By not addressing the question at the heart of this case, the Michigan Supreme Court has created a giant loophole that puts all Michiganders at risk of warrantless surveillance. IJ will keep fighting to protect every American’s right to be secure. Meanwhile, the state legislature should act to close that loophole, to protect all Michiganders’ rights.
I haven't spent months of my time contemplating the privacy issues concerning drones and covert surveillance cameras, etc., but I feel, that as a general case, IF government INITIATES a search using drones or surveillance cameras, they should always have a warrant, for both civil or criminal charges, BUT if a private citizen using a drone happens to record footage of a infraction or crime, then that should be admissible evidence. To ensure accountability, the private citizen must not receive any compensation or benefit for their evidence from the government or be requested by the government to do it, and the private citizen must not be an "off-duty officer" in the same jurisdiction and government office - in other words, the code enforcement officer can't fly the drone in their own private time, but the county clerk or engineer could. Hopefully it would just be easier for the government to go through the proper channels of getting a warrant, like they should, than jumping through the extra hoops in any effort to circumvent getting a warrant. Next, I feel all evidence should always be admissible in court, because all crimes need punished and the truth made known, otherwise, there should not even be a law. Wrongdoers shouldn't get off just because the government messed up. How can we preserve accountability in government not to break the Constitution, then? The Constitution is the law. Those who break it should be punished also (no qualified immunity in such cases). If a government employee does an unreasonable search without a warrant, they should be fired or suspended without pay for a year, and any supervisor of theirs that told them to do it (and maybe even harsher punishments than that since they are themselves breaking the law of the Constitution), but the evidence they collected should still be admissible. A murderer shouldn't go free just because a cop forgot to call a judge. And a cop won't forget to call a judge if he would be fired, except it be an emergency, and I believe exceptions are likely (or should be) already in place for emergencies. Last, I say these things without regard to your specific case and any matter of justice or injustice with the zoning laws. I only speak of the government's unlawful search and surveillance.
@@joshc4519 It would seem the question is what is admissible and what is not? Drones are under the purview of the FAA, meaning they are legal to fly over private properties just the same as an airplane or helicopter can fly over your property. There have been cases trying to determine where that airspace starts, at ground level or some height above the ground, but generally its legal to fly over properties and the question is how the FAA determines that airspace. Here's the problem: Lets say tomorrow, all drones are banned. But there are satellites that fly over and take high resolution photos all the time. So the local code enforcement then buys a high res pic of their area and see the same illegal junkyard... Seems like we are back at square one. It would seem what can be used as evidence, not because of the legality of how it was obtained, but the means of how it was obtained, should be examined. Are aerial photos evidence? Or, can it only be used to obtain a warrant to obtain legal evidence? "because all crimes need punished and the truth made known, otherwise, there should not even be a law." That law applies to the government as well... "Wrongdoers shouldn't get off just because the government messed up." What is a wrongdoer? If the government illegally obtains evidence, how do we know they didn't doctor that evidence? Who punishes the government when they have unlimited power to prosecute, to persecute? If you allow a police state to exist, they will just say "Oh yeah, so and so has been disciplined, but we got the criminal", while just giving each other slaps on the wrists while brutalizing the citizenry. Without the safeguards of admissibility, everything will be done "to get our man", officials will get their slaps on the wrists, and the citizenry terrorized. And then you realize you didn't even have the criminal because the evidence was fabricated in the first place.
Are these the same justices who determined that if the tire shop made a vague effort to put the lug nuts on, then the tire service was accomplished, even when your wheels fall off less than a mile after leaving the shop?
The Fourth Amendment does not say anything about whether it is a civil or criminal issue, it just states no search will be conducted without a warrant.
Steve explained that quite well. The fourth does not prevent illegally obtained evidence from being used later. It just says you can't obtain it. But if you obtain evidence by illegal means the fourth does not prevent that evidence from being used against you. Therefore the exclusionary rule was introduced to allow defendants to have evidence excluded if it was obtained illegally. However the exclusionary rule ONLY applies to criminal cases. Therefore there is a loophole Michigan has used to get around the exclusionary rule. Technically the ruling is correct. What needs to happen now is the exclusionary rule needs to be expanded to include civil cases as well. "Established in Weeks v. United States (1914), this rule holds that evidence obtained as a result of a Fourth Amendment violation is generally inadmissible at criminal trials. "
@@JeanPierreWhite "However the exclusionary rule ONLY applies to criminal cases." If you haven't committed a crime, then why are you in court facing charges? Seems the gov is admitting those other cases, no crime was committed, and thus no charges nor trial should be taking place in the first place.
@@SoloRenegade innocent until proven guilty. Innocent people can find themselves in court. Some people will sue just to see if it will stick. In this case the 4th rights were trampled but there is remedy for them
What could go wrong? "We were just flying the drone up to the bedroom window to see if the homeowner was installing a new electrical outlet without a permit and look what we recorded!"
That would fail under the analysis used to determine what is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Flying at 400 feet above someone's yard is obviously much different than flying right outside someone's window.
@shindrithargriethrat8408 That's not true at all. If you fly over someone property at 400 ft and they are butt naked by their pool, you've still invaded their privacy. Especially if they have walls and such to prevent you from seeing into their pool area from ground view.
Applying municipal violations is circumventing the Constitution. These municipal enforcements are in layman’s terms a fundraising endeavor to bankrupt the accused party.
It's an act of financial terrorism to apply municipal codes to people that are not members of the municipality. Unless you provide services to members of the municipality, those codes don't apply. Property taxes only apply to those using their property for commercial use (including their homes), and transportation codes only apply to those using the roads for commercial or business purposes.
@@Swodie_Jeetin I guess you don't know much history. John Hancock, one of the founders of the US, was a smuggler and his lawyer was John Adams. The right against arbitrary searches and seizures applies whether you're guilty or innocent.
If the property is illegally being used as a salvage yard, why wouldn't they just show up as a customer? If they don't have customers, how are they a commercial salvage yard?
There is no claim that this is a "Commercial Savage Yard" but a "Savage Yard". Thus this might be a person who collects junkers and leave them on their property.
I believe this case the yard was just personal vehicles and other items. They are not a business but just what every farmer and rural property owners do to have things to fix equipment on their property.
Because Petty TYrant public servants want what they want and they want it right now , and we should of known wha tthey wanted before they even asked . Ill stop resisting now.
Same with most "civil" traffic infrations, it's a no-win game wheryou have virtually no real rights where failure to pay the perscribed fine can quickly lead to a process where someone else up in criminal proceedings as well as penalties from other parties for the points on the license.
They claim it's not the civil violation that causes the incarceration. It's always something like contempt of court. It's merely a circuitous route to a debtor's prison.
the joys of modern govt. call things civil then no rights. call it a traffic violation and no lawyer, rights, or even due process. presumably now you get an officer to throw a rock through your window then fly a drone into your house. so no search because the officers didnt enter the property.
All they needed to do was give them proper notice that they were going to inspect to ensure compliance with the agreement. If they refuse you can get a court order (same effect as a warrant)
@@power2084 I would think they can use the same reason for inspecting for fire code violations... "it's a public safety issue". I would imagine an unauthorized salvage yard would constitute a fire hazard.
What is Excessive? Who is the Arbitrator of Excessive? US Constitution & Bill of Rights was written to Define & Constrain the Government (State & Local Thiefdom too) NOT the People. Unconstitutional Laws, Ordnances, Rules, and the Oppression of the people is what brought us to this point. The people are tired of the Government BS. I must have missed that part of the Bill of Rights that says a Civil case is Exempt from all RIGHTS!
somehow I wish that there were consequences for NOT following the constituion. And as in this case the consequence would be to invalidate all evidence and actions of the government for not following the Constitution and also to force the government to pay a fine back to the accused!
@@leenonolee4629 There is. 18US241 and 18US242. The problem is the same people who would be charged with enforcing it are the same people who are violating it.
If you have to take to the air to see the property, then why does it matter how much junk they have on THEIR OWN property?? I hope there is more to this story...
All government entities should be, by force, required to have a warrant prior to a search, drone or otherwise. Otherwise it’s a fourth and fifth amendment violation.
For the last forty years, local sheriff's offices have been calling the conservation departments to "inspect" refrigerators and freezers while looking around for anything that would give rise to a search warrant for the cops. "Where you have police, you have a police state".
National parks have restrictions so buzzing drones don’t ruin the experience for others , seems they want it for reasons same as me on my property. Go figure
@luckypennybenny only issue is there are several areas that the government states are no fly zones. So you cannot fly a drone and take pics of those areas. Some federal facilities, state parks, etc...
As a FAA licensed drone pilot I strongly disagree with this ruling. The right to privacy is almost nonexistent. The city could have gotten a warrant so they had a way to gather this evidence and did not need to fly a drone. Even if the drone did not fly over the property pointing the camera at the land seems like an intrusion to me. I hope that this case can get resolved in a positive manner for the home owner.
@@Times_Ticking I was not aware of that. Still I feel that it is an invasion of privacy for the government to use drones to collect evidence against a citizen without a warrant. If there is no other recourse for them that doesn’t justify this intrusion to me. I don’t like the direction that our right to privacy has gone over the last 39 years.
This is something I have "experienced" myself... I bought a building that needed cleaned up and repaired... little did I know, the township had "plans" for that property. So... they sent the code officer out to harass me, and write unreasonable tickets for everything he could to stop me from cleaning the property up. I went to court dozens of times for approximately $75K in tickets. Thru their own doings of improper tickets, they lost everytime... but, it cost me $40K+ in attorney fees. They were mad they kept losing in court, and the code officer was relentless in making ways to cost me more money, and stop me from repairing the building. I caught him on security camera putting superglue in my building door lock, and in the padlock on my box truck. Also, several other dirty tricks was done. He then flew a drone over my building in an effort to write more tickets for a bad spot in the corner of the roof. Here is where I have an issue with what you are reporting on... in the National Building Code it states "all inspections are to be done from the street". NOWHERE does it say you can fly a drone over private property! So... I checked with the FAA regulations regarding this... it states that drones used for commercial use (including code inforcement) MUST be registered with the FAA, flown by a licensed drone operator, and have commercial insurance for the drone. Also, regulations state it has to be flown 500ft above buildings. I then found out neither the Twp, the code officer, and the operator of the drone was licensed to operate the drone. The fine is $150K. So, I called the FAA to report them. Not sure what happened.... but, when they were contacted by the FAA... they were NOT happy, and called my attorney to complain...
It is Michigan, where I unfortunately have to live for at least a few more years. Are we really that surprised by the Michigan Supreme Court ruling against the citizens?
You have to keep government and police in a closely defined box. That's why we have a Constitution. To keep government tyranny in check. Not to keep the citizen in check.
Seems like they just paved the way for wide angle large scale 24/7 AI enhanced live aerial surveillance by blimp for "code enforcement" in the state of Michigan. Also seems like drone overflights of State supreme court justice's property are now fine as they are 'in public view', in case anyone is curious what goes on in their back yards.
