Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Drone sent over property as part of municipal code enforcement; no exclusionary rule violation
Date: Tue, 7 May 2024 01:30:23 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <v1c07f$2sm0h$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v1aupf$2lass$1@dont-email.me> <7eqi3j99m8gn16ahagl3ejp3m8a6ppq5v9@4ax.com> <v1btv7$2s4u2$1@dont-email.me> <5d0j3j5p1vsq5dvuu9250ibom93fqrlp6d@4ax.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 07 May 2024 03:30:23 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f74df4a862178c31e49a9a9aad2d1376";
	logging-data="3037201"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19UGXfAQxVs+hrU3+/0ag4BzFFKNjM0wUM="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:lS7cORSgm+1xiUs9jwadRIpJpTw=
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Bytes: 2757

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.