.png "Powered by vBulletin")
This article is about a case Michigan Supreme Court is dealing with
As i read it I recalled Peppermint Patti having similar concerns with government balloons 7 or 8 years ago,
Source:
Full text:
What’s the context?
Michigan lawsuit over local government's drone use in zoning dispute could jumpstart limits for fast-evolving issue across the country
Michigan Supreme Court hears arguments
Surveillance of property violated constitution, suit claims
Decision could help update outmoded laws
WASHINGTON - A neighbour had already warned Todd Maxon of seeing something unusual hovering over his lakeside Michigan property – but then, suddenly, there it was.
"I walk out of my house, with my dog and kid, and here's a drone, directly above me," Maxon recalled of the 2018 incident.
It turns out the drone had been over the five-acre (two-hectare) property at least two other times in previous months, part of what turned out to be an effort by the local Long Lake Township to surveil the Maxons' land over a zoning dispute involving his hobby of fixing up old vehicles.
But the township did so without getting a warrant first – and Maxon and his legal team say that infringed his constitutional right against unreasonable searches.
After bouncing between courts in recent years, the Michigan Supreme Court heard oral arguments in October, and a ruling in coming months could set a precedent nationally.
"It's very intrusive," Maxon, 51, told Context.
"They could have done it multiple more times – that's the unrest you have, as you just don't know," he said. "I don't know if there's going to be a drone surveilling my kids, or wife, or animals."
Maxon said the township had also used drones to enforce zoning rules on others in the community.
Long Lake Township declined to comment on the pending case, but it has previously accused Maxon of operating an unlicensed junk yard in a residential area, an accusation he denies.
The township has said the drone images were of areas beyond the Maxons' home and hence not protected by the constitution's fourth amendment that guarantees "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches" without probable cause.
The Maxons' attorney rejected that logic.
"When the government hires somebody to fly a drone all over your property ... in order to gather evidence, that's a search under the fourth amendment. It violates a reasonable expectation of privacy," said Robert Frommer, a senior attorney with the Institute of Justice public interest law firm who is representing the Maxon family.
"If you want to do this going forward, all you have to do is go to a judge and give a good reason. The one thing we don't want is for officials to decide this themselves – the next thing you know, we'll have drones flying over everyone because they'll be fishing for violations."
As the use and availability of drone technology expands, Frommer said the case could set a legal precedent.
"This is a bellwether. This decision will affect the course of not just Michigan, but all of America about how it treats drone surveillance."
Both the Federal Aviation Administration and the Association for Uncrewed Vehicle Systems International, a trade group, declined to comment on the case, citing the active litigation.
As i read it I recalled Peppermint Patti having similar concerns with government balloons 7 or 8 years ago,
Source:
Full text:
What’s the context?
Michigan lawsuit over local government's drone use in zoning dispute could jumpstart limits for fast-evolving issue across the country
Michigan Supreme Court hears arguments
Surveillance of property violated constitution, suit claims
Decision could help update outmoded laws
WASHINGTON - A neighbour had already warned Todd Maxon of seeing something unusual hovering over his lakeside Michigan property – but then, suddenly, there it was.
"I walk out of my house, with my dog and kid, and here's a drone, directly above me," Maxon recalled of the 2018 incident.
It turns out the drone had been over the five-acre (two-hectare) property at least two other times in previous months, part of what turned out to be an effort by the local Long Lake Township to surveil the Maxons' land over a zoning dispute involving his hobby of fixing up old vehicles.
But the township did so without getting a warrant first – and Maxon and his legal team say that infringed his constitutional right against unreasonable searches.
After bouncing between courts in recent years, the Michigan Supreme Court heard oral arguments in October, and a ruling in coming months could set a precedent nationally.
"It's very intrusive," Maxon, 51, told Context.
"They could have done it multiple more times – that's the unrest you have, as you just don't know," he said. "I don't know if there's going to be a drone surveilling my kids, or wife, or animals."
Maxon said the township had also used drones to enforce zoning rules on others in the community.
Long Lake Township declined to comment on the pending case, but it has previously accused Maxon of operating an unlicensed junk yard in a residential area, an accusation he denies.
The township has said the drone images were of areas beyond the Maxons' home and hence not protected by the constitution's fourth amendment that guarantees "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches" without probable cause.
The Maxons' attorney rejected that logic.
"When the government hires somebody to fly a drone all over your property ... in order to gather evidence, that's a search under the fourth amendment. It violates a reasonable expectation of privacy," said Robert Frommer, a senior attorney with the Institute of Justice public interest law firm who is representing the Maxon family.
"If you want to do this going forward, all you have to do is go to a judge and give a good reason. The one thing we don't want is for officials to decide this themselves – the next thing you know, we'll have drones flying over everyone because they'll be fishing for violations."
As the use and availability of drone technology expands, Frommer said the case could set a legal precedent.
"This is a bellwether. This decision will affect the course of not just Michigan, but all of America about how it treats drone surveillance."
Both the Federal Aviation Administration and the Association for Uncrewed Vehicle Systems International, a trade group, declined to comment on the case, citing the active litigation.
Comment