I used to live in a NJ Township that had a couple FULL-TIME code enforcement officers...even had Township vehicles. They would seriously nickel & dime you to death with minor, bullcrap violations. No doubt they will now be sitting in their cars, flying drones over properties and writing nonsense "violations". I can see how this ruling will be a nightmare for a lot of the residents of such municipalities. Does this apply to HOAs also? Beyond nightmare in that case. I've since moved to a different state, and into a rural home with no HOA and very little municipal interference. It is wonderful, lol.
"I am the eye in the sky. Looking at you. I can read your mind. I am the maker of rules. Dealing with fools. I can cheat you blind." Alan Parsons foretold this in 1982.
Was it the government doing the action? Was it an area that they would not normally have access? Was it done for the purpose of taking action against a citizen? 4th Amendment. As a cop we were taught that if something was in a back yard and I had to climb the wall to look over (not in PLAIN sight), it required a warrant. Now, if a neighbor looked and reported it, it could be used to GET a warrant if that person wasn't asked by government to do it...
@@kevinpowers2959 If this were to need a warrant, then I would argue having code enforcement officers drive around the streets would also be a violation. The simple fact is, the drone was in public airspace and thus anyone who owns a drone would be able to have that vantage point. Take it from me there are people who do fly drones around like that. So that's why it's not part of the fourth amendment as it's within the realm of what the public would be capable of seeing. Now I do think it potentially is bad that it's in regards to being an eye-sore...but again seeing an "eye-sore" house isn't exactly always the concern when it comes to having a bunch of junk. You have a higher chance of leakage of chemicals into the ground water, higher municipal cleanup costs if some of the stuff decomposes and creates things such as microparticles in the soils/water runoff.
@@Swodie_Jeetinyou arent entitled to the space above ur land but you are still entitled to privacy on ur land if someone deliberately films you hes violating your privacy
@@Swodie_Jeetin I can fly a drone 400 ft above my private property by law then what does that say, but it's illegal to fly it over other peoples property, you do own a certain amount of airspace otherwise you wouldn't be able to build in the aboveground airspace where most peoples houses are
I see a situation coming soon whereby the police ask the municipality to do a drone flyover to avoid getting a warrant or to get around a denied warrant.
If not paying a fine or judgment against you can result in you going to jail, that's the equivalent of a criminal case. It might have started out as "only" a civil action, but if the end result *could* be you in jail, that's criminal *enough* that all the Constitutional protections should apply.
@jakeshields2905 That's not true. FAA regulation start at the surface and even use the abbreviation SFC all over sectional charts. There are tons of airspace videos here on RUclips, just search if you're interested.
An "eyesore" should be obvious and not require surveillance to discover. Are we to conclude that all of the times government has argued the "Spirit of the law" and not the letter were spurious?
As a MI homeowner this is very, very concerning. I have a private fenced backyard that I can no longer walk around naked while smoking weed because the city wants to check me out?
Our county, very rural, very Ag, has been using drones for tax assessments. They said they could, because it’s “no different” than satellite imagery. They also said realtors do (they started by using realtor websites, then got their own drone). As much as I loathe hearing that dang thing buzz around me periodically while working on my homestead, my real issue with the tax assessment is that they raised it by “counting roofs”. Yes, even movable shelters for my animals raised the assessment. Ridiculous. I would really like to put a message for them on my field.
People whose entire job is to enforce the law are routinely forgiven for not knowing the vast ocean of laws. Why are we who do NOT work in that sort of job expected to know ALL of the laws? "Ignorance of the law is no excuse, peasant."
@@MonkeyJedi99 There is also the issue that often laws can be interpreted to conflict with each other. Also, not all laws are actively enforced ... unless someone in power has a need to find something to enforce on an "enemy".
@@JimJohnD sounds like you need to mind your own business. It’s that persons property and nobody brought up EPA complaints. You’re a straw man at this point. If they had evidence of polluted runoff that would be enough to get them in trouble because that’s empirical evidence.
@@JimJohnDWhat does it matter? People shouldn't be punished for crimes that haven't happened. You arbitrate after some infringement has occurred not on the grounds that it might occur. That could happen with any large amount of chemicals. By that logic, farms can't have large tanks of anhydrous ammonia, since they might rupture.
@@RadDadisRad You're arguing with a Boomer. They don't care about facts or logic, it's all about Imagined-Danger and Perceived-Threats. They believe in Pre-Crime like we are living in "Minority Report". Entire generation of Karen's who can't mind their own business, because in their minds, you MIGHT be doing something wrong, despite almost never having proof. No better than the police's mindset.
That couple needs to take it to the Supreme Court of the United States. Bay even said they need a warrant to come on your property. They need a warrant to come in your house. They need to warrant to take any of your property and they'd better have just causounds. Like the Michigan Supreme Court is discriminating against the couple, they violated their airspace. And their privacy look up the privacy rule.
So much for private property. I had an aerial photo from the township (MI) sent to me from my township with a fine attached for a deck I had built on the back of my home. House was new in 1999. Got this photo in the mail in 2008. Deck was built spring of 2000 and was on the blueprint submitted to the township in 1999 at the time of pulling the building permit. I stated with the photo returned it was on my drawing submitted in 1999 and was completed spring of 2000 as part of the home. Crickets since. Fine was pretty excessive, if I remember $1800. Letter stated tear it down and pay the fine. No matter still had to remove the deck no matter what. Deck still stands today.
Your private property does not extend into the sky. Faa has authority over all airspace and uas drone operators may fly over said property. Everything captured is plain view from the sky.
Your property actually does extend into the sky. After a certain height there is just what is essentially a common law easement in the US. Steve has talked about this before.
They issue the citation with the presumption that the property owner is guilty. It's left up to the property owner to prove innocense. Apparently the Consitition does not apply to civil infractions. It's like living in an overreaching HOA.
"It's only an eyesore if you're watching from a drone." That's a great point. Really interesting analysis of this case. I can't believe they thought a case like this would have no effect, but your prophesy seems accurate. A brave new world!
City ordinances are created to make the area a "pleasant" place to live. Tall grass, chicken coups, out of service vehicles...........All of these make an "unsightly" mess, and the extra noise from the chickens. Anything that doesn't create these conditions for neighbors or visitors, can't be a violation. They have 0 impact on people. The most it can possible be for is an unhygienic situation, due to rodent and insect nesting. That would also have to be proven by those people or their children living in unhealthy conditions or if they were running a kitchen. This can get really ugly with a vindictive neighbor or HOA. We really need less government!!!
@@pud469 I live in Colorado, not Michigan, so a case like this might never actually impact me. That said, Colorado loves onerous city ordinances. I don't want drones peeking in our backyards to see if the grass is too tall or to decide if the lawn furniture is stylish enough for the nosy noop noops who take this pettiness so seriously. A friend of mine in Texas had no idea what I was complaining about. Apparently, they have very few restrictions on what property owners, especially homeowners, can do. I'd move to Texas for that, but there's a lot of other things I'm sure I wouldn't like.
Perhaps if the only potential issue is "eyesore" but there are other potential issues neighbors may have: increased traffic, ground water contamination, fire/explosion hazards, and noise pollution to name a few. I understand the point Steve was trying to make, but presuming the only issue is one of visual appeal isn't necessarily accurate.
@@JH-wd6dp A good point. I don't know the facts beyond what this video mentions. Even in the case of more serious hazards, though, I don't love the idea of broadly deploying drones for code enforcement. Both noise pollution and increased traffic are observable without even going to the property, so law enforcement wouldn't be hindered. Water contamination and hazardous or explosive materials are serious concerns, but the use of drones to detect things like this should still be approached with warrants largely because of the unintended consequences argument Steve made here. There have to be reasons to suspect these things even if some contamination or explosion could otherwise be prevented because a lot of people who wouldn't otherwise cause harm could be pulled up in that dragnet.
@@danielpalmer643 No worries. I too only have the knowledge of case details provided by Steve. For further clarity, those other nuisances I mentioned are specifically in relation to "salvage yards." They are possible issues/complaints that may stem from such an operation and why it may be more or less reasonable for the government to be empowered to "regulate" such a thing. If the only issue genuinely would be visual appeal, then I 100% agree with the fact of it being behind a fence negating the reasonableness of the drone or similar methodology. Or if those other issues themselves are violations that can be remedied the drone may not be necessary. I just suspect, based on my own knowledge of hazards associated with salvage operations, putting up a fence doesn't necessarily resolve all issues. If anything, it leads to the government being more invasive. I.e. the problem is still there, all that changed is how easy it is to see it. I can also agree some of the things I described could just as easily be used to support a search warrant, but at the same time can acknowledge how such an investment of time and resources for code violations may be counterintuitive. That being said, this sort of thing is generally why "inspection powers" are either legislated or incorporated into civil agreements. That way it's more clear-cut on what the government can or cannot do and why.
I wonder if the township would care how many vehicles was on the property if every vehicle was tagged. I would bet good money they wouldn't care at all..
The FAA has declared the airspace above the U.S. is public. Viewing things from public areas is legal. That's how all the 1A auditors do their thing. They set up on a public sidewalk or in a post office and shoot video. They're allowed to do this so flying a drone in a public space and taking video would be ok for these same reasons. Now, with that being said, let's go fly drones over our local police stations and judges houses and get some footage!
Long time cop here and drone pilot with a part 107 and a part time aerial photography business. I wouldn't give two rats arses if someone did come and fly over the police department. All they would see is the air conditioners and solar panels on the roof. Drones are here to stay, anybody can buy one and fly it in a way that makes your property visible. It's just the way it is, not much to be done about it. In my state there is only one law on the books related to drones and that is you can't fly them near correctional facilities. So someone could fly it over the PD all day, but they'd get bored if they were looking for a confrontation... fly to your heart's delight.
@@shindrithargriethrat8408 Most cops would get butt hurt and most judges would get butt hurt. Good on you for not getting butt hurt but you have to admit, most cops would feel the need to "sidewalk legislate" and confront someone doing so. If you don't think so, then just watch some of Jeff Gray's videos. His channel is "Honor Your Oath".
@@mattcero1 I think a lot of cops are very much programmed into their daily routine and don't really know a lot about drones, the FAA, or airspace. That goes the same for most people. I've been doing this job a long time, and while I've not seen everything, I've seen a damned lot. It would take a LOT to get me "butthurt". I always ask myself before I take any enforcement action a quick question: Is the juice worth the squeeze? In other words, what is the compelling state interest in what I'm about to do. If there isn't one, or if taking said action is going to be more hassle for me and inaction won't lead to any negative consequences, then I do not take that action. The hard part that people don't understand about being a cop is you have to look/be busy, else the bosses think you're milking it. The error is in thinking "Well I have to do something to keep them happy, this is something, therefore I will do X". Those of us who have been around the block a time or two get it. If you have never seen the scene from "Colors" with Robert Duvall and Sean Penn about the "story of the two bulls", I highly recommend you check it out. That is my mentality.
