Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 07 May 2024 19:49:10 +0000
From: BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Drone sent over property as part of municipal code enforcement; no exclusionary rule violation
References: <v1aupf$2lass$1@dont-email.me> <7eqi3j99m8gn16ahagl3ejp3m8a6ppq5v9@4ax.com> <v1btv7$2s4u2$1@dont-email.me> <5d0j3j5p1vsq5dvuu9250ibom93fqrlp6d@4ax.com> <v1c07f$2sm0h$1@dont-email.me> <20240507090730.000074af@example.com>
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X)
Date: Tue, 07 May 2024 12:58:28 -0700
Message-ID: <atropos-AF3B55.12582807052024@news.giganews.com>
Lines: 69
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-T9QW22WQp05QgsPoE7Utage9Aew5ukNP0dANEQ0xlHyPcIZdHLfWI9r6+uXx9h9hSrVOc8SOu5Qc1fG!aEg4WfxS0rA+GQmDoij/4+cxipVPX4ERvK3bkxnFHeFP56QkGoKdoUDVF6ML+GigN2c6LAIdWOXV!PQQ=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 4679

In article <20240507090730.000074af@example.com>,
 Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 7 May 2024 01:30:23 -0000 (UTC)
> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> 
> > shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
> > >Tue, 7 May 2024 00:51:51 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman
> > ><ahk@chinet.com>:  
> > >>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:  
> > >>>Mon, 6 May 2024 15:59:43 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman
> > >>><ahk@chinet.com>:  
> > 
> > >>>>In oral argument, Lehto said that one of the judges asked the
> > >>>>Institute for Justice attorney if they don't extend the
> > >>>>exclusionary rule that municipalities will buy drones and
> > >>>>commence overflights. The IJ attorney said of course they will
> > >>>>given how cheap drones have become.  
> > 
> > >>>How is viewing someone's home from the street an invasion of a
> > >>>right to privacy?  
> > 
> > >>Did you read my synopsis? The privacy violation was the drone
> > >>OVERFLIGHT. There were three of them.  
> > 
> > >Yep, no one is questioning the ability for anyone to view someone's
> > >property from the street without violating the law. I agree that if
> > >the municipality couldn't see anything from the street then they
> > >wouldn't have any ability to complain, but that doesn't give them the
> > >right to over fly the property in question.  
> > 
> > The landowner lost. The exclusionary rule was not extended to code
> > enforcement cases. The municipality now has the power to overfly to
> > enforce municipal ordinances.
> > 
> > >Though here is the issue. It likely was possibly for them to fly
> > >their drone directly over the street (keeping it on public property)
> > >and still see into the property in question. That doesn't appear to
> > >be what was done, but it does seem like it could have been done and
> > >still given them the evidence they wanted/needed.  
> > 
> > No. It was a rural parcel. They owned a lot of land. Nothing could be
> > seen from the street, which means there couldn't have possibly been a
> > nuisance to complain about.
> 
> Maybe the core issue here is not whether the city can fly a drone but
> whether it can travel over your property to get the still pictures or
> video that the drone captures. How high does your property go? Do you
> control the airspace over your property? If you do, the government's
> drone might be seen as trespassing.

That would be my question, also. Sure I can see them saying that it's 
okay to fly over at reasonable altitude for aircraft like helicopters, 
but what if you have a bunch of stuff under canopies that can't be seen 
from high up? Are they allowed to lower the drone down to three feet off 
the ground and fly it around your property, looking under the canopies 
and in the windows of barns and whatnot?

> I remember hearing hypothetical questions in school about what rights
> you have to the space above your property - and how deep your rights go
> to what's in the earth below you - but I honestly don't recall what the
> courts have decided in either regard.

Before air travel, the common law was that you owned the airspace above 
your land to infinity and the dirt below your feet down to the core of 
the earth. Then commercial airplanes started flying over people's land 
and people started suing and common law had to be judicially and 
legislatively amended or air travel would have been stopped in its 
tracks.