I wish government employees got prosecuted for breaking the law
@Captainkirk884102 жыл бұрын
They should be! This crap has gotten out of hand..
@SirBrass2 жыл бұрын
There actually are laws that allow for just that. It's just that it's not used.
@dirtystockcardriver2 жыл бұрын
Rules for thee, not for me. I assume your not a dem? Lmo
@davidh96382 жыл бұрын
How is that supposed to happen when prosecutor is a government employee?
@SirBrass2 жыл бұрын
@@davidh9638 when there's a conflict of interest, a special prosecutor is assigned
@RaineStudio2 жыл бұрын
The best analogy here is the use of a telephoto lens to look into a window. If it's not ordinarily visible to the unaided eye from a public place, then it's an invasion. A low-flying drone with a camera gives a view that is unavailable to the naked eye and thus constitutes an intentional search.
@dorbie2 жыл бұрын
In that case what is observed would matter too. They spotted junkers, you don't need a telephoto lens or a low flying drone to spot piles of junk vehicles. If it would have been visible to the naked eye from an aircraft at 1000 ft then being visible to a drone flying at 400 ft only because regulations demand it cannot fly higher is not a helpful distinction. If the drone were used to peer into a window this would be a better analogy.
@valentinius622 жыл бұрын
That's what blinds and curtains are for. We have the responsibility to create and maintain our own privacy. If your windows aren't blocked, then by default you're an exhibitionist. Also, I am at a loss to know how much more can be seen from a nearby public vantage point with a telephoto lense than with the naked eye? If your house is recessed on your own acreage, then a telephoto lense isn't going to be able to see much into that house (if anything) to begin with. It is interesting to see how at least in America, people's attitudes about privacy have changed. Was a time where most people would keep their picture windows wide open. They _wanted_ folks to see inside...their big color TV, nice furniture, lamps... And, Americans wanted others to know what they did for a living, how much they made a year, how successful they were. Now we live like scared moles.
@geoffstrickler2 жыл бұрын
@@dorbie Had they actually done that, they would have had a much stronger case. But they didn’t, they went to court with evidence that may have been obtained illegally. As Steve pointed out, the city failed to include any monitoring/inspection clause in their previous consent agreement with the property owners, which is their own fault. However, this being a civil case, the exclusionary rule might not apply. In civil cases, illegally obtained evidence may sometimes be allowed. However, with one party being a government entity, the courts might rule that evidence was illegally obtained and exclude it. Of course, there are some exceptions to the exclusionary rule such as “inevitable discovery” that might also be applied. Bottom line, it’s an interesting case.
@jeremykothe28472 жыл бұрын
To quote an intelligence officer pre-Iraq-war: "We don't know where the WMDs are, sir, but we do know they're not on the roof".
@danamoore17882 жыл бұрын
@@valentinius62 This comes to some things I have heard in two different directions. Man stands right at his ground floor window facing the street, buck naked. At times that children are going to school. He is/was being public with his nudity. The part I have heard go both ways. Person is in their second floor apartment. The windows do not face a public road or sidewalk. The person in another apartment sees them with a telescope pointed at that window. Is that public indecency? Now to me the first one is the guy was trying to be seen. In the second the viewer is actively trying to see through a window that normally could not be seen through. A drone can use lenses more powerful than the naked eye. The law says below 400ft. So level with the window? The window faces woods or a lake. Who do you expect to be looking in your window? So just saying that is what blinds and curtains are for. Then why have windows if they must be covered to have privacy at all.
@richdiddens40592 жыл бұрын
Back in the late '70s Marin County, Ca. was very aggressive about looking for improvements done without permits to avoid increased property taxes. One homeowner got his annual tax bill with a large increase. He questioned the reason and the county responded it was due to his new pool. "I don't have a pool." "Here's the picture of your back yard with a pool." "Where?" "This blue area." "How'd you get this picture?" "We flew a plane over and photographed the whole neighborhood." "That's not a pool, I painted my patio blue."
@johnallen98192 жыл бұрын
Funny
@HappilyHomicidalHooligan2 жыл бұрын
Then the County uses the neighborhood photo as Probable Cause for a Search Warrant and walks into the back yard and looks at the blue area to see if it's painted concrete or a pool...
@Errr7172 жыл бұрын
LOL True story?
@NunYaO2 жыл бұрын
Did they adjust their assessment -$10 and refer him to the HOA for fines on the unapproved paint color...cause that'd be about par for Marion Co...
@RealPackCat Жыл бұрын
@@NunYaO I had an HOA charge me $300 per month for flowers in the garden. I stopped paying it and gave the home back to the bank. let the bank pay the HOA fees.
@richallen87422 жыл бұрын
I live in rural area, literally my first neighbor is 1 mile away. I own 41.5 acres and in 2000 I built a new home on it. I pulled all the permits for eveything with the township. Submitted my drawings to the township of my new home which included a huge 30x45 deck. At the time of final inspections it was winter and at the end of the year. The tax accessor and building inspector showed up at my door on Dec 29 and wanted to close out my permit before the end of the year. They said as long as I had all my finishes on site they would grant me my certificate of occupancy. All my finishes were on site, carpet, final plumbing, wood flooring, I was actually installing all the wood trim throughout the home when they showed up. I also had all the lumber for my deck in the garage $15,000.00 in cedar. They looked in my garage as part of the final inspection and I told them that was the material was for my deck. So 5 years go by. I get a letter in the mail stating the deck on my home had no permits pulled for it and it needed to be removed. They stated they caught me by comparrison aerial photos of the township. The photos were taken five years apart. Just so happened the photo was taken during the early spring 2001 while the leaves were not on the trees so they could see more detail of eveyone s property. I didn't install my deck until late spring 2001 due to rainy weather and longer nights to work on it. I asked at a township meeting how can they take photos of my private property and then simply send a letter out and make demands without talking to the individuals first. I told them my township approved drawings included a deck on the bck of my home and that I did them a favor by letting them close my permit before the years end and my taxable property with my new home started from that day on Jan 1,2001 that's why the tax accessor was there on Dec 29, 2000. I told them I thought they violated my privacy, acted illegally by showing up at my doorstep to give me a certificate of occupancy so they could collect their taxes from me without living in the home yet, and reminded them my deck was on the original documents submitted to them, and I had time stamped photos as I built the home that would show they gave me my occupancy before my home was complete. Photos included the lumber for the deck in the garage. 22 years later not another peep about it and the deck is still on the back of my home. Township tried but failed.
@BardedWyrm2 жыл бұрын
The alternative remedy which could substitute for the Exclusionary Rule would be the personal liability of government actors for violations of rights. A cop breaks into your home to seize evidence, but didn't bother getting a warrant? That cop gets charged with criminal trespass, break&enter, burglary, etc..
@davidh96382 жыл бұрын
Not alternative, but additional, in my opinion.
@dangeary21342 жыл бұрын
Nearly all DA’s won’t charge them, and judges won’t convict them. That pretty much makes them complicit, and therefore a part of the problem.
@quintrankid80452 жыл бұрын
I wonder how many juries would actually convict a cop who broke into the home of someone doing something that is almost universally reviled. Particularly if the cop testilies that he smelt a gas leak. Better safe than sorry, right jurors?