@@shindrithargriethrat8408 Yes, I've seen the movie and remember the scene. I would hope most cops ask themselves before taking an enforcement action would be "Is there a law being broken here?" If no, then move on. If yes, then enforce the law.
Again how hard is it for police or government officials to just get a warrant? A warrant covers all problems and shouldn’t be difficult to get instead of just pushing roughshod over people’s rights to be left alone without just and proper cause.
But you can't get a warrant to over fly a whole subdivision, fishing for code violations. Oh, look a pool without a fence around it. Oh look, a weedy back yard. This is a landfall for cities to rake in code fines. Or even the case where they drone an area and notice that a lot of home have some legal thing going on that they can regulate so they get a new ordinance passed and they go after those people.
@@Swodie_Jeetin If you want to claim it's a civil matter, then the city needs to show damages to sue you. What damages have they suffered by you not obeying their arbitrary rules?
3 things here : #1: I believe that the "airspace ownership" for a property only extends 100 meters (I think) above the property so fly the drone at 200m altitude. #2: Fly the drone ABOVE THE ROAD. The drone will still be able to "see" whats going on within the property. #3: Have a look on Google Earth... Those photo satellites ARE DEFINITELY above the property owners airspace limit. Also, don't all municipalities, cities and states have the right to inform the land owner that an inspection by the Inspection Department (NOT "Law Enforcement" as such) of their property will be done on such and such date? That would NOT be an "investigation" but rather an "inspection" and if necessary, something found during the "inspection" would be able to trigger an "investigation" (civil OR criminal) and at such time all the legal paperwork can be properly issued and acted upon by law enforcement. In that case, the "inspection" was done in compliance with all the rules and laws so the subsequent ""investigation" would not fall foul of the whole "fruit of the poisonous tree" defense. Also, the DA or whoever is going to prosecute the case HAS TO BE ON SITE when law enforcement enters the premises and BEFORE anyone goes in, the DA MUST VERIFY that every member of the team, himself included, have body-cams AND THEY ARE ALL ON AND WORKING PROPERLY.
A few facts. 1. Airspace above property (any property, private or not) is regulated by the FAA. Not the owner/operator. Not the police. Not code enforcement. 2. Drones operating in this capacity are classified as commercial aircraft and would require FAA Part 107 trained and certified pilot, flight plan approval from air traffic control, flight logging, insurance - just like operating a real manned aircraft. Way outside the legal pervue of local officials or police. Also, not so cheap afterall eh? Professional drone pilots in my area with Part 107 charge 135-175 an hour, depending on the mission. 3. As far as photography goes - if I can see it in plain view or from the air, I can photograph it without prejudice. If you don't want someone photographing your property, secure it from view.
Bingo. I am both a cop and a drone pilot with a part 107 and a business. If I can see it from the national airspace, I can film it. Period, end of story.
@@shindrithargriethrat8408 The issue isn't whether or not you can look at something and record it or photograph it. The issue is whether or not it can be used in evidence when you didn't have a warrant. It's like any other evidence. If it was improperly obtained, it's not admissible.
@@jerseyshoredroneservices225 California v. Ciraolo and Florida v Riley. See also Dow Chemical v. US. There is no requirement for a warrant to see what can be seen from the public airspace. Full stop. Just like a cop doesn't need a warrant to look at your car driving down the road with a busted tail light, a cop doesn't need a warrant to see what he can see from the air, as long as he has a legal right to be there. Because the FAA now regulates drones and limits them to at or below 400 feet AGL, they have basically extended the public navigable airspace to those lower altitudes. At least that would be my argument were I a lawyer for the state. Inevitably this issue will eventually make its way to the Supreme Court and they will have to parse out the prior decisions and see if they can make a ruling that fits with drone capabilities that didn't exist when the aforementioned cases were decided.
@@jerseyshoredroneservices225 What is being described is what is commonly known as being "lawfully placed." If it can be seen or observed from a lawful place, then it's unlikely to be viewed as "improperly obtained." Ergo, if the drone was lawfully placed in "national airspace," then the pictures and photographs are good. Generally, a warrant is not required in order to make observations, take pictures, or record from a public space or other lawful place. In this case, public airspace. Certainly, it may still need to be ruled upon regardless, however, given similar questions have been raised and addressed in relation to other aircraft and even spacecraft, it will very likely remain: if the public can see it from a public place, so can the government without warrant. Personally, I don't like the idea of drones, planes, helicopters, balloons, satellites, and other things being able to see my yard but that's just the way it goes.
Agreed 8th amendment violation. Government shouldn't be able to tell us what we can do with our property as long as it doesn't interfere with other people's rights. This is clearly an 18USC241, 1001 and 5CFR2635
@@johnwesley256 Not in THIS case. Having a bunch of junk in your yard is strictly a civil offense, and they can't even claim it was an eyesore, because they needed a drone to see it. The neighbors sicced code enforcement on him for an eyesore they couldn't even SEE. Also, you own the airspace over your property, so he's got them trespassing, peeping, and gangstalking.
If they settled in favor of the property owners but forgot to include a provision for inspection, i'd say that's completely on the govt's lawyers. They had an opportunity to secure agreed terms to enforce the settlement, but they failed to do so.
If it's too difficult for them to collect evidence of a victimless crime without resorting to means that violate the Bill of Rights, I don't think they should enforce the law in that case.
My Uncle dealt with this same situation a few years ago. In his case, the junkyard was actually known to the town. He purchased it as a pre-existing junkyard, and put a lot of effort into procuring storage equipment (mostly in the form of 18-wheeler trailers) to get the various junk items off the ground and out of contact with potential groundwater and precipitation. It's well back from the road, out in the woods in an unpopulated area where nobody can see that it exists without substantial trespassing. A few years ago, someone from town was browsing Google Maps and saw the satellite photo of the property, and freaked out that there was a junkyard in their town, causing a legal battle between my uncle and the town over this pre-existing, grandfathered storage yard. The upshot? He had to get rid of all the trailers (which are highly visible from overhead), and put all the junk inside back on the ground (where it blends in a bit better than the white-topped trailers). Personally, it sounds like junkyard owners are gonna need to start investing in military style camouflage netting to conceal the property from aerial surveillance and imaging.
The US Constitution defines THE GOVERNMENT. The First 10 Amendments sez what the government CANNOT DO! Any part of THE GOVERNMENT, police, cities, counties, street maintenance people, equipment, government contractors, judges, courts, ordnances, ARE THE GOVERNMENT.
What's the difference between a drone flying over taking pictures or video and a low-flying winged aircraft flying over taking pictures or video? 8 years ago my county got talked into having the latter map the county for property tax purposes once one year and again once the following year. It was very expensive for a poor county, but was promised to replace having to send workers out to measure and inspect properties as has always been done. The taxpayers were notified of the time period for the mapping beforehand. The county did not renew this service; I don't know why, but no county employee has been to my house since then. We were upset that the county spent all that money when they could use freely available satellite images from multiple sources. Was this invasion of privacy?
Drones are more easy to acquire than a helicopter, however that's really the only difference between drone photographs and helicopter, airplane or satellite photographs. I don't like the direction of less privacy but we have allowed aerial photography for quite a while. Flying a drone in my own backyard is not considered flying on my property but instead flying in federally regulated airspace. Same if it flies over your property too. It is strange and we aren't used to thinking that way about property.
Public agencies can operate drones EITHER with a Part 107 operator OR under a public agency Certificate of Authorization. In this case they hired a commercial provider and if there weren't properly credentialed and flying in permitted airspace then the California v. Ciralo and Florida v. Riley cases would have ended this case real quick as LEGAL operation of the aircraft in permitted airspace only seeing what could be observed by the naked eye is all those cases required for warrantless overflight and evidence gathering.
@@androiddave1276 How would one know if it was legal or not? What would happen if you noticed an identified flying object maneuvering over your property and took it down.
Most municipalities won't buy low cost drones but they could. I have a very sophisticated one that would do everything a town could want in filming neighborhoods that cost less than $1k. Steve is correct, municipalities will be lining up to either buy drones OR to contract out for someone to do the filming for them.
Any decent criminal attorney will state not to interact with law enforcement. They are always fishing. Poor little 9-year-old Steve got the black man treatment. 😢
@@nightlightabcd When government ignores the will of the people and violates the constitution, you're damn right. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
@@nightlightabcd Pfft, look at the media spin doctors. They convinced half of America that Jan 6th was a coup, and should be treated as traitors. Imagine what they could convince people of if actual armed people did something
I used to work for an aerial survey company, back in the era when mapping was done with photographs taken with big cameras mounted in airplanes. It was pretty common for people form local tax assessor's offices or code enforcement to purchase prints of photographs from our aerial photography library, for essentially the same purpose. This doesn't seem to be different in any meaningful way.
Yeah, aerial photographs are easily available online and from Florida Property Appraiser offices. Heck, can even get LIDAR these days. Also, a high-flying drone with a high-res camera/video can see pretty much everything (including infrared).
I can see your arguement, but It's different because it's a never ending technological encr0achment onto ctzens life, property and prvcy. With a plane's encroachment it is more rare and expensive. The drone eIiminates the rarity and expense and proficiency of the pilot. Encroachments will happen much more frequently.
@@almo3250 _"With a plane's encroachment it is more rare and expensive."_ -- not any more it's not. Both Google and Microsoft pay for aerial surveys for their "satellite" imagery for their mapping products (only rarely are these images still produced with satellites...much more often it's an airplane photographing the ground). And this photography has nearly 100% coverage over the US and other regions. The only thing that really puzzles me about this case is why the municipality bothered to pay a drone pilot to take footage. Given the timeline of the violation, even the images from Google or Bing Maps, which both are updated only about once a year at most, would've shown the violation. But as far as a privacy violation? I don't see it. The drone didn't yield any information about the code violation that wasn't already publicly available.
Novi, Michigan used aerial photos to require me to remove a shed that was not permitted but could not be seen from the road back in 2003-04. As you mentioned, local governments have been doing this for many years.
So the residents had an incorrect usage of their property and the town had incorrect usage of the drone. Technically, since the enforcer is engaging in an illegal process, this whole case needs to be chucked out.
Gate city, Va would routinely fly over my land with their helicopter inspecting my land. They tried to fine me when I bought my land before I moved onto it . They found deer feeders left by prior owners before I bought the property by flying over the land.
Having a salvage lot in your backyard will affect more than just the way the neighborhood looks. Things will get into the land, including into the land bordering your land, and into the water table.
Using a device to overcome your privacy and engage in aerial surveillance is not "plain view". Supreme Court has already ruled that the use of technology like thermal imaging to detect criminal activities like illegal grow houses require a warrant. This isn't that different. Under normal circumstances a government agent can't see past the fence so what's behind it is not in plain view.
This is exactly how we're loosing more and more of our rights every year. Everytime you get your local government involved in your civil disputes, it steps all over any rights that we have left. The moral of the story is, DON'T ever get government involved in your personal disputes or you are the problem in this country...
