court decisions because they want more control and don't care for the Constitution. Courts will continue to construe this until it's challenged appropriately.
We live in Texas. My husband says in Texas, First, You have to have an FAA license in order to fly a drone. 2nd. It's not legal to fly a drone over homes or airports.I hope that helps this case.
Anytime a government entity decides to sue a citizen, the suit should require a sponsor who has to sign it and be held personally responsible. That person should be open to countersuit and also be held liable for how evidence is collected.
I remember the first time I saw the Michigan hand thing. I was in the Marine Corps and we got a new guy. SSgt asked where he was from, guy said Michigan, SSgt asked what part. Man answered and SSgt shook his head, held up his hand and asked again. Man said he was from the upper peninsula. That was also the first time I'd heard someone called "One of them dirty Yoopers". SSgt wasn't even from Michigan, just had enough friends from there to know Edit: Note that I personally have no particular feelings towards people from anywhere in Michigan, as a Floridian it's not my place to judge.
Yoopers are generally quite awesome (as with any group, there will be exceptions). Overall they are friendly, helpful, even-tempered, brilliantly resourceful, full of dry humor, a real "live and let live" attitude. Even if they have personal prejudices, they won't hassle you they'll just steer clear of you and mind their own business. The only people that would dislike Yoopers are judgmental people who are full of themselves.
@@sparkyUSA1976 That's generally true for small towns anywhere, but as you point out there will be variations of it depending on how easy it is to "spot" an outsider. Outsiders are pretty easy to spot in the U.P. due to the lack of a "yooper" accent. To be fair, they have reason not to trust outsiders beyond tourists - a lot of government or corporate "outsiders" do their best to take advantage of both the local people and the local resources. Basically, until they get to know you personally that they can trust you they'll be suspicious so generally will avoid you. This means you may not get hired or you may find services are "all booked" and unavailable for you to schedule but oddly suddenly available for locals. Tourists are generally treated well, though - it's a tourist economy, they want you to bring your money, leave it with them and then go home.
I guess my question is how many photos were taken of other peoples private property that because no infractions were seen and no charges were brought fourth, these people don't know they have been spied on and photos exist of their private property.
@@darksu6947 Yes they do, but in most cases it is limited in resolution to around 2-5m, though the one office I worked in had it at 1cm resolution, for some reason. However for a municipality to use those images, in any way related to city or town functions, they are required to buy a licence to do so, which gives them very limited rights. Now, if the defence went to Google, and asked if anybody in the city management, either at home or at work (so all map lookups with geolocation in the IP allocation of the town, or any Google account that does get used in the district even if via a VPN), had looked at the area in question within a certain distance of the house, at any resolution, in the weeks prior to this, then they could allow Google to join in to a copyright violation against them, and they would have the entire Alphabet legal team assisting in the case, and the ensuing massive copyright claim against the town. The google maps are limited in resolution, unless the city or township has paid to use them, then they get the latest maps, and previous ones, at full resolution when acquired. Same for street view, you can get rights to use it for commercial use, which is defined as either being used to generate money, or work that is going to result in the payment of any consideration.
Mr. Leto would you please help us understand what HR 3684 is going to do to the auto industry? Mandated cameras and alcohol monitoring systems in new vehicles? And it’s already been passed through Congress! Please set the record straight thank you so much
I find it somewhat ironic that "ignorance of the law is no excuse" applies to citizens, but not civil government officials.. another case of a two class justice system
You mentioned that the Institute for Justice had filed an amicus brief...are docs like that publicly available before the ruling is handed down? Would be interesting to see what they wrote.
I 100% agree with you on the 4A argument. The 4th is against ANY arm of government whether federal, state, or local and matters not if it's for criminal or civil matters.
I see why this is important to officials and probaly law enforcement as well. Not enough eveidence for the police to get a warrant, so have the code enforcement officer do it and then review the footage. Whenever the government agencies are that ivested in a case and willing to shell out lage sums, look for the ultier motive. By the way I hope the Michigan wildfire near Grayling gets under control. It is a terrible thing for the people in the areas.
They should file a criminal complaint against the city's staff for Criminal Trespass, 18US242 Deprivation of Rights under the Color of Law (4th Amendment), 18US241 Conspiracy against Rights and Violation of Oath of Office.
Being a certified 107 drone pilot and do a lot of construction progression photo/video some of the laws being proposed bothers me. I agree about a certain amount of expected privacy, but what about police or news helicopters that have way better resolution than any consumer drone. What about the resolution of the satellites used for imaging these days? For $20 you can get a hi-res photo of any city block and see enough detail to see what kind of "flowers" someone is growing in their back yard. As I said, there need to be some privacy expectations, but there needs to be some balance, common sense and equity (between full scale aircraft and commercial drones) as well. Good channel BTW - thanks!
Here is a key point for your consideration, if they or you used a high-resolution high-flying drone, they would be able to see onto any properties they want to without ever leaving their own yard so to speak.
The fact that advanced technology has to be used to assist humans in their investigation should itself be proof that it's an "unreasonable search". Imagine we invent a product that has "X-Ray vision" that can easily see through any barrier just by dialing in the distance you want to view. Do you think it's reasonable that an official can just drive around on public roads looking through people's walls to see if there are drugs sitting openly on a kitchen table?
Without special permission from the FAA, drones are limited to 400 feet above ground level and operate within visual line of sight of the operator. There is no exception for civil authorities or commercial use.
You generally own the airspace 400' above your property. This can change depending on your state, proximity to airport etc, but generally the FAA regulates 400' above ground level to be your property. It is also illegal to fly "drones" above 400'. So if the municipality flew below 400', they were trespassing, and if they flew above, they were in violation of FAA regulation. This is why aerial photography for zone enforcement and building permit violations, which is very common in some counties, is done with a light aircraft or helicopter to avoid trespassing. Alternatively, the city could've ordered same day satellite imagery and avoided all this mess.
Sounds like a terrible ruling. If violation of constitutional rights doesn't exclude evidence in a CIVIL matter, you just do the following: 1) Get whatever evidence you need, regardless of violations of defendant's rights. 2) Go after them civilly with all this ill-gotten evidence, rather than criminally. 3) Win handily as a result, resulting in an unmanageable penalty. (Remembering they can always change the laws to make anything they want a civilly actionable matter, and set the penalty to whatever they want, or often it's already such a wide range the judge could already just decide to make it unmanageable.) 4) Throw them in jail based on non-payment of judgement.
@@davidh9638 That's their point. Probable cause is a relatively low standard. The township knew they couldn't even negotiate that minimal hurdle, so they just sidestepped it.