@quintrankid80452 жыл бұрын
@@davidh9638 Yes, but I wonder how many of these sorts of cases are actually prosecuted when the prosecutors want to maintain good relationships with the cops.
@adaml29322 жыл бұрын
@@davidh9638 took the word right out of my mouth.
@lestermount32872 жыл бұрын
we had a drug case in Dallas where officers came to a house, one walked to the rear of the house, climbed up to look over the fence saw drugs on the kitchen table, and they then broke in and charged the owner. The judge threw out the case saying they did not have probable cause, or a warrant and the drugs were not in plain sight as claimed by the police officer who climbed over the fence.
@nowthatsjustducky2 жыл бұрын
That brings up a Q for Steve... In a case like lester's above, now that the guy is on the cops' RADAR, how would they ever be able to pursue any action against the home owner, since the entire case and investigation would be forever tainted by the reason the case was dismissed in the first place?
@alanmcentee94572 жыл бұрын
@@nowthatsjustducky That case might be tainted but if they run his plates they would have a reason to pull him over later. Then, they may get a more lenient judge.
@juliebarnett98122 жыл бұрын
I'm wondering where they found a lawyer who would actually fight this case for them instead of telling them to "just take a plea bargain."
@chetmyers70412 жыл бұрын
@@nowthatsjustducky What was the original suspicion that brought the cops to the house? Police do not usually visit neighborhoods and climb over back fences for no reason.
@fehlrock2 жыл бұрын
It's does not matter.
@denisenilsson13662 жыл бұрын
Advice to the police: "When in doubt, get a warrant."
@bergmanoswell8792 жыл бұрын
Addendum: You should doubt yourself more often.
@Shiro_Amada2 жыл бұрын
FISA courts have proven they rubberstamp approve regardless and defend it after the fact, if at all challenged.
@ergovega12 жыл бұрын
@@Shiro_Amada exactly. That's why with nearly any case. A good lawyer can get it dismissed. They very rarely flow their own rules. He'll you even let them know they violating their rules and they play dumb or simply don't care. People always try and take the easy route.
@russhamilton38002 жыл бұрын
Where is it that you see the police involved in the operation of the drone? Maybe you should watch the video?
@russhamilton38002 жыл бұрын
@@Shiro_Amada not even vaguely related.
@HappilyHomicidalHooligan2 жыл бұрын
Even ignoring the 4th Amendment Issue, just the Fact that the Drone Flight violated both FAA Rules AND Michigan Law should have made everything seen by the Drone Inadmissible in Court... The Authorities should NEVER be allowed to benefit from Breaking the Law during a Court Case (or ever for that mater)...
@107drones2 жыл бұрын
The drone pilot did NOT violate FAA rules and Steve clearly stated that earlier in this video. If challenged, the Michigan law would likely be overturned because it usurps federal law.
@someperson72 жыл бұрын
@@ScottGrammer well that guy should be disbarred
@jerseyshoredroneservices2252 жыл бұрын
I think you misunderstood. The FAA regulations were followed perfectly. The Michigan law sounds very similar to a Texas law which was just struck down as unconstitutional. You can read up on it if you search. Unfortunately I can't post links on KZbin but here's a couple paragraphs that'll get you started... U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman struck down a Texas drone law (one of the most restrictive in the U.S.), for violating the First Amendment’s protections of freedom of speech and the press. While there have been other cases in which the court has struck down similar laws in municipalities, this is the first time that a state law regulating drone operations has been struck down as unconstitutional. The law, Chapter 423 of the Texas Government Code, was challenged by the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA), the Texas Press Association (TPA), and three Texas-based photojournalists. The parties argued that the
@suedenim92082 жыл бұрын
@@ScottGrammer That quote is pretty meaningless, and probably (wildly) misleading, without the context, . The US government being a significant source of kiddie porn is problematic, but even if their offer and delivery of kiddie porn was illegal it was legally irrelevant to the defendants crimes. In this case (and many similar ones) the government conduct was essentially analogous to an undercover cop posing as a prostitute or drug dealer and simply letting somebody solicit them. That the government actually delivered kiddie porn that was illegal to produce/distribute/possess may be morally questionable, but there's no re legal issue in terms of prosecuting those who searched out and bought the kiddie porn.
@r3beatty2 жыл бұрын
Nah. FAA controls all airspace- state rules don't apply. The old adage is FAA controls from the lowest blade of grass to 80,000ft. As a drone operator, i can say the rule of thumb (there has never been an explicit ruling but the FAA has made a recommendation) is to stay 100ft above the tallest structure as an 'acceptable' altitude to avoid privacy/legal issues.
@Voltaic_Fire2 жыл бұрын
It should be a simple matter to resolve, if it's not in public or a public area then you should need a warrant else be dismissed.
@307living32 жыл бұрын
💯
@Captainkirk884102 жыл бұрын
100 percent agree!
@jaykoerner2 жыл бұрын
I'm wondering if they used Google maps it would need a warrant?
@evilrobots2 жыл бұрын
How about visible from a public area? Because that's what this case is kind of about.
@Voltaic_Fire2 жыл бұрын
@@evilrobots I knew this question would come up. You can stand outside a house on the street with a camera and look in through the windows, you can have a long distance microphone to listen in, you can get a ladder and look over fences from the street, they're all violations of privacy in place where people can rightly expect to have their privacy respected, and so is a drone.
@hadassahsoddsandends2 жыл бұрын
This reminds me of a man who got in trouble for shooting down a drone photographing his daughter sunbathing in their back yard, and frightening her. I don't know how it ended, but it made me very angry that the law punished him for defending his property and family. The FAA said he shot down an "aircraft"? It is time for there to be more specific privacy legislation about drones.
@karenstein82612 жыл бұрын
“Not a criminal matter “ sounds like a devious way for government to stretch a loophole so as to get around hard won limitations on authority.
@kerwinbrown41802 жыл бұрын
It is not a constitutional loophole so it must be practical law, i.e the federal courts decided it was law. He didn't mention the ruling.
@ScottGrammer2 жыл бұрын
Kind of like "CIVIL" asset forfeiture, "CIVIL" commitment, and so on?
@robertthomas59062 жыл бұрын
Red light cameras, speed cameras. It's "civil." No, it's more like armed extortion. Give us $80 or else.
@kerwinbrown41802 жыл бұрын
@@robertthomas5906 How much do those cameras cost to purchase, operate, and maintain. It doesn't make money but it does employ people.
@robertthomas59062 жыл бұрын
@@kerwinbrown4180 Have you ever looked into those cameras? If you have you wouldn't say that. They make *MILLIONS* off them. Florida for 2012 made over 100 million on them. Even small municipal cities make a lot of money. People just pay rather than go to court. $80 or go to court? A lot of places you have to pay to park, so $30 or so. Then the time off, and so on. It's extortion. They short time lights and you have to prove it's short timed. I've seen people do that and win their case. Does anything happen to them for that? Nope. They get away with it.
@todddalrymple54592 жыл бұрын
Nice shirt. Can't belief no one commented on the shirt. "My cousin Vinny" forever a classic.
@bgold20073 ай бұрын
I just did. It's Yours not yutes
@pekkakoski65952 жыл бұрын
This kind of stuff is why I follow Mr. Lehto :) As a finn I know near to nothing 'bout US law, but decades of seeing US court dramas on TV have made me curious and here I am.