@@jerryclayton4616 In a very closed minded sense, yes that is correct. Also the majority of conservative judges ruled against them. There are 4 liberal and 3 conservative judges that signed off in favour of this ruling, lets say one of the liberals is replaced with one conservative, and even go a step further and say they vote against this ruling, that's still 6-1in favour of the ruling. But somehow this is a political issue? Funny that you act like conservatives are more in favour of peoples rights, go look up which circuit affirms most qualified immunities. (Hint: it's the fifth).
What if all “crimes” are civil in nature and the constitution doesn’t apply to any “crimes”? I was told by a local judge his court is not a constitutional court. What did that mean? Hmmmm
Regarding the "eyesore" complaint: I would check the real estate listings for the neighboring houses over the last few years. Realtors have been using aerial photos of the property and surrounding neighborhood for quite some time now, and even though you can't see the neighbor's junkyard from the street, an aerial view of one next door can be a source of concern for sellers.
Ah, now, when a drone is flying over my property, do I know it is a there as part of a "Code Enforcement Case"? That's absurd. If I see it, I'm going to "deter" it.
Good luck with that. The kind of deterrence that you are referring to is a federal Brian and likely involves committing local and state crimes at the same time. You wouldn't be the first guy that got in serious trouble for deterring an unmanned aircraft.
Hi Steve. Thank you for reviewing this. In Fresno County California, the county is using Google Earth to check rural property for unapproved buildings over 120sq'. They are doing this when home owners apply for permits for solar systems. Then holding up the solar process until property is brought into compliance. See where we go from here.
@@snex000 Exactly. Same thing when an officer pulls you over without probable cause. They pull you over illegally and then start gathering evidence without authority or right.
@@snex000 Honegly it's not that. It's fairly easy to get a warrant because most judges just rubber stamp them to begin with. It's more like they are just lazy.
I sure hope IFJ will take this up to the S.C.O.T.U.S. ( it wont be the first time a unanimous decision by a state supreme court was overturned by S.C.O.T.U.S.!!)!!
Hi Steve, my next door neighbor had an illegal junk yard (about 100 lawn mowers, snow blowers, small engines, etc) for about a decade. The town only made a stink until he put up fencing shielding the mess from the street. BUT all the abutting neighbors still had a front row seat to all the mess. 5 abutting neighbors complained that the eyesore decreased their property values but nothing happened. He eventually moved away but we're worried the oil and gas has soaked into the ground water.
I have a friend who lives in a rural area, large yard, small junk yard. His junk yard is full of junk spewed everywhere, but its surrounded by a small fenced in area. The town would undoubtedly fine him for the state of his junk yard... If it was viewable from the street/public, as in that case, it could be considered an eye sore. He's had the junk yard in the state its in, or near in, for the last 2 decades. No problems at all. I asked one time when we were cleaning up the junk yard a bit as to why he bothers cleaning it up, and he said it's to keep the city happy. We didn't change much, still looked like a 'junk yard' but it was just more organized. By this logic, the town could fly a drone over his junk yard and say that his junk yard is a nuisance. Despite it not being a nuisance, not being viewable from public, not being a problem for 2 decades, but the city could fine him for it... It's wrong. MANY people do this because over the decades of their lives they gather a lot of stuff. My friend has piles of aluminum, 2 or 3 'junk' cars that he's kept for sentimental reasons, dozens of bicycles from his years of working on bikes for the town parade... many many things that he considers some level of sentimental. Now, all the people that do things similarly could find themselves in court over these trivial things that aren't a problem. The town is just looking for more ways to generate revenue. If these govt. facilities had no monetary gain incentive to do this, then THEY WOULDNT BE DOING IT. They are doing it PURELY TO GAIN MORE REVENUE. They're basically saying that while these locations are clean enough from street view, and tidy enough to not bother ANYBODY and have NO COMPLAINTANT against these property owners, but if you can see something messy from the sky via drone/plane, then they're still in violation WITH NO COMPLAINTANT. If something like this becomes the standard, a LOT of hard working innocent American citizens are about to have their property unlawfully searched via drone in hopes that this government BUSINESS could make some money. Now to the 2nd thing you mentioned at the end of the video. Get ready for all neighborhoods in ghetto run-down areas to now have drones flying over them at all times. The amount of people smoking weed in their back yard, out of public view, will now have to worry about police drones videoing them from above, all under the guise of 'code enforcement'. If you really think that any police department would simply not act on this opportunity then you're more gullible than most people here.
I dont think its only a revenue generating opportunity, but potentially a source of land and property sold at a loss due to these kinds of actions going on the record. Again potentially, the municipality and/or elites would/could seize ...or fine... the owners in such a way they'd make living hell out of their lives so much the owners would want to or have to move. Just to find peace. There goes peacefully holding property. Shame on this court and municipality for giving any credence and taking this action.
I guess the township could wait until enough vehicles accumulated and contaminated the groundwater. Isn’t a drone equivalent to a flying traffic camera?😮
Hey Steve, I think I recall a video stating that you own the airspace above your property. Might’ve been a different state tho. Great vids Steve, thank you. Look forward to many more.
I'm in fire code enforcement. There is more to code issues than just the eyesore. There is also increased fuel load and the threat that poses to neighboring properties. The foam rubber seat cushions, plastics, and tires of cars are a very significant fuel load. That's why there are fire restrictions on how close flammable and combustible storage can be to property lines, the arrangement of flammable and combustible fuel piles including Fire Department access for firefighting, and the total volume permitted. It's common for zoning ordinances to consider this. I have used aerial photos many times in code enforcement. The city I worked for paid for high resolution aerial photos every few years. I've used those as well as Google Earth satellite photos in code enforcement. An example of how we used it was to identify improper cleaning of hood systems in commercial cooking that was leaving huge grease stains on the roofs of buildings. I found that the cleaning companies were doing the job right if the section of roof was visible from the ground, but if there was a parapet wall obscuring the view they were not. The worst was buildup about 20' x 30' and at it's thickest point thicker than my foot in my boot. The poor elderly owner of the business thought he was paying somebody to do the job right. The inside of his kitchen was very clean and he had just paid somebody to clean the hood system two weeks previous. He did not know about the horrible grease stain on the roof. That first one was brought to my attention by the property manager that oversaw that strip mall. After that I started using aerial photos to find similar throughout town. The fire code, adopted by the state legislature, gives inspectors the authority to perform inspections at any reasonable time. The only time we ever involved the police was when a property owner refused to allow an inspection. Then we obtained a warrant and took an officer with us for our protection. But we did no fire code enforcement through the police. The code gave the Fire Marshal and the city Building Official full authority to do all enforcement actions. We never turned anything over to the police to take care of. Their only role was to provide protection for us while we did our inspection in a hostile situation. I'm in Idaho, and maybe Michigan law is slightly different. But last I looked the international fire code was the code adopted by 47 states. Some states make minor adjustments, some make somewhat major adjustments, but most are based on the IFC.
Also, we never once discussed charging fees to "make money for the city". We did discuss charging fees to pay for the cost of inspections that are required by the code . The thinking in our city council was similar to the following: I'll use an extreme example to illustrate the point. Let's say that somebody decided they wanted to build a fireworks factory. Obviously there are big safety considerations. To protect the citizens of our community, the zoning ordinance should restrict such a business from going in right in the middle of a residential neighborhood. But beyond that sort of thing, there is a need to protect the citizens who are just driving down the road next to it. If somebody wants to put in that kind of business, they should be fully responsible to pay for the costs required by the fire code. Counsel did not feel that it was right to come out of the general fund. Why should an elderly grandmother have to help fund the cost of somebody's hazardous business? Similarly, why should the lowest hazard types of businesses such as, say, an accountants office, also have to fund it? The pricing of the hazardous product should be built in to cover the costs required to produce it. That is the only sort of discussion that ever happened in my city. Maybe greedy politicians looking for cash have tried to nickel and dime people to death in other areas, but here there was a very strong comment and I believe unanimous, desire of the mayor and city council was to only charge businesses for the things required for the business to operate, not in excess of that. So the fees were based upon the hourly wage for inspectors plus the use of the car, computer system, etc. But it wasn't designed to fund some politician's pet flower garden at a park, or some other such project.
The cost of the fire code inspection is minimal. The whole municipality is paying for the Fire Dept whether they're inspecting for code violations or sleeping.
@@alanwhite3280 Nope. We have full-time inspectors who understand the fire code way better than the engine crews. I did both at different times in my career. There's a huge learning curve to it. Until one gains an education in the specifics of it, one has no idea. This includes full-time firefighters, including myself before I got the education. You have to do it full-time to be good at it. We worked 40 hour weeks, during the day as inspectors. We did not sleep at the station waiting for emergency calls as inspectors. We had about 4500 commercial properties in our city with 3 inspectors, but one of them spent most of his time doing plan reviews for new construction. The funding from the inspection fees helped to partially pay for one more wage, so we got a fourth inspector. Still, there was no way to keep up with everything we should do in town with the new construction inspections, etc. One of our duties is also to investigate fires. We didn't sit around waiting for that, but would have to get pulled off of inspections. It does not go over well at all with construction contractors to stand them up for their inspections as buildings are being built. They need them for their funding from the bank, and don't care about our need to investigate fires. I can't blame them.
Your statement as a Code Enforcement Busybody totally inapplicable to the matter Steve discussed. None of the points raised bring up potential fire hazard issues in the instant case Steve discusses. The enclosed fenced property constitutes publicly unviewable curtilage plain and simple. There's zero compelling government purpose in harassing the property owners, as nothing the may have stored is causing any form of detriment to anybody wrongfully invading their privacy. By the way, FAA Regulations mandate passing aircraft have to be 500' or higher PASSING over. Period. Exclamation Point! That bars Warrantless surveillance drone activity within that given curtilage.
Well I think this means that if they were looking for criminal activity it may have been unconstitutional, but if they were looking for civil violations then it was okay.
It depends on what their official purpose was in the helicopter, where exactly they flew, and whether that activity had been reviewed against the Constitution. There are things that were done by the government/police in the 70's and 80's that are unacceptable today. Court interpretations of "plain view" have narrowed over the years or had to be revisited due to changes in technology and methodology. What may be (or have been) acceptable then and now also depends on the circumstances. Another thing to consider is the government may be allowed to enter property or take actions to conduct inspections without warrant. There is a fine line between inspections and searches. Generally that inspection authority has been reviewed and the right of the public has been found to outweigh an individual right, or found to be minimally invasive and therefore "reasonable." The key is the intent/purpose of the inspection. Generally, inspections are related to a regulated activity such a commercial business, operating vehicles/vessels, hunting/fishing, land assessment, or code enforcement and not major criminal activity. Sometimes, inspections reveal criminal activity and it may still be admissible. However, if it's clear the inspection was used specifically to detect criminal activity, i.e. circumvent the fourth amendment, then it may not be. So I circle back to what their official purpose was for being in the helicopter. There is a difference between flying over land and happening to spot something, versus specifically flying over land to look for something in particular, versus specifically flying over land to perform a regulatory inspection. In other words: were they lawfully placed.
Are you sure the drone went over the property? What if it was two streets over and just went straight up. They had neighbors saying hey, they keep getting more junk. And they have a history of doing it. I'm with the township on this one.
@@apersonontheinternet8006 licensed facilities have to have remediation measures for those things. Especially toxic run-off which can contaminate water sources for hundreds of miles downstream. An unlicensed facility is unlikely to take the same level of care.
I live in Rogers city very near this. A lot of stuff like this is mostly complaints from retirees moving from Detroit Ann arbor Grand rapids ECT. They move in and drive up prices on everything from homes and property. The property in question here is a farm. It's a constant battle. They have turned our rural communities into a retirement village.
Steve got this wrong. It is unreasonable to give up your right to privacy and quiet enjoyment of your property perpetually to resolve a code enforcement action. That's a life sentence. What is the difference between having property outdoors in a provate area of your property and having it in a shed without walls? A barn? A house? Landowner has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the non public areas of his property. Since the state provides zero evidence the property is used as an unlicensed salvage yard, or that any business occured on the property, that allegation is spurious. Anyone contemplating moving a business to Michigan will certainly reconsider.
No the lesson is if you want to do illegal stuff you should keep it indoors or otherwise covered. Airspace is public, if it can be seen by a small plane a municipalities drone can absolutely take a picture of it from a public space...
@@lgDukeCity5018 Yes like it or not the national airspace above everybody's home is public domain. Anybody can utilize the NAS in accordance with FAA regulations.
By not addressing the question at the heart of this case, the Michigan Supreme Court has created a giant loophole that puts all Michiganders at risk of warrantless surveillance. IJ will keep fighting to protect every American’s right to be secure. Meanwhile, the state legislature should act to close that loophole, to protect all Michiganders’ rights.
Please take this all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary
I haven't spent months of my time contemplating the privacy issues concerning drones and covert surveillance cameras, etc., but I feel, that as a general case, IF government INITIATES a search using drones or surveillance cameras, they should always have a warrant, for both civil or criminal charges, BUT if a private citizen using a drone happens to record footage of a infraction or crime, then that should be admissible evidence. To ensure accountability, the private citizen must not receive any compensation or benefit for their evidence from the government or be requested by the government to do it, and the private citizen must not be an "off-duty officer" in the same jurisdiction and government office - in other words, the code enforcement officer can't fly the drone in their own private time, but the county clerk or engineer could. Hopefully it would just be easier for the government to go through the proper channels of getting a warrant, like they should, than jumping through the extra hoops in any effort to circumvent getting a warrant.
Next, I feel all evidence should always be admissible in court, because all crimes need punished and the truth made known, otherwise, there should not even be a law. Wrongdoers shouldn't get off just because the government messed up. How can we preserve accountability in government not to break the Constitution, then? The Constitution is the law. Those who break it should be punished also (no qualified immunity in such cases). If a government employee does an unreasonable search without a warrant, they should be fired or suspended without pay for a year, and any supervisor of theirs that told them to do it (and maybe even harsher punishments than that since they are themselves breaking the law of the Constitution), but the evidence they collected should still be admissible. A murderer shouldn't go free just because a cop forgot to call a judge. And a cop won't forget to call a judge if he would be fired, except it be an emergency, and I believe exceptions are likely (or should be) already in place for emergencies. Last, I say these things without regard to your specific case and any matter of justice or injustice with the zoning laws. I only speak of the government's unlawful search and surveillance.
@@joshc4519 It would seem the question is what is admissible and what is not?
Drones are under the purview of the FAA, meaning they are legal to fly over private properties just the same as an airplane or helicopter can fly over your property. There have been cases trying to determine where that airspace starts, at ground level or some height above the ground, but generally its legal to fly over properties and the question is how the FAA determines that airspace.
Here's the problem: Lets say tomorrow, all drones are banned. But there are satellites that fly over and take high resolution photos all the time. So the local code enforcement then buys a high res pic of their area and see the same illegal junkyard... Seems like we are back at square one.
It would seem what can be used as evidence, not because of the legality of how it was obtained, but the means of how it was obtained, should be examined. Are aerial photos evidence? Or, can it only be used to obtain a warrant to obtain legal evidence?
"because all crimes need punished and the truth made known, otherwise, there should not even be a law."
That law applies to the government as well...
"Wrongdoers shouldn't get off just because the government messed up."
What is a wrongdoer? If the government illegally obtains evidence, how do we know they didn't doctor that evidence? Who punishes the government when they have unlimited power to prosecute, to persecute?
If you allow a police state to exist, they will just say "Oh yeah, so and so has been disciplined, but we got the criminal", while just giving each other slaps on the wrists while brutalizing the citizenry. Without the safeguards of admissibility, everything will be done "to get our man", officials will get their slaps on the wrists, and the citizenry terrorized.
And then you realize you didn't even have the criminal because the evidence was fabricated in the first place.
IJ, you folks are doing incredible work! Thank you for helping to keep the massive corruption in check as much as you can.
You guys are heroes. Genuinely.
Just another Kangaroo court, rubber stamping whatever the state wants.
🦘🥾🐍
Kangaroo Court treading on we the people.
Amen
@@johnwesley256bouncing *
Are these the same justices who determined that if the tire shop made a vague effort to put the lug nuts on, then the tire service was accomplished, even when your wheels fall off less than a mile after leaving the shop?
This is settled law. You don’t own the airspace above your property
The Fourth Amendment does not say anything about whether it is a civil or criminal issue, it just states no search will be conducted without a warrant.
Good point!
exactly! civil has nothing to do with it.
Steve explained that quite well.
The fourth does not prevent illegally obtained evidence from being used later. It just says you can't obtain it. But if you obtain evidence by illegal means the fourth does not prevent that evidence from being used against you.
Therefore the exclusionary rule was introduced to allow defendants to have evidence excluded if it was obtained illegally. However the exclusionary rule ONLY applies to criminal cases. Therefore there is a loophole Michigan has used to get around the exclusionary rule.
Technically the ruling is correct. What needs to happen now is the exclusionary rule needs to be expanded to include civil cases as well.
"Established in Weeks v. United States (1914), this rule holds that evidence obtained as a result of a Fourth Amendment violation is generally inadmissible at criminal trials. "
@@JeanPierreWhite "However the exclusionary rule ONLY applies to criminal cases."
If you haven't committed a crime, then why are you in court facing charges? Seems the gov is admitting those other cases, no crime was committed, and thus no charges nor trial should be taking place in the first place.
@@SoloRenegade innocent until proven guilty. Innocent people can find themselves in court. Some people will sue just to see if it will stick. In this case the 4th rights were trampled but there is remedy for them
What could go wrong? "We were just flying the drone up to the bedroom window to see if the homeowner was installing a new electrical outlet without a permit and look what we recorded!"
Yup
That would fail under the analysis used to determine what is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Flying at 400 feet above someone's yard is obviously much different than flying right outside someone's window.
Funny
Amen
@shindrithargriethrat8408 That's not true at all. If you fly over someone property at 400 ft and they are butt naked by their pool, you've still invaded their privacy. Especially if they have walls and such to prevent you from seeing into their pool area from ground view.
Applying municipal violations is circumventing the Constitution. These municipal enforcements are in layman’s terms a fundraising endeavor to bankrupt the accused party.
It's an act of financial terrorism to apply municipal codes to people that are not members of the municipality. Unless you provide services to members of the municipality, those codes don't apply. Property taxes only apply to those using their property for commercial use (including their homes), and transportation codes only apply to those using the roads for commercial or business purposes.
Or idk people could just follow the rules 🤷
"The object of all despotism is revenue." -- Thomas Paine
@@Swodie_Jeetin Municipal codes don't apply to all people that live in the city/county limits.
@@Swodie_Jeetin I guess you don't know much history. John Hancock, one of the founders of the US, was a smuggler and his lawyer was John Adams. The right against arbitrary searches and seizures applies whether you're guilty or innocent.
If the property is illegally being used as a salvage yard, why wouldn't they just show up as a customer? If they don't have customers, how are they a commercial salvage yard?
There is no claim that this is a "Commercial Savage Yard" but a "Savage Yard". Thus this might be a person who collects junkers and leave them on their property.
At most salvage yard customers are not allowed in the yard. Only the U pull it yards allow that
I believe this case the yard was just personal vehicles and other items. They are not a business but just what every farmer and rural property owners do to have things to fix equipment on their property.
All they needed to do was get a warrant.
Because Petty TYrant public servants want what they want and they want it right now , and we should of known wha tthey wanted before they even asked . Ill stop resisting now.
Civil violations that can lead to imprisonment are too frequently abused as not criminal, limiting the rights of the accused.
Same with most "civil" traffic infrations, it's a no-win game wheryou have virtually no real rights where failure to pay the perscribed fine can quickly lead to a process where someone else up in criminal proceedings as well as penalties from other parties for the points on the license.
I know I was like Steve they do lead to imprisonment
They claim it's not the civil violation that causes the incarceration. It's always something like contempt of court. It's merely a circuitous route to a debtor's prison.
@@jeffbergstrom it's not fine because it's color of law.
the joys of modern govt. call things civil then no rights. call it a traffic violation and no lawyer, rights, or even due process. presumably now you get an officer to throw a rock through your window then fly a drone into your house. so no search because the officers didnt enter the property.
Just another nail in the coffin proving that government at ALL LEVELS is not your friend and will always work against your interests.
The entire philosophy and purpose behind the bill of rights, although much of that reasoning has been forgotten over the years.
Just get a warrant, or is protecting people's unalienable rights to much trouble
you can't get a warrant for civil actions.
All they needed to do was give them proper notice that they were going to inspect to ensure compliance with the agreement. If they refuse you can get a court order (same effect as a warrant)
@@power2084 I would think they can use the same reason for inspecting for fire code violations... "it's a public safety issue". I would imagine an unauthorized salvage yard would constitute a fire hazard.
yes...adding the word civil makes this permissible...everyone knows we don't have civil rights.
@@jeraldbottcher1588 you can't get a court order to enforce a civil agreement between 2 parties.
Neighbors did not complain, they just used the excuse, cops lie to get what the want and don't get punished
The “we got a call” lie. They use it all day every day.
What is Excessive? Who is the Arbitrator of Excessive?
US Constitution & Bill of Rights was written to Define & Constrain the Government (State & Local Thiefdom too) NOT the People.
Unconstitutional Laws, Ordnances, Rules, and the Oppression of the people is what brought us to this point. The people are tired of the Government BS.
I must have missed that part of the Bill of Rights that says a Civil case is Exempt from all RIGHTS!
It's right there in-between officer safety and immunity.
somehow I wish that there were consequences for NOT following the constituion. And as in this case the consequence would be to invalidate all evidence and actions of the government for not following the Constitution and also to force the government to pay a fine back to the accused!
@@leenonolee4629 There is. 18US241 and 18US242. The problem is the same people who would be charged with enforcing it are the same people who are violating it.
Government provisions had become quite a bit more lax after World War II.
If you have to take to the air to see the property, then why does it matter how much junk they have on THEIR OWN property??
I hope there is more to this story...
All government entities should be, by force, required to have a warrant prior to a search, drone or otherwise. Otherwise it’s a fourth and fifth amendment violation.
Asking a branch of government to side with you over another branch of government is always going to be an uphill battle.
Balances and checks are a joke in this country
I think this needs to be taken to the US Supreme Court
@Watchingyou-daily
Ironic YT moniker. With the court we have now they will agree.
we don't need SCOTUS to know this was illegal. It's illegal on its face. the Constitution is explicitly clear on this.
Somehow HOAs will begin searching for violations, too.
Looking for that third pet to start eviction to increase rents.
For the last forty years, local sheriff's offices have been calling the conservation departments to "inspect" refrigerators and freezers while looking around for anything that would give rise to a search warrant for the cops. "Where you have police, you have a police state".
If no warrant is needed to do this to the public, then drone pilots should have the right to fly over anything the government has...
Area 51
We do...
National parks have restrictions so buzzing drones don’t ruin the experience for others , seems they
want it for reasons same as me on my property. Go figure
@luckypennybenny only issue is there are several areas that the government states are no fly zones. So you cannot fly a drone and take pics of those areas. Some federal facilities, state parks, etc...
Airspace is only restricted to military bases, government installations & airports. Otherwise I can fly my ultralight any where I want.
As a FAA licensed drone pilot I strongly disagree with this ruling. The right to privacy is almost nonexistent. The city could have gotten a warrant so they had a way to gather this evidence and did not need to fly a drone. Even if the drone did not fly over the property pointing the camera at the land seems like an intrusion to me. I hope that this case can get resolved in a positive manner for the home owner.
Getting a warrant for something civil isn't usually possible.
@@SandTguy agreed
Some guy somewhere already has a drone that will bring down another drone. Wonder if they'll need a warrant to collect their drone debris?
@@Times_Ticking I was not aware of that. Still I feel that it is an invasion of privacy for the government to use drones to collect evidence against a citizen without a warrant. If there is no other recourse for them that doesn’t justify this intrusion to me. I don’t like the direction that our right to privacy has gone over the last 39 years.
This is something I have "experienced" myself... I bought a building that needed cleaned up and repaired... little did I know, the township had "plans" for that property. So... they sent the code officer out to harass me, and write unreasonable tickets for everything he could to stop me from cleaning the property up. I went to court dozens of times for approximately $75K in tickets. Thru their own doings of improper tickets, they lost everytime... but, it cost me $40K+ in attorney fees. They were mad they kept losing in court, and the code officer was relentless in making ways to cost me more money, and stop me from repairing the building. I caught him on security camera putting superglue in my building door lock, and in the padlock on my box truck. Also, several other dirty tricks was done. He then flew a drone over my building in an effort to write more tickets for a bad spot in the corner of the roof. Here is where I have an issue with what you are reporting on... in the National Building Code it states "all inspections are to be done from the street". NOWHERE does it say you can fly a drone over private property! So... I checked with the FAA regulations regarding this... it states that drones used for commercial use (including code inforcement) MUST be registered with the FAA, flown by a licensed drone operator, and have commercial insurance for the drone. Also, regulations state it has to be flown 500ft above buildings. I then found out neither the Twp, the code officer, and the operator of the drone was licensed to operate the drone. The fine is $150K. So, I called the FAA to report them. Not sure what happened.... but, when they were contacted by the FAA... they were NOT happy, and called my attorney to complain...
4d chess. Noice
Code enforcement of the code enforcement 😂
It is Michigan, where I unfortunately have to live for at least a few more years. Are we really that surprised by the Michigan Supreme Court ruling against the citizens?
Government overreach. Disgusting.
Government is out of control.
They get their ideas from the state legisature when they gave the same overreach to HOAs.
The Part 107 two hour test and the $150. to take the test that no one wants or needs is government overreach, of which the intent is obvious!
Who'd a thought, the gov court ruled that the gov doesn't need a warrent.
What about the neighbors?
You have to keep government and police in a closely defined box. That's why we have a Constitution. To keep government tyranny in check. Not to keep the citizen in check.
@j0hnnykn0xv1lle
Try telling that to the gooberment.
This is going to have remarkable consequences.
@noelahg
100% Boom
Seems like they just paved the way for wide angle large scale 24/7 AI enhanced live aerial surveillance by blimp for "code enforcement" in the state of Michigan.
Also seems like drone overflights of State supreme court justice's property are now fine as they are 'in public view', in case anyone is curious what goes on in their back yards.
I used to live in a NJ Township that had a couple FULL-TIME code enforcement officers...even had Township vehicles. They would seriously nickel & dime you to death with minor, bullcrap violations. No doubt they will now be sitting in their cars, flying drones over properties and writing nonsense "violations". I can see how this ruling will be a nightmare for a lot of the residents of such municipalities. Does this apply to HOAs also? Beyond nightmare in that case.
I've since moved to a different state, and into a rural home with no HOA and very little municipal interference. It is wonderful, lol.
"I am the eye in the sky. Looking at you. I can read your mind. I am the maker of rules. Dealing with fools. I can cheat you blind." Alan Parsons foretold this in 1982.
1982 Judas Priest "Electric Eye"
I see your point. Now I'm going to have that song stuck in my head for at least the rest of the day though. 😕
I love that song! A really prophetic song is for what seems to bewhat we are getting closer to, "Silent Running", Mike and the Mechanics.
IRobot. Great song.
Was it the government doing the action? Was it an area that they would not normally have access? Was it done for the purpose of taking action against a citizen?
4th Amendment. As a cop we were taught that if something was in a back yard and I had to climb the wall to look over (not in PLAIN sight), it required a warrant. Now, if a neighbor looked and reported it, it could be used to GET a warrant if that person wasn't asked by government to do it...
Yes "plain sight" thats it
They "only respond to complaints". There's your victim/hero/narcissist/ sociopath/psychopath... Complainant!
God, please grant them serenity...
It's called "private" property for a reason. You should be entitled to an expectation of privacy and freedom from government entanglements.
You aren't entitled to the airspace above your land that you can't reasonably use. Ask the FAA.
@@Swodie_Jeetin read the fourth amendment
@@kevinpowers2959 If this were to need a warrant, then I would argue having code enforcement officers drive around the streets would also be a violation. The simple fact is, the drone was in public airspace and thus anyone who owns a drone would be able to have that vantage point. Take it from me there are people who do fly drones around like that.
So that's why it's not part of the fourth amendment as it's within the realm of what the public would be capable of seeing.
Now I do think it potentially is bad that it's in regards to being an eye-sore...but again seeing an "eye-sore" house isn't exactly always the concern when it comes to having a bunch of junk. You have a higher chance of leakage of chemicals into the ground water, higher municipal cleanup costs if some of the stuff decomposes and creates things such as microparticles in the soils/water runoff.
@@Swodie_Jeetinyou arent entitled to the space above ur land but you are still entitled to privacy on ur land if someone deliberately films you hes violating your privacy
@@Swodie_Jeetin I can fly a drone 400 ft above my private property by law then what does that say, but it's illegal to fly it over other peoples property, you do own a certain amount of airspace otherwise you wouldn't be able to build in the aboveground airspace where most peoples houses are
I see a situation coming soon whereby the police ask the municipality to do a drone flyover to avoid getting a warrant or to get around a denied warrant.
If not paying a fine or judgment against you can result in you going to jail, that's the equivalent of a criminal case. It might have started out as "only" a civil action, but if the end result *could* be you in jail, that's criminal *enough* that all the Constitutional protections should apply.
Agreed. A fine is no different from civil forfiture of cash.
You don't have a right to the airspace over your house. Read up on it
The FAA regulates the air space not the property owner.
@jakeshields2905
That's not true. FAA regulation start at the surface and even use the abbreviation SFC all over sectional charts.
There are tons of airspace videos here on RUclips, just search if you're interested.
@jakeshields2905 No, the FAA regulates the air space from the surface. Look it up.
An "eyesore" should be obvious and not require surveillance to discover. Are we to conclude that all of the times government has argued the "Spirit of the law" and not the letter were spurious?
As a MI homeowner this is very, very concerning. I have a private fenced backyard that I can no longer walk around naked while smoking weed because the city wants to check me out?
I think you should be allowed to. Sounds like non of anyone else's business.
Our county, very rural, very Ag, has been using drones for tax assessments. They said they could, because it’s “no different” than satellite imagery. They also said realtors do (they started by using realtor websites, then got their own drone). As much as I loathe hearing that dang thing buzz around me periodically while working on my homestead, my real issue with the tax assessment is that they raised it by “counting roofs”. Yes, even movable shelters for my animals raised the assessment. Ridiculous. I would really like to put a message for them on my field.
I hate the counter argument of "just follow the law" to allow government overreach into our rights and privacy.
People whose entire job is to enforce the law are routinely forgiven for not knowing the vast ocean of laws.
Why are we who do NOT work in that sort of job expected to know ALL of the laws? "Ignorance of the law is no excuse, peasant."
@@MonkeyJedi99 There is also the issue that often laws can be interpreted to conflict with each other. Also, not all laws are actively enforced ... unless someone in power has a need to find something to enforce on an "enemy".
There are 33,000 laws on the books, many of which are unjust and/or unconstitutional. You break at least one every day.
@@lgDukeCity5018 And more depending on where you are with added on state, county, and city laws.
sheep are gonna sheep
Sounds like those neighbors need to mind their own business.
Depends. Are they storing anything that might contaminate the ground water?
@@JimJohnD sounds like you need to mind your own business. It’s that persons property and nobody brought up EPA complaints. You’re a straw man at this point. If they had evidence of polluted runoff that would be enough to get them in trouble because that’s empirical evidence.
@@JimJohnDWhat does it matter? People shouldn't be punished for crimes that haven't happened. You arbitrate after some infringement has occurred not on the grounds that it might occur. That could happen with any large amount of chemicals. By that logic, farms can't have large tanks of anhydrous ammonia, since they might rupture.
@@RadDadisRad You're arguing with a Boomer. They don't care about facts or logic, it's all about Imagined-Danger and Perceived-Threats. They believe in Pre-Crime like we are living in "Minority Report". Entire generation of Karen's who can't mind their own business, because in their minds, you MIGHT be doing something wrong, despite almost never having proof. No better than the police's mindset.
The neighbours could fly a drone over the property if they wanted. You don't own the airspace above your land.
That couple needs to take it to the Supreme Court of the United States. Bay even said they need a warrant to come on your property. They need a warrant to come in your house. They need to warrant to take any of your property and they'd better have just causounds. Like the Michigan Supreme Court is discriminating against the couple, they violated their airspace. And their privacy look up the privacy rule.
So much for private property. I had an aerial photo from the township (MI) sent to me from my township with a fine attached for a deck I had built on the back of my home. House was new in 1999. Got this photo in the mail in 2008. Deck was built spring of 2000 and was on the blueprint submitted to the township in 1999 at the time of pulling the building permit. I stated with the photo returned it was on my drawing submitted in 1999 and was completed spring of 2000 as part of the home. Crickets since. Fine was pretty excessive, if I remember $1800. Letter stated tear it down and pay the fine. No matter still had to remove the deck no matter what. Deck still stands today.
Now you're getting it. The commie way.
Your private property does not extend into the sky. Faa has authority over all airspace and uas drone operators may fly over said property. Everything captured is plain view from the sky.
Your property actually does extend into the sky. After a certain height there is just what is essentially a common law easement in the US. Steve has talked about this before.
Less than 1000 feet is consider to close for the 4th. Over 1000 is legal evidence.
They issue the citation with the presumption that the property owner is guilty. It's left up to the property owner to prove innocense. Apparently the Consitition does not apply to civil infractions. It's like living in an overreaching HOA.
"It's only an eyesore if you're watching from a drone." That's a great point. Really interesting analysis of this case. I can't believe they thought a case like this would have no effect, but your prophesy seems accurate. A brave new world!
City ordinances are created to make the area a "pleasant" place to live. Tall grass, chicken coups, out of service vehicles...........All of these make an "unsightly" mess, and the extra noise from the chickens. Anything that doesn't create these conditions for neighbors or visitors, can't be a violation. They have 0 impact on people. The most it can possible be for is an unhygienic situation, due to rodent and insect nesting. That would also have to be proven by those people or their children living in unhealthy conditions or if they were running a kitchen. This can get really ugly with a vindictive neighbor or HOA. We really need less government!!!
@@pud469 I live in Colorado, not Michigan, so a case like this might never actually impact me. That said, Colorado loves onerous city ordinances. I don't want drones peeking in our backyards to see if the grass is too tall or to decide if the lawn furniture is stylish enough for the nosy noop noops who take this pettiness so seriously. A friend of mine in Texas had no idea what I was complaining about. Apparently, they have very few restrictions on what property owners, especially homeowners, can do. I'd move to Texas for that, but there's a lot of other things I'm sure I wouldn't like.
Perhaps if the only potential issue is "eyesore" but there are other potential issues neighbors may have: increased traffic, ground water contamination, fire/explosion hazards, and noise pollution to name a few.
I understand the point Steve was trying to make, but presuming the only issue is one of visual appeal isn't necessarily accurate.
@@JH-wd6dp A good point. I don't know the facts beyond what this video mentions. Even in the case of more serious hazards, though, I don't love the idea of broadly deploying drones for code enforcement. Both noise pollution and increased traffic are observable without even going to the property, so law enforcement wouldn't be hindered. Water contamination and hazardous or explosive materials are serious concerns, but the use of drones to detect things like this should still be approached with warrants largely because of the unintended consequences argument Steve made here. There have to be reasons to suspect these things even if some contamination or explosion could otherwise be prevented because a lot of people who wouldn't otherwise cause harm could be pulled up in that dragnet.
@@danielpalmer643 No worries. I too only have the knowledge of case details provided by Steve. For further clarity, those other nuisances I mentioned are specifically in relation to "salvage yards." They are possible issues/complaints that may stem from such an operation and why it may be more or less reasonable for the government to be empowered to "regulate" such a thing.
If the only issue genuinely would be visual appeal, then I 100% agree with the fact of it being behind a fence negating the reasonableness of the drone or similar methodology. Or if those other issues themselves are violations that can be remedied the drone may not be necessary. I just suspect, based on my own knowledge of hazards associated with salvage operations, putting up a fence doesn't necessarily resolve all issues. If anything, it leads to the government being more invasive. I.e. the problem is still there, all that changed is how easy it is to see it.
I can also agree some of the things I described could just as easily be used to support a search warrant, but at the same time can acknowledge how such an investment of time and resources for code violations may be counterintuitive.
That being said, this sort of thing is generally why "inspection powers" are either legislated or incorporated into civil agreements. That way it's more clear-cut on what the government can or cannot do and why.
I wonder if the township would care how many vehicles was on the property if every vehicle was tagged. I would bet good money they wouldn't care at all..
Time to rise up against the tyrants.
Hoa's going to be flying drones everywhere
The FAA has declared the airspace above the U.S. is public. Viewing things from public areas is legal. That's how all the 1A auditors do their thing. They set up on a public sidewalk or in a post office and shoot video. They're allowed to do this so flying a drone in a public space and taking video would be ok for these same reasons. Now, with that being said, let's go fly drones over our local police stations and judges houses and get some footage!
Long time cop here and drone pilot with a part 107 and a part time aerial photography business. I wouldn't give two rats arses if someone did come and fly over the police department. All they would see is the air conditioners and solar panels on the roof. Drones are here to stay, anybody can buy one and fly it in a way that makes your property visible. It's just the way it is, not much to be done about it. In my state there is only one law on the books related to drones and that is you can't fly them near correctional facilities. So someone could fly it over the PD all day, but they'd get bored if they were looking for a confrontation... fly to your heart's delight.
@@shindrithargriethrat8408 Most cops would get butt hurt and most judges would get butt hurt. Good on you for not getting butt hurt but you have to admit, most cops would feel the need to "sidewalk legislate" and confront someone doing so. If you don't think so, then just watch some of Jeff Gray's videos. His channel is "Honor Your Oath".
@@mattcero1 I think a lot of cops are very much programmed into their daily routine and don't really know a lot about drones, the FAA, or airspace. That goes the same for most people. I've been doing this job a long time, and while I've not seen everything, I've seen a damned lot. It would take a LOT to get me "butthurt". I always ask myself before I take any enforcement action a quick question: Is the juice worth the squeeze? In other words, what is the compelling state interest in what I'm about to do. If there isn't one, or if taking said action is going to be more hassle for me and inaction won't lead to any negative consequences, then I do not take that action. The hard part that people don't understand about being a cop is you have to look/be busy, else the bosses think you're milking it. The error is in thinking "Well I have to do something to keep them happy, this is something, therefore I will do X". Those of us who have been around the block a time or two get it. If you have never seen the scene from "Colors" with Robert Duvall and Sean Penn about the "story of the two bulls", I highly recommend you check it out. That is my mentality.
@@shindrithargriethrat8408 Yes, I've seen the movie and remember the scene. I would hope most cops ask themselves before taking an enforcement action would be "Is there a law being broken here?" If no, then move on. If yes, then enforce the law.
Again how hard is it for police or government officials to just get a warrant?
A warrant covers all problems and shouldn’t be difficult to get instead of just pushing roughshod over people’s rights to be left alone without just and proper cause.
A warrant requires probable cause supported by oath or affirmation. They obviously didn't have that.
He said it's a civil matter, not criminal
But you can't get a warrant to over fly a whole subdivision, fishing for code violations. Oh, look a pool without a fence around it. Oh look, a weedy back yard. This is a landfall for cities to rake in code fines. Or even the case where they drone an area and notice that a lot of home have some legal thing going on that they can regulate so they get a new ordinance passed and they go after those people.
@@Swodie_Jeetin If you want to claim it's a civil matter, then the city needs to show damages to sue you. What damages have they suffered by you not obeying their arbitrary rules?
How much of a REAL nuisance is it if others can’t feel its effects without intruding into someone’s private space?
3 things here :
#1: I believe that the "airspace ownership" for a property only extends 100 meters (I think) above the property so fly the drone at 200m altitude.
#2: Fly the drone ABOVE THE ROAD. The drone will still be able to "see" whats going on within the property.
#3: Have a look on Google Earth... Those photo satellites ARE DEFINITELY above the property owners airspace limit.
Also, don't all municipalities, cities and states have the right to inform the land owner that an inspection by the Inspection Department (NOT "Law Enforcement" as such) of their property will be done on such and such date?
That would NOT be an "investigation" but rather an "inspection" and if necessary, something found during the "inspection" would be able to trigger an "investigation" (civil OR criminal) and at such time all the legal paperwork can be properly issued and acted upon by law enforcement.
In that case, the "inspection" was done in compliance with all the rules and laws so the subsequent ""investigation" would not fall foul of the whole "fruit of the poisonous tree" defense.
Also, the DA or whoever is going to prosecute the case HAS TO BE ON SITE when law enforcement enters the premises and BEFORE anyone goes in, the DA MUST VERIFY that every member of the team, himself included, have body-cams AND THEY ARE ALL ON AND WORKING PROPERLY.
You are correct on #2 and 3. #1 is wrong, the FAA controls the air space from the surface up.
We’ve investigated ourselves and found nothing wrong, we’re from the government and we’re here to help you
Ronald Reagan said the nine most terrifying words in the English language are " I'm from the government and I'm here to help"
Why wouldn’t they just get a warrant? Why do cops hate warrants? Bc they know it’s easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.
Abusers do not like to ask for permission.
A warrant for what crime?
Definitely a violation of privacy
A few facts.
1. Airspace above property (any property, private or not) is regulated by the FAA. Not the owner/operator. Not the police. Not code enforcement.
2. Drones operating in this capacity are classified as commercial aircraft and would require FAA Part 107 trained and certified pilot, flight plan approval from air traffic control, flight logging, insurance - just like operating a real manned aircraft. Way outside the legal pervue of local officials or police. Also, not so cheap afterall eh? Professional drone pilots in my area with Part 107 charge 135-175 an hour, depending on the mission.
3. As far as photography goes - if I can see it in plain view or from the air, I can photograph it without prejudice. If you don't want someone photographing your property, secure it from view.
Bingo. I am both a cop and a drone pilot with a part 107 and a business. If I can see it from the national airspace, I can film it. Period, end of story.
A flight plan, logging and insurance are not required.
You could have made a good post but you went nuts instead 🤣
@@shindrithargriethrat8408
The issue isn't whether or not you can look at something and record it or photograph it. The issue is whether or not it can be used in evidence when you didn't have a warrant.
It's like any other evidence. If it was improperly obtained, it's not admissible.
@@jerseyshoredroneservices225 California v. Ciraolo and Florida v Riley. See also Dow Chemical v. US. There is no requirement for a warrant to see what can be seen from the public airspace. Full stop. Just like a cop doesn't need a warrant to look at your car driving down the road with a busted tail light, a cop doesn't need a warrant to see what he can see from the air, as long as he has a legal right to be there. Because the FAA now regulates drones and limits them to at or below 400 feet AGL, they have basically extended the public navigable airspace to those lower altitudes. At least that would be my argument were I a lawyer for the state. Inevitably this issue will eventually make its way to the Supreme Court and they will have to parse out the prior decisions and see if they can make a ruling that fits with drone capabilities that didn't exist when the aforementioned cases were decided.
@@jerseyshoredroneservices225 What is being described is what is commonly known as being "lawfully placed." If it can be seen or observed from a lawful place, then it's unlikely to be viewed as "improperly obtained." Ergo, if the drone was lawfully placed in "national airspace," then the pictures and photographs are good. Generally, a warrant is not required in order to make observations, take pictures, or record from a public space or other lawful place. In this case, public airspace.