@DeronJ2 жыл бұрын
As an American who likes learning more about US law, I really enjoy this kind of video too.
@muninrob2 жыл бұрын
As an American, the more I learn about laws outside my own state, the more I realize just how little I actually know about US law.
@loismiller28302 жыл бұрын
I always liked Pekka Rinne. Great goalie, big guy who used a small stick. I know it's off topic, but I just noticed your name. Must be a Finnish thing :)
@pekkakoski65952 жыл бұрын
@@loismiller2830 Well I do not know much about icehockey and especially those dudes who made it to NHL. To be frank :) But Pekka Rinne sounds familiar, just can not remember why I remember that name.
@kentlbrown58102 жыл бұрын
Steve, you asked about what other remedies would be available without the exclusionary rule. Taking away qualified immunity and allow either or both criminal or civil penalties against the individuals who violate the law would be a start.
@Axctal2 жыл бұрын
Should had been very simple: the main purpose of that drone flight(s) was to surveil and gather evidence.
@ArkansasRay2 жыл бұрын
In Arkansas, we have laws that allow us to fly over private property, but not to do surveillance over private property.
@katiekane52472 жыл бұрын
@@ArkansasRay could be a matter of opinion between the two.
@safetyfirstintexas2 жыл бұрын
@@katiekane5247 the government can not operate on matters of opinion. must use evidence. Cf. west virginia board of education vs barnett s.ct 1943. search term "matters of opinion" in the body of the decision not the assents and descents.
@Axctal2 жыл бұрын
@@katiekane5247 easily resolvable: whoever-city-hired --> testify to "what was the purpose of your being hired" ... so, you was not just strolling around having fun, you were hired to fly over specific property to specifically take pictures/video, is that correct?
@ArkansasRay2 жыл бұрын
@@Axctal now you’re on the right path. A pilot’s flight path and photographs/video can actually be subpoenaed in a surveillance/voyeurism case.
@weldabar2 жыл бұрын
If a tree falls in the woods an no one is there to hear it --- except for a drone... How can something be a nuisance if no one can see it? Why is someone so very eager to enforce laws/statutes that affect no one?
@katiekane52472 жыл бұрын
Because there's a determined effort to monitor & control every aspect of our lives. Listen to some clips from Davos, it's their main focus.
@ace-kz9id2 жыл бұрын
so you dont care if the goverment flys a drone around your yard to monitor every thing you do.
@billh.19402 жыл бұрын
Try fines.
@Rhaspun2 жыл бұрын
Because they're busy bodies with too much time on their hands.
@Theonixco2 жыл бұрын
Money, its always money. Same thing with HOA's
@rowynnecrowley16892 жыл бұрын
However, a drone is not "the naked eye". It's a flying camera. Presumably with zoom capabilities and night vision (my $60 handheld can do that).
@ravengrey68742 жыл бұрын
given the resources that even a local government can leverage, it probably also is ultra high def and thermal imaging as well, with memory for hours of video
@jenniferstewarts48512 жыл бұрын
@@ravengrey6874 given the budget of some townerships, they likely didn't own it they rented it from someone LOL.
@davidh96382 жыл бұрын
Maybe they borrowed it with permission from Karen.
@clydewmorgan2 жыл бұрын
it’s a flying camera
@DiffEQ2 жыл бұрын
@@ravengrey6874 Why would it need memory for "hours of video" since it can only fly for a few minutes? SMH
@michaelmaker81692 жыл бұрын
I've commented that I had an insurance company fly a drone over and cited us for debris, told to clean up or they could drop coverage. Feel violated and threatened. Granted it could have been seen from street but they didn't do that. I've since cleaned up but they give 30 days and it was in late winter. Thank you Steve. We just don't need to be threatened with lawsuits or actions. We can work on it.
@sunchips511 ай бұрын
Something like that could be the terms of your policy that u agreed to, i.e. the carrier or one of its agents has the right to use a drone to inspect your property for its insurability.
@tonebonebgky22 жыл бұрын
It's always a good thing when citizens rights expand, great video!
@UrbanGardeningWithD.A.Hanks142 жыл бұрын
The whole purpose in having a large tract of land, is predominantly for PRIVACY! They need to change the definition of a drone as an "aircraft" and allow people to blow them out of the sky if they are over your property, which does constitute trespassing. You own the airspace over your property, up to commercial altitudes. If a drone is violating that airspace below, it is trespassing. I have a reasonable expectation of privacy on my land from ANY angle.
@suedenim92082 жыл бұрын
I was under the impression that the law was still unsettled, but since you know that you own airspace to "commercial altitudes" maybe you'd be kind enough to cite the relevant law or SCOTUS ruling.
@absalomdraconis2 жыл бұрын
The problem with that is that the bullets or pellets you fire have an unalienable lack of interest in the consequences of their own actions, and thus can (and will) do things that you never foresaw and would have restrained yourself because of. Some meaningful remedy (preferably proactive) needs to be instituted for drone trespass, but shooting them is not an good option.
@absalomdraconis2 жыл бұрын
@@suedenim9208 : Above-ground houses strictly depend on some binding resemblance to ownership of the airspace above your land... and if it looks like a duck (very relevant to ducks, since they, geese, and swans are distinguished by neck length), quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, and swims like a duck, then it's a duck. The exact altitude to which you own your airspace may not be clear (incidentally, it should realistically be to the legal limit of space- airplanes can travel through airspace by _regulation,_ not by governmental ownership of the airspace), but de-facto you own it, and by legally binding right of adverse possession any building whose construction isn't blocked by the government (or protested within the legally mandated period) would give it's owner legally binding claim to the airspace that it occupied.
@indykurt2 жыл бұрын
if a 107 licenced drone pilot is doing a strait line, point A to B and your property in under that line then the FAA gives him that right as long as he is focused on his shot and you or anything you own aren't a point of focus then you shoot it down, the court will look at the evidence, footage, and other factors and you will be buying a $10K drone. If you see the drone stop over your property and look down while hovering and you shoot it down, you'll hope that the footage is in tact to only give you a fine for dangerously discharging a firearm and the drone owner will have to replace his $200 drone. The only drones that are breaking laws are the cheap ones because they didn't get their 107 license ($97 last I checked and hours of study) and not risking a bunch of money to get a picture of your backyard swimming pool.
@suedenim92082 жыл бұрын
@@absalomdraconis I'm glad we agree that you only have the legal right to exclusive use up to some fairly limited altitude.
@maxfriis2 жыл бұрын
Preserving open questions in rulings is called job security.
@josephreeves93472 жыл бұрын
Another excellent video! Thanks for breaking this important topic down for us non lawyer types. Your humor is on point too!
@StephenSharish2 жыл бұрын
The township attempted to get rid an eyesore that isn't visible. Authoritarians don't have to make sense, they just demand compliance.
@GuillermoRamirez-wh8dy Жыл бұрын
Mr lehto, congrats on a great channel. I had to take a minute to comment on the awesome shirt. Vincent Gambini. Just awesome.
@maryrodger51302 жыл бұрын
This is going to be really interesting with the Supreme Court that is currently in place.
@mikezupancic21822 жыл бұрын
The current Supreme Court should rule the same as the appeals court given the adherence to the constitution.
@suedenim92082 жыл бұрын
@@mikezupancic2182 SCOTUS already issued a ruling that says flying a helicopter over property at 400' is okay because it's public airspace. The current court is anti-federal government to some extent, but mostly anti-criminal and pro-law enforcement. I'd bet good money that the new rule would be drones flying legally at something above 200 or 300' is okay because that's the new public airspace.
@kellyalvarado65333 ай бұрын
@@mikezupancic2182 Well, this didn't age well.
@tedball86772 жыл бұрын
Nicely done, sir. Love your shirt (Representing "Yutes"...).
@kreynolds11232 жыл бұрын
To the question "does it mater that it's a law suit vs criminal proceedings", I argue that it should not matter. Government should not be able to subvert 4th amendment protections by veiling the proceedings to punish citizens with lawsuits vs criminal proceedings. For example take the case cited were the court ruled in favor of the defendant, where the government flew a drone 1000 feet in the air and discovered marijuana on the defendant's property, and the evidence was excluded. It is arguable improper to have the government reconstruct law that would allow it to circumvent 4th amendment protections by directing cases through civil lawsuits. We certainly don't want policemen entering a property and the government sue individuals based on evidence gained in a blatant attempt to circumvent 4th amendment protections.
@MrMosley1512 жыл бұрын
Since I started watching your channel, this is the best t-shirt.
@annelarrybrunelle35702 жыл бұрын
Steve, related question I hope you may discuss: When a governmental agency breaks laws in pursuing an investigation, how is it that some kind of action does not ROUTINELY ensue against the agency and/or its functionaries? I mean here where evidence is excluded because of a clear (and apparently intentional) breaking of some law, not some very questionable matter. It seems to me that numerous reported illegal searches are on the face actual criminal intrusions; were these so dealt with, the agency/officer might take care to know and do better.
@johnallen98192 жыл бұрын
Good question
@PWN_Nation2 жыл бұрын
Because "qualified immunity"...
@bradcrosier13322 жыл бұрын
@@PWN_Nation - Or even worse in some cases, absolute immunity. Both need to be completely eliminated.
@bergmanoswell8792 жыл бұрын
@@PWN_Nation Qualified Immunity doesn’t protect against criminal charges. Any rights violation you can sue for and win is also a federal crime, often a felony.
@PWN_Nation2 жыл бұрын
@@bergmanoswell879 what?
@dabuya2 жыл бұрын
I so enjoy your discussions of law. Thank you for posting Steve.
@boikatsapiens4992 жыл бұрын
Ben behind the Coast Guard plaque.
@jeffreymontgomery7516 Жыл бұрын
Steve nonchalantly says "we're going to cover a lot of ground" about a case regarding drone footage... Love it!
@Alverant2 жыл бұрын
There's a pen-and-paper role-playing game that was designed by a lawyer (Hero System). In one of the supplemental books he goes over the legal implications of certain powers. Basically, if it's a device, you need a warrant. So Superman doesn't need a warrant to use his x-ray vision but Iron Man does if he uses his thermo-vision like an IR camera.
@bergmanoswell8792 жыл бұрын
Superman might be criminally liable on a peeping tom charge though, depending on what he looks at, if his x-ray vision requires an act of volition to activate. The only way he’d be in the clear if his alternate vision modes are always on, and he just selectively ignores most kf what he sees.
@johnharbaugh94712 жыл бұрын
I'm here for the daily "T-Shirt" updates......... the legal review and insight is great as well. Keep up the good work.
@christianjackson2 жыл бұрын
Seems very backwards to me considering that plain view is based off of what can be seen from public. Airspace in the USA is federally defined for public use and minimum altitudes for operation can sometimes, in fact, be down to just above surface level, so long as 14 cfr 91.119 is followed. Nobody would reasonably say that they do not have an expectation of privacy from aircraft flying overhead, whether that’s a UAS or a manned aircraft. Would this be any different if they hired a helicopter and a photographer?
@highonsmog2 жыл бұрын
4:08 discusses that
@christianjackson2 жыл бұрын
@@highonsmog That's why I wrote the comment. I was responding to that part of the video.
@miguelsouderado3459 Жыл бұрын
For Steve's younger viewers: a phone booth is a public phone set up in high traffic areas like a gas or bus station, hotel lobby, airport, etc. We didn't always have phones in our pocket. Often times you would just have a bank of phones on the wall with partitions on the left and right, but in outdoor places like near a bus stop or gas station these phones were set up in "booths" that individuals could use.
@rodneylangston41812 жыл бұрын
Very interesting and well presented. I used to work in both zoning administration and air pollution control, so this case is of particular interest to me. I am retired now, but planning to send the link to former collezgues.
@jimhill47252 жыл бұрын
@Steve Lehto : I love the precision of your explanations, even when they appear to relate to an unresolved razor-sharp knife-edge. Respect!
@larrysmall35212 жыл бұрын
Drones should be considered another form of "Electronic Surveillance" and subject to the same rules as wiretaps and other forms of surveillance.
@nukarr2 жыл бұрын
Yes especially since drones can have thermal & infrared vision & can peer into & thru walls - invading your privacy 4th amendment rights
@suedenim92082 жыл бұрын
Visible light and being able to see things is really confusing, isn't it? The only legal question here for federal purposes is the altitude at which the surveillance was conducted. SCOTUS has already ruled that a helicopter being flown legally at an altitude of 400' above ground level is in pubic airspace and therefore warrants are not required for such surveillance. State constitutions sometimes offer more protection so there's a chance that the federal test won't always apply, and for drones the specific question of minimum altitude hasn't been thoroughly addressed, but 400' and up is *always* public airspace that anybody is allowed to be in, and they're allowed to look at your yard while they're there.
@jerseyshoredroneservices2252 жыл бұрын
@@suedenim9208 The FAA claims that the national airspace is from the surface and up. Some people try to eliminate drones by saying that FAA jurisdiction starts at some altitude above the ground and then passing a law that says drones aren't allowed below that level but that's not the correct way to look at it.
@suedenim92082 жыл бұрын
@@jerseyshoredroneservices225 I'm all in favor of a right to use drones over private property above some reasonable altitude (maybe 200' or 300', which allows plenty of operating room), but there's also no question that property ownership includes some of the airspace above your land. The ancient idea of owning airspace all the way to heaven may have been mostly theoretical in terms of practical use, but it was still valid English law when the US was founded and the takings clause was written. That makes it very problematic to take to much of a property owner's ability to exercise exclusive use. I'll presume you're at least slightly familiar with US v. Causby, and while it didn't establish firm rules it did establish that landowners are entitled to some buffer space surrounding what they can physically occupy.
@jerseyshoredroneservices2252 жыл бұрын
@@suedenim9208 Yes, I'm aware of Causby. Mr Causby was awarded damages because the government had taken his right to enjoy his land not because the government invaded his airspace. I don't condone people using drones in a rude or dangerous manner, however there are many practical reasons why somebody would be flying over somebody's property or even hovering at times and it's not rude, invasive or illegal. There are some dopes that do rude things but laws against harassment, surveillance or reckless endangerment are the remedy for those situations. Even then it's not crystal clear. There are many cases where people have been conducting investigative reports of alleged polluting or other hazardous activity by a private landowner, for the purposes of communicating what they learned. That's protected by the first amendment.
@thomasdesmond22482 жыл бұрын
The taking of photos from aircraft was only upheld for criminal case law. However the Federal Supreme Court never said you don't still have some reasonable expectation of privacy behind a fence. It has been long held that you have reasonable expectation of privacy behind a privacy fence.
@Edzward2 жыл бұрын
Fascinating! Good to hear that there are still people fighting for freedom in a country descending more and more into fascism.
@Forensource2 жыл бұрын
Oh, Martha take your meds.
@rarebond81022 жыл бұрын
When that judge sees the numbers, they know that I've won the case. Now, it's that judges JOB, to tell the other guy...that they can win! Most, don't like an angry judge... It ain't so bad😂😁 (even getting thrown fom the premises only means you were late leaving)
@k2avfr2 жыл бұрын
Great topic. Plz keep us posted on this evolving legal space.
@williamcolvin91002 жыл бұрын
I had a similar thing happen with a township... code enforcement is supposed to be done from a street view. Also, using a drone for a "commercial" purpose has to have a commercial license to do so. I turned them in to the FAA for investigation... I heard the township was fined, and was not happy. Fines for this can be upwards of 100K!
@RyanLatourette2 жыл бұрын
I'll call BS. FAA fines are all open to FOIA. No township has yet been fined for drone use and fines don't have a cut-off of 100K and a single offense fine does not reach 6 figures. Nice try though.
@tripjet9992 жыл бұрын
If you are in violation of an ordinance, then you need to correct the violation as soon as possible. Good for the drones!
@mikezupancic21822 жыл бұрын
Any action by the government should be held in the same light given the power of government to ruin a life either through imprisonment or financial harm.
@happyhome412 жыл бұрын
Most excellent class, Professor Lehto. Bravo !
@Bobs-Wrigles55552 жыл бұрын
One thought that comes to mind, What information did the council have to take them to court in the first place, which then started this yearly surveillance and was That legal?
@kstricl2 жыл бұрын
I posted a story that kind of covers indicators - but depending on the area, a sudden drastic increase in power and water usage beyond area average is usually an indicator of a grow op startup - or legal greenhouse. I believe most judges will issue a surveillance only (non intrusive) warrant to gather further evidence, at least in Canada.
@Bobs-Wrigles55552 жыл бұрын
@@kstricl Yes, I read your other post, But this guy was "rescuing" vehicles and he and the council came to an agreement that he wouldn't collect more and they then used a drone to check up on him(illegally). My question goes back to the original issue that got them into court, How did the council know Then what he had, if you can't see onto his property normally. Were they originally using drones (again illegally) to find property owners not complying with bylaws? And as an addition to this story, are there other property owners who have been illegally surveilled?
@kstricl2 жыл бұрын
@@Bobs-Wrigles5555 To the last two questions, most likely.
@MonkeyJedi992 жыл бұрын
@@Bobs-Wrigles5555 Way back in the 1990's I was chatting with a town's code enforcement manager who told me that the town select board wanted him to rent a helicopter to fly over neighborhoods to try and find cars "hidden from plain view" in back yards and behind fences so that "the junk could be cleaned up to make the town nicer". He showed them the town bylaws about abandoned cars, the state laws about abandoned cars, and told them to stuff it. The Town could only fine for unlicensed cars in plain view from ground level while on public right-of-way (road and sidewalk). The state backed up that limitation.
@absalomdraconis2 жыл бұрын
@@Bobs-Wrigles5555 : I'd hazard a guess that the neighbors complained/reported that the owner was bringing in more vehicles, or maybe even bragging about it.
@jonnsmusich2 жыл бұрын
One of your more interesting law-heavy discussions. Love it!
@jaytibbles22232 жыл бұрын
The ruling about "casual" visualization from an airplane applied to a SINGLE straight line flight over the proper. The same results as the drone footage can be obtained from a helicopter hovering using advanced camera equipment or a fixed wing aircraft circling the air space just outside that directly above the property in question.
@kerwinbrown41802 жыл бұрын
What jurisdiction was that case tried in? The level it reached in that court system is also important.
@chip1020cg2 жыл бұрын
Love the shirt bro...!!!! Great freaking movie! One of my favorite of all time...
@swdierks2 жыл бұрын
This concept is similar to a police officer looking at you on a sidewalk, versus 12 cameras photographing you doing the same thing. Or a police officer running your plates manually versus a camera running all plates it sees. Technology matters. They could just as easily flown over everyone's home, just to see what's going on. Volume matters.
@nocturnal101ravenous62 жыл бұрын
My biggest thing with this case would be the Criminal legality of taking photographs or video footage at 500 feet into a property that is fenced, there is an extremely large difference between a plane flying at 1000+feet versus a drone with a camera at 500, while people can see general things they cannot notice details. Even if the FAA considers it legal there is the matter of seeing in windows and women nude sun bathing or skinny dipping on private property that is clearly fenced off in a mannerism that no one could see that, so the expectation of privacy would be there as someone would have the reasonable expectation knowing a place at 3000 feet cannot see a nude persons details and Camera inside a plane like a cell phone would not have the capabilities, IT would take Professional equipment, so there is an issue regardless. A criminal action obtaining evidence should never be allowed for Civil use.
@Alverant2 жыл бұрын
Also, when you have the cameras you can look over them slowly at your own pace with a magnifying glass instead of just having seconds.
@edixonocilis44822 жыл бұрын
@@nocturnal101ravenous6 The FAA's concern is primarily keeping drones out of controlled airspace to avoid collisions with aircraft, not the privacy issues involved here. Except around airports or other specific areas, controlled airspace can start as low as 500 feet above ground level, hence the 400 foot restrictions.
@tvc1842 жыл бұрын
@@Alverant YWhy would a photograph by any different than seeing something instantly with the eyes? If a person photographs you in a public place it is lawful. If they later view the photograph and find something that is a crime, why would it matter if the crime was discovered with the eyes or a close up viewing of a photograph? I believe that the photograph being lawful is the issue, not whether something is discovered immediately with eyes or later with careful inspection of a photograph.
@bond1j892 жыл бұрын
@@nocturnal101ravenous6 400ft
@fmcargar97702 жыл бұрын
Love the Tshirt all time favorite movie and glad you posted about unlawful drone pictures and a win for the 4th Amendment
@RyanLatourette2 жыл бұрын
I am highly involved in this case and case without any reservation suggest that you do not comprehend how this was a victory for the drone industry. Likewise, you've missed the boat on both Florida v. Riley, US v Breza, and other such cases like Giancola v West Virginia Department of Public Safety. Had the CoA ruling stood as precedent the use of drones for overflight of private property was in jeopardy. That was the big win here.
@jerseyshoredroneservices2252 жыл бұрын
Ryan has a lot of experience in these things and knows what he's talking about!
@mattcero12 жыл бұрын
The opposite of public is private and the opposite of private is public. People need to know this.
@dandailey18572 жыл бұрын
I wonder if malicious prosecution lawsuit against govt would apply?
@throngcleaver2 жыл бұрын
Counties all over this country use aerial and satellite images to find things to tax you on, like additions, garages, sheds, decks. A buddy of mine got a higher than normal real estate bill a few years ago, for his hunting property, where he has a small pole barn used for storage. He called the county and the lady told him that the extra $30 per year, was for the little bit of roof overhang, over the front porch. It's something like 7' x 12', and it's been there since the building was built in the '90s, but now it's costing him $30 per year to have that overhang so he doesn't have to stand in the rain when he's unlocking the door. He asked her why all of a sudden, does he have to pay extra for something that's been on the building for 25 (ish) years, and she said, "That's what I got hired to do; find anything on the satellite images that isn't being taxed, so that we can tax you for it."
@leighanneboles6609 Жыл бұрын
Wow.
@alancranford33982 жыл бұрын
"Our civil case gathered evidence used in a criminal case." The usual sanction against a rogue law enforcement agency breaking the law is that the evidence gathered is not admissible in court. I speculate that the number of illegal police intrusions would dwindle to zero if police AND their civilian supervisors AND the prosecuting attorneys were tried and sentenced for felony violations. Getting a warrant is a minor inconvenience. "Your choice--get a warrant for violating privacy and do a little paperwork or go to prison for espionage on private citizens." How do I know that the police are not committing industrial espionage?
@RealPackCat Жыл бұрын
They could be planting drugs in your house or personal property.
@dukekessler62924 ай бұрын
They could be sending microwave messages into your brain.
@alancranford33984 ай бұрын
@@dukekessler6292 If you lost your mind, how would you know?
@dukekessler62924 ай бұрын
@@alancranford3398 pick it up where you left it obviously.
@Rancher5122 жыл бұрын
I live in Texas on a ranch. People need to protect their airspace above their property. My neighbor put in an airstrip and when he takes off he flys very low across my property. He has messed up peoples deer hunts on my property. I sent him a certified letter stating that he had my permission to use my airspace but I could take that right away at anytime in the future. I did not want him to establish an easement for his aircraft take offs. We then negotiated times where he could take off without disrupting our use of our property. With new technologies, airspace will be an important issue in the future.
@Se7nDust2 жыл бұрын
Evidence gathered "innocently" in civic case pursuit can find its way into criminal inquiries quite easily, so this SHOULD be a no-brainer. If the town simply bought "scenic footage" from private drone-ographer they'd be covered [*see companies that exist to gather info cops pay for it instead of 'collecting/retaining']
@jakegarrett81092 жыл бұрын
Can I fly over your house, or lets say even next to your bedroom windows for "scenic footage"? No, that's just circumnavigating the laws, the constitution did not say the government can use technology at all, and we know the founders wouldn't have wanted this (they would be shooting down any spy planes over their property, then retrofitting them with weapons and have their new home security platform). It also did not say government could contract out thugs to do what would otherwise be illegal.
@ScottGrammer2 жыл бұрын
Ask Bill Cosby about "CIVIL" evidence turning into a criminal prosecution, even when the promise was given that this would never happen. Not defending Cosby, but rather pointing out the fact that "CIVIL" matters can quickly turn criminal.
@jakegarrett81092 жыл бұрын
@@ScottGrammer Uh oh, your facts got sensored (I can see the notification response, but not in the thread)
@ScottGrammer2 жыл бұрын
@@jakegarrett8109 Hmm. I can see it. I'll BRB. Checking on another computer.
@ScottGrammer2 жыл бұрын
@@jakegarrett8109 You're right. Somebody didn't like the fact that I said, "Ask Bill Cosby about "CIVIL" evidence turning into a criminal prosecution, even when the promise was given that this would never happen. Not defending Cosby, but rather pointing out the fact that "CIVIL" matters can quickly turn criminal."
@mehameha44532 жыл бұрын
This is a good one, Steve. It will be an great ruling. Looking forward to this.
@tommyb66112 жыл бұрын
20:10 the problem being here. They didn't have that, because there is no way to see it from the ground, and only by snooping with a camera in the air. Literally illegally searching and breaking the basic constitutional rights. And then they kept monitoring the premises with a drone, by using the justification of past illegal gathered information.
@TheInsultInvestor2 жыл бұрын
One man's junk is another man's treasure. It's OUR property, if we want junk on it it's OUR RIGHT as HUMANS.
@TacDyne2 жыл бұрын
Here the rule is if it can be seen by the mailman on his regular route, it is visible to the public. The local government frequently attempts to violate this.
@georgesheffield1580 Жыл бұрын
I see too many local ordinance that are handled as criminal cases but are called civil .
@jeffhudson17442 жыл бұрын
it seems the whole process would come down to the reason for the flight of the drone. also, while doing this flight, were any laws broken, peeping tom so to speak, maybe not looking in the house or buildings but the same principal. did the pilot have his faa certification, 107 part 14 I think it is. the reason for the 107 is the drone was not used as a hobby flier, it was used as a business manner, it wasn't out trying to save someone in the forrest even then the 107 could be enforced. even government agencies must have someone with certification to operate a drone as this would be considered as commercial use.
@davidrussell69222 жыл бұрын
realtors often use drones to get overviews of a piece of property. I see quite often that the drone pictures show the neighboring lots as well. this could be a "legimate" way around the rules. provided all notifications as needed by law are followed.
@mitchjr77 Жыл бұрын
Great explanation of “Reasonable Expectation of Privacy”! One of my Pet Peeves is those people who, without any thought or understanding, just flat out say dumb things like, “You have NO Expectation of of Privacy if you’re in a Public Place”. Really?!? Are you sure you want to go down that route, buddy? Because if you do, then you would agree with Court Cases like Massachusetts vs Michael Robertson, Washington D.C. vs Christopher Cleveland, Georgia vs Brandon Lee Gar, Washington vs Richard Sorrells, Washington vs Sean Glas, and MANY other where basically, Judges AGREE that Women Who wear Skirts in Public Do NOT have the Expectation of Privacy from Voyeurs/Pervs Upskirting them BECAUSE they are in a Public Place and are “technically” clothed? Regardless if you’re in a Public Place or not, Everyone SHOULD have AT LEAST *SOME* Expectation and Right to Privacy. Especially from Predators who game the system to exploit the Public. I’m looking at you YT “Prank” / Troll / Edgelord / LoL Cow / Drama / Tea Channels! 😑
@ct87642 жыл бұрын
Hey, Steve, for those who don't know, could you please explain what a phone booth is? :)
@mamanoneyall512 жыл бұрын
It's where Clark kent changes into superman, or the box from Dr. Who...for the rest, a small closet size glass box containing a phone you would put money into to make a call. 😆
@jfelix35232 жыл бұрын
@@mamanoneyall51 And I think we can assume that Clark Kent has some expectation of privacy, even though the walls are mostly transparent?
@jacobfreeman54442 жыл бұрын
I have to agree with the ruling. You do own the airspace over your property. Now there has to be limits, so as to allow air traffic like planes. But drones are not normal air traffic. And it hovers at a particularly low altitude which, indeed, I would say is within the limits of the owners personal property. Making using the drone a warrentless invasion. So it is a distinction of where does the personal property rights end and airspace for aircraft begin. And drones, if I am remembering correctly, are forbidden from that higher airspace.
@machintelligence2 жыл бұрын
What if the Township used Google maps aerial view instead of their own drone? It probably has enough resolution to determine how much junk was stored on the property. That is a matter of public record, is it not?
@SINDRIKARL12 жыл бұрын
pretty sure Google Maps is Google private property that they just offer to the public to use, a third party may not use it for commercial or legal use without permission. Copyright and all that.
@davidh96382 жыл бұрын
I guess that's good enough to get a warrant. Not good enough to be admissible in court without someone testifying to accuracy. Just a guess.
@OgamiItto702 жыл бұрын
Exactly! That's _just_ what _I_ was about to think!
@jerseyshoredroneservices2252 жыл бұрын
Google maps is usually out of date but anyone can hire a satellite company to take pictures of anything at any time
@suedenim92082 жыл бұрын
@@SINDRIKARL1 So far you're 0 for 3, but maybe I've missed other things that you've gotten wrong.
@jonny-b49542 жыл бұрын
It is also one thing to be randomly flying over and see it... a whole other thing to get a drone, take it off, fly it towards your location, to SEARCH your property.
@fpresley2 жыл бұрын
Question Steve. What recourse would a home owner/person have if a judge allowed a warrant for a fly over and nothing was found. Lets take this out in the country, gated, no trespassing signs, fenced 200 acre farm that a family lives on. No one in or out without a pass code at the gate.
@dangeary21342 жыл бұрын
Ask the guy that was dragged into court for speeding in his own gated property in Texas, I believe.
@bergmanoswell8792 жыл бұрын
If the warrant was properly issued and the applicant didn’t lie? No recourse whatsoever. Warrants operate on likelihood of finding wrongdoing, not the certainty of it - they’re an investigative tool. If certainty was required before investigating, most crimes would be completely unsolvable, even if the criminal was caught red handed.
@SmittyAZ2 жыл бұрын
Take it out of the air to where it normally happens: After the search is over and nothing is found, the people have usually been cuffed, abused and their home is thrashed and in need of repairs. It's not like the good cops on TV. In a drone case, another warrant should be very hard to get when nothing was found and the person probably never even knew there was a police drone searching their property. No harm, no foul?
@fpresley2 жыл бұрын
@@SmittyAZ That's what I'm wondering. In the case of using a drone, the owner will never know unless he see it, should the police provide notice after the fact that they found nothing. If you can't see into the property, how was RAS established.
@fpresley2 жыл бұрын
@@bergmanoswell879 How can RAS be established when you can not see into the property? You can not on a whim ask for a warrant to my knowledge.
@dogstar72 жыл бұрын
I worked as a paralegal in civil cases in Illinois, I have seen the exclusionary rule upheld in statutory cases because the authority comes from an agent of the state.
@turkeyssr2 жыл бұрын
The car identifies as not being junk. Much better argument these days.
@texasblueboy15082 жыл бұрын
Years ago a man in rural Texas would mow his grass naked. He later would walk in his pasture by the road naked. Police told the woman across the road that there was nothing they could do. He was on his private property and he wasn't breaking any law. We all knew he wasn't ok in his mind, but they couldn't do anything about that either. Eventually he had to go to a rest home and that was it.
@kgmarcussen2 жыл бұрын
I fly for the local sheriffs department. So far we’ve flown only for search, rescue, body recovery, and aerial crime scene photos and video. We have chosen never to fly for warrantless discovery, warranted surveillance, active criminal pursuit, or anything else.
@nobodynoone25002 жыл бұрын
Thank you for being ethical with your use of tech. When people overstep, we all suffer.
@TW---2 жыл бұрын
Wow, way different than where I live. Not even for criminal pursuit? Seems like that would be a sufficient use scenario.
@kgmarcussen2 жыл бұрын
@@TW--- Criminal pursuit generally is too fast paced and mobile to call in a drone operator. I guess if there was a hostage or barricaded situation then I could get called in but we’ve never been down that road.
@TW---2 жыл бұрын
@@kgmarcussen ah, that makes sense. You must live in a small town. Here the sheriff uses helicopters to do everything mentioned above, including illegal warrantless discovery.
@somethingelse44242 жыл бұрын
Good job, so far. That's the praise you get so far... I'd like to hear "we'd made a legally enforceable commitment never to", but I get that you can't speak for whichever sheriff gets elected in the future... so nice job for now and keep it up for now.
@gregleon55472 жыл бұрын
Great analysis… fantastic shirt!!!
@Absaalookemensch2 жыл бұрын
Go just a little further, drones that crawl up the wall on the house, looking and listening through windows.
@JPurvis102 жыл бұрын
Our smartphones and other electronics already do that to some degree. I’m the type to not give a shit if people listen or not, I’ll just bore them to death.
@jamesleiter42222 жыл бұрын
Good work Steve.
@BastiatC2 жыл бұрын
A whole lot of kerfuffle about searches could be avoided if police would just get a warrant instead of always looking for a way around it
@daleinaz12 жыл бұрын
Yes, but a warrant requires that you be able to articulate your reasonable suspicion to the judge. In this case, neighbor complaints about cars being towed in, or excessive traffic (from parts buyers), or something similar. I suspect they were simply "fishing" based on the owner's past.
@campassi19612 жыл бұрын
There should be a rule of thumb that if the city has to go to such extreme investigative measures, then the homeowner isn't bothering anyone. ... and leave them alone.
@Bobs-Wrigles55552 жыл бұрын
Ben can't decide which is the best transport, US Coast Guard or a Unicycle, Steve's RHS
@BenLeitch2 жыл бұрын
I was watching a live stream from another channel... good job to you and Boikat Sapiens and Dennis Berman.
@Bobs-Wrigles55552 жыл бұрын
@@BenLeitch 👍
@motorhomemac2 жыл бұрын
If the said junk cannot be seen from public , this is obviously a case of government getting too big for its britches.
@richardrice31372 жыл бұрын
I find that the government's ideal is the opposite of their interpretation of their prosecution of people who do exactly what they did as a criminal act. they say no one may fly a drone over or near a property that is privately owned. their law. then they do it if it fits their motives.
@screenarts2 жыл бұрын
Wrong, anybody can fly over private property. Above the treeline is the standard, FAA regulated, no city or homeowner has a say that space is private. You would not have any aircraft if you owned the sky above. So you don't.
@davidfrederick99732 жыл бұрын
@@screenarts Yes and no, in that order. Yes, you own your airspace (why you can build into it) but aviation has an easement, the right to use your airspace momentarily for passage. Same sort of thing for meter readers, surveyors, the power cables overhead, pipes and cables going under your property.
@bobbyossenbeck64022 жыл бұрын
Don't the homeowners have rights to the air above their property up to a certain altitude?
@prjndigo2 жыл бұрын
Uh. Actually under Michigan law if the drone is on and a person is holding the controller... they ARE flying the drone even if it is on the ground. Same as sitting in the driver's seat of a car with the engine running even if its parked. Honestly the township should be found in contempt, charged with perjury and illegal tort for misrepresenting enforcement as a civil act. And the prior ruling against the property owners vacated as blackmail. A municipality has no authority to make civil tort or agreements unless approached to do so by the civilian. The drone pilot is guilty, as evident, of criminal trespass and vigilantiism. On Katz, the phone booth was private property with a contractual assurance of privacy. The referenced California case was illegal in that it would be impossible to tell the difference between weed, corn, tomatoes, string beans from the altitude given. Warrant still required. The flight was made for the express purpose of illicit surveilance, trespass, entry and search without warrant.
@RyanLatourette2 жыл бұрын
There is no such thing as aerial trespass. It is also clear that you don't know anything about Michigan law on drones. See PA 436 of 216 and read it closely. The drone operator was legally hired, flew the drone legally following all FAA regulations, and was at a height that easily was above that which was ruled as navigable airspace in US v Breza by SCOTUS.
@jrnvnjk Жыл бұрын
I see a licenceplate in the background (HK BK 589). It looks like a german plate to me, specifically Heidekreis, Lower Saxony. Though if any german NATO plate was issued it should start with "X" and i see the symbol for "US Military in Germany". Is it an out of commission plate you have used before or just a vacation souvenir?
@illuminaughty29292 жыл бұрын
My property extends all the way up to Outer Space.
@SawmillerSmith2 жыл бұрын
That's true acourding to law.
@ArkansasRay2 жыл бұрын
But it’s regulated by the FAA.
@gotti54722 жыл бұрын
Just to let you know I have learned a lot from you keep up the awesome work
@TheDombrowSKISKI2 жыл бұрын
TECHNICALLY, you own the air above your house so it seems like this ruling is correct
@hellshade22 жыл бұрын
yeah, you own the airspace above your house but there is a specified height limit i believe...
@Elliandr2 жыл бұрын
@@hellshade2 I'd argue that the space between the ground and the tops of the trees is, at a minimum, within the air space you own. Since the drone had to fly below the tree cover to see anything its fairly obvious it was within that space.
@ArkansasRay2 жыл бұрын
@@Elliandr I believe that is the way our state views that scenario. I believe there is case law somewhere that has determined the same thing.
@hellshade22 жыл бұрын
@@Elliandr i looked into it and depending on the state you live in you own the airspace above your house between 500-1,000 feet
@jerseyshoredroneservices2252 жыл бұрын
Technically you do not. Even if you do it doesn't matter because the FAA regulates the airspace from the surface up. Hypothetically if you own it you have no say over what happens in the national airspace. Many people misunderstand the Causby case and think that it granted ownership of the airspace but it did not. "The Court agreed a taking occurred and: Nullified the doctrine that ownership extends indefinitely upward, affirmed that navigable airspace was public domain, concluded flights so low and frequent as to be a direct and immediate interference with the enjoyment and use of the land constitute a taking. "
@roflchopter112 жыл бұрын
Don't you mention something about drones and altitude in your corner crossing video?
@terry_willis2 жыл бұрын
Next great leap in technology: Cloaking device that would prevent viewing a property from any height over it.
@bond1j892 жыл бұрын
There is a cheep way camo
@largo53482 жыл бұрын
Great segment and I love the t-shirt. One of my favorite comedy movies "My Cousin Vinny"
@Lou58Lou2 жыл бұрын
If and when the court of appeals addresses this issue it could very well turn into a criminal case. The person flying the drone could be charged with trespassing, it could also involve the FAA as these rules were also abused.
@jerseyshoredroneservices2252 жыл бұрын
Steve clearly stated that the FAA rules were followed. What part did you think abused the regulations?
@philobetto51062 жыл бұрын
using a drone without a warrant is like, fist fighting a guy in a medieval suit of armor
@robertthornton11712 жыл бұрын
The small town Fire Dept. I once worked at was also responsible for code enforcement. High grass, parking in the yard & junk car etc. If we could not see into a backyard form the street then we could not take any action.
@Rhaspun2 жыл бұрын
My local city has always had the fire department drive a firetruck around looking for overgrown backyards that have dried up into a fire hazard. The city will send a notice to the homeowner that they need to trim all the dried overgrowth or the city will do it and fine the homeowner besides the cost of cutting the overgrowth. I have to agree with this action since we're in California. Fires are a dangerous hazard.
@yogibro6442 Жыл бұрын
We can build a fence around a car so you can't see it, then don't have to licence it. Like if you are slowly restoring a classic car as you can afford parts. So far anyway, next it will need a roof, then what nanobots?
@netsider2 жыл бұрын
I'm calling you the "Interesting case guy" You always present pretty interesting cases.
@Boxerdonttestme2 жыл бұрын
This is where our tax dollars are going. Court cases like this are completely ridiculous and frivolous. People should have the right to do what they want to do on their property in a free country. There are way too many laws that prevent us from feeling free. Or if they use that time to protect us maybe we would be in a better place in this country.
@leighanneboles6609 Жыл бұрын
Absolutely!!!
@exrobowidow16172 жыл бұрын
The first few years we lived in our house, the neighbors behind us had a 6 foot tall wooden fence around a space in their backyard. It appeared to be lined on the inside with tarps. I thought this was rather odd. One day I was up in a tree doing some pruning, and I happened to glance down and saw what was within the fence. I saw the tops of tall leafy green plants, which appeared to be what my horticulture professor called "five-fingered marigolds," and he ordered us not to grow "marigolds" in our class garden plots. I was not thrilled to have potheads for neighbors. I also mentioned what I saw to my husband. After that, we referred to our neighbors as "the farmers." It turned out that the gentleman farmer was one of my husband's co-workers. One day my husband overheard the farmer telling someone that he had removed his crop plants from his yard, and stopped smoking them. That's when we learned that the Supreme Court had ruled that law enforcement could look at our backyards from the air. While I was happy that the "marigolds" were gone, I was not thrilled that the Supreme Court had ruled that way. Regarding the idea that cops could look inside your house using infrared-- Also years ago, my son and I attended a demonstration of a Los Angeles Sheriff Department helicopter. The helicopter officers showed us some footage of what their infrared cameras could see. Of course someone asked them whether they could see inside a house, because at the time there were a lot of ads for insulation companies showing infrared images of houses leaking heat, and needing insulation to save energy. The cops answered that no, they could not see inside people's houses. I didn't really believe them then, and now I hear that they were trying to look for grow lights inside houses. Creepy!
@DarkPesco2 жыл бұрын
You'd be surprised at the detail available for free to anyone just by looking up that address on Google earth. Of course they aren't necessarily the most recent images...but over time a case of continued infractions could be made...
@hellshade22 жыл бұрын
not sure if the town could have used google earth. it is not the same as a plane going over the property and it is not being seen by a naked eye but also a camera that can zoom in close....
@arbiter12 жыл бұрын
depends on area, when it comes to court likely won't be allowed to be used cause low details.
@blackhat49682 жыл бұрын
@@hellshade2 Google Earth Images have been allowed in courts. Also technically its NOT Google taking the pictures. They get the images from open source satellite images they stitch together to make the maps.
@blackhat49682 жыл бұрын
@@arbiter1 In this case, the images are of a suspected Junk yard. Google Earth images are well able to id this sort of thing. I can use it to look at my Property and I can count the number of horses in the fields. I can ID whose car is who's because I know them. (Cant read license plates so couldn't prove in a court of law with 100% certainty who's car it was, but can easily id them by shape and color.)
@tvc1842 жыл бұрын
@@hellshade2 Why would Google Earth be unlawful to use if it is accessible by the public?
@superdave12632 жыл бұрын
In Concord, California I had two beautiful 1977 VW Transporters parked in my side yard behind a six foot tall fence. Both ran, looked really nice, and I was in the process of restoring them both. On a Sunday morning at 6:30 am the city, along with the police and a tow truck company, came and confiscated my properties. I tried to fight it, but the next door neighbor that filed a complaint and had a friend that worked for the city. I feel like I was robbed with no compensation. The two had a street value of $35,000 dollars! Unless he was snooping how could he have known what was in my backyard? I hated him from there on!