Certainly, it may still need to be ruled upon regardless, however, given similar questions have been raised and addressed in relation to other aircraft and even spacecraft, it will very likely remain: if the public can see it from a public place, so can the government without warrant.
Personally, I don't like the idea of drones, planes, helicopters, balloons, satellites, and other things being able to see my yard but that's just the way it goes.
When there are penalties, it is criminal. The government can pound sand.
Civilian Drone Auditors Army Will Take Flight This And 702 Is The End Of All Pursuits of happiness and freedom
Agreed 8th amendment violation. Government shouldn't be able to tell us what we can do with our property as long as it doesn't interfere with other people's rights.
This is clearly an 18USC241, 1001 and 5CFR2635
There are civil penalties, too, so which is it?
@@LordMondegrene It's both, think of it as when someone steals your car and burns it. There is criminal for the theft and civil for the car.
@@johnwesley256 Not in THIS case. Having a bunch of junk in your yard is strictly a civil offense, and they can't even claim it was an eyesore, because they needed a drone to see it. The neighbors sicced code enforcement on him for an eyesore they couldn't even SEE.
Also, you own the airspace over your property, so he's got them trespassing, peeping, and gangstalking.
If they settled in favor of the property owners but forgot to include a provision for inspection, i'd say that's completely on the govt's lawyers. They had an opportunity to secure agreed terms to enforce the settlement, but they failed to do so.
If it's too difficult for them to collect evidence of a victimless crime without resorting to means that violate the Bill of Rights, I don't think they should enforce the law in that case.
My Uncle dealt with this same situation a few years ago. In his case, the junkyard was actually known to the town. He purchased it as a pre-existing junkyard, and put a lot of effort into procuring storage equipment (mostly in the form of 18-wheeler trailers) to get the various junk items off the ground and out of contact with potential groundwater and precipitation. It's well back from the road, out in the woods in an unpopulated area where nobody can see that it exists without substantial trespassing. A few years ago, someone from town was browsing Google Maps and saw the satellite photo of the property, and freaked out that there was a junkyard in their town, causing a legal battle between my uncle and the town over this pre-existing, grandfathered storage yard.
The upshot? He had to get rid of all the trailers (which are highly visible from overhead), and put all the junk inside back on the ground (where it blends in a bit better than the white-topped trailers). Personally, it sounds like junkyard owners are gonna need to start investing in military style camouflage netting to conceal the property from aerial surveillance and imaging.
The council should have obtained a court order for the drone.
The US Constitution defines THE GOVERNMENT. The First 10 Amendments sez what the government CANNOT DO!
Any part of THE GOVERNMENT, police, cities, counties, street maintenance people, equipment, government contractors, judges, courts, ordnances, ARE THE GOVERNMENT.
Ben is being a hat to the mike 2nd on our left.
The exclusionary rule should apply to any government/state actions against we the people.
What's the difference between a drone flying over taking pictures or video and a low-flying winged aircraft flying over taking pictures or video? 8 years ago my county got talked into having the latter map the county for property tax purposes once one year and again once the following year. It was very expensive for a poor county, but was promised to replace having to send workers out to measure and inspect properties as has always been done. The taxpayers were notified of the time period for the mapping beforehand. The county did not renew this service; I don't know why, but no county employee has been to my house since then. We were upset that the county spent all that money when they could use freely available satellite images from multiple sources. Was this invasion of privacy?
Why pay for aircraft photos when Google mapping/satellite imaging is free.
Drones are more easy to acquire than a helicopter, however that's really the only difference between drone photographs and helicopter, airplane or satellite photographs. I don't like the direction of less privacy but we have allowed aerial photography for quite a while. Flying a drone in my own backyard is not considered flying on my property but instead flying in federally regulated airspace. Same if it flies over your property too. It is strange and we aren't used to thinking that way about property.
Were they operating that drone with a commercial license? FAA requires it
Public agencies can operate drones EITHER with a Part 107 operator OR under a public agency Certificate of Authorization. In this case they hired a commercial provider and if there weren't properly credentialed and flying in permitted airspace then the California v. Ciralo and Florida v. Riley cases would have ended this case real quick as LEGAL operation of the aircraft in permitted airspace only seeing what could be observed by the naked eye is all those cases required for warrantless overflight and evidence gathering.
cute, you think the law applies to your lords and their jackboots
@@androiddave1276 How would one know if it was legal or not? What would happen if you noticed an identified flying object maneuvering over your property and took it down.
@@VinceMaltese-ys5zyshooting a drone down carries the same penalty as shooting down an actual airplane.
@@mdmedicgod Proof?
Most municipalities won't buy low cost drones but they could. I have a very sophisticated one that would do everything a town could want in filming neighborhoods that cost less than $1k. Steve is correct, municipalities will be lining up to either buy drones OR to contract out for someone to do the filming for them.
A code enforcement officer on every task force! Pre textual code violation investigations to start every criminal investigation!
Any decent criminal attorney will state not to interact with law enforcement. They are always fishing. Poor little 9-year-old Steve got the black man treatment. 😢
Townships will eventually sell private property footage to whoever would pay for your private information.
IJ putting up the good fight!
America used to have great personal freedom. I guess that has gone now.
The Karens are in charge now and they want to be involved in everyone else's business.
Even the freedom to stage a coup and threats of civil war?
@@nightlightabcd When government ignores the will of the people and violates the constitution, you're damn right.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
@@nightlightabcdWhat do you think the second amendment being used for its written purpose would look like?
@@nightlightabcd Pfft, look at the media spin doctors. They convinced half of America that Jan 6th was a coup, and should be treated as traitors. Imagine what they could convince people of if actual armed people did something
I used to work for an aerial survey company, back in the era when mapping was done with photographs taken with big cameras mounted in airplanes. It was pretty common for people form local tax assessor's offices or code enforcement to purchase prints of photographs from our aerial photography library, for essentially the same purpose. This doesn't seem to be different in any meaningful way.
Yeah, aerial photographs are easily available online and from Florida Property Appraiser offices. Heck, can even get LIDAR these days. Also, a high-flying drone with a high-res camera/video can see pretty much everything (including infrared).
I can see your arguement,
but It's different because it's a never ending technological encr0achment onto ctzens life, property and prvcy. With a plane's encroachment it is more rare and expensive.
The drone eIiminates the rarity and expense and proficiency of the pilot. Encroachments will happen much more frequently.
@@almo3250 _"With a plane's encroachment it is more rare and expensive."_ -- not any more it's not. Both Google and Microsoft pay for aerial surveys for their "satellite" imagery for their mapping products (only rarely are these images still produced with satellites...much more often it's an airplane photographing the ground). And this photography has nearly 100% coverage over the US and other regions.
The only thing that really puzzles me about this case is why the municipality bothered to pay a drone pilot to take footage. Given the timeline of the violation, even the images from Google or Bing Maps, which both are updated only about once a year at most, would've shown the violation.
But as far as a privacy violation? I don't see it. The drone didn't yield any information about the code violation that wasn't already publicly available.
Novi, Michigan used aerial photos to require me to remove a shed that was not permitted but could not be seen from the road back in 2003-04. As you mentioned, local governments have been doing this for many years.
So the residents had an incorrect usage of their property and the town had incorrect usage of the drone. Technically, since the enforcer is engaging in an illegal process, this whole case needs to be chucked out.
We have drones in our neighborhoods. Here in reno nevada.
I have witnessed several as i walk to and from my post office 🏤 and general walk.
Gate city, Va would routinely fly over my land with their helicopter inspecting my land. They tried to fine me when I bought my land before I moved onto it . They found deer feeders left by prior owners before I bought the property by flying over the land.
Why are deer feeders illegal?
@@APackOfHungryGhosts Deer feeders are tools for hunting deer.
@@alphax4785 Didn't ask what they were, asked why they are illegal.
@@APackOfHungryGhosts Because hunting without a license and/or using certain tools is illegal in most states... 🙄
@@APackOfHungryGhosts Because hunting without a license and using certain tools is illegal in most states.
Having a salvage lot in your backyard will affect more than just the way the neighborhood looks. Things will get into the land, including into the land bordering your land, and into the water table.
Courts got this 100% correct. You would need to change FFA regulations and the plain view doctrine to make this illegal.
Using a device to overcome your privacy and engage in aerial surveillance is not "plain view". Supreme Court has already ruled that the use of technology like thermal imaging to detect criminal activities like illegal grow houses require a warrant. This isn't that different.
Under normal circumstances a government agent can't see past the fence so what's behind it is not in plain view.
@@Strideo1 Taking photos or video from legally flying aircraft is not illegal
The issue isn't about the flight or the taking of photos.
The issue is about the admissibility of those photos as evidence.
if this ever happens to a judge, the law will change.
We're losing our rights, one at a time! Hope your ready for this 'Brave New World'.
I choose the Soma coma.
You’re
maybe the rule should be "where the drone is, is where YOU are"
Love how you go over new laws and ordinances! Awesome work
Sometimes ordenence is needed to protect against illegal ordinances
This is exactly how we're loosing more and more of our rights every year. Everytime you get your local government involved in your civil disputes, it steps all over any rights that we have left. The moral of the story is, DON'T ever get government involved in your personal disputes or you are the problem in this country...
This court has a liberal majority! Disgusting verdict! And I’m from Michigan!
Liberals are the worst.
You know what the word unanimous means, right? You realise this was a unanimous decision?
Less liberal and more authoritarian, I guess.
@@htnumbers123 yes a majority of liberal judges ruled against him… is that correct?
@@jerryclayton4616 In a very closed minded sense, yes that is correct. Also the majority of conservative judges ruled against them. There are 4 liberal and 3 conservative judges that signed off in favour of this ruling, lets say one of the liberals is replaced with one conservative, and even go a step further and say they vote against this ruling, that's still 6-1in favour of the ruling. But somehow this is a political issue?
Funny that you act like conservatives are more in favour of peoples rights, go look up which circuit affirms most qualified immunities. (Hint: it's the fifth).
What if all “crimes” are civil in nature and the constitution doesn’t apply to any “crimes”? I was told by a local judge his court is not a constitutional court. What did that mean? Hmmmm
So The Court Just Granted Peeping Tom Rights To Law Enforcement???
Exactly. Selfie-stick over your fence, phone slid under your bathroom stale, drone above your house, it's all the same intrusive invasion of privacy.
what's more annoying than people typing in ALL CAPS ? People Typing With A Capital Letter For Each And Every Word.
@@power2084Why Is That I Don't Get It???
@@AngstG
LOL
Regarding the "eyesore" complaint: I would check the real estate listings for the neighboring houses over the last few years. Realtors have been using aerial photos of the property and surrounding neighborhood for quite some time now, and even though you can't see the neighbor's junkyard from the street, an aerial view of one next door can be a source of concern for sellers.
Ah, now, when a drone is flying over my property, do I know it is a there as part of a "Code Enforcement Case"? That's absurd. If I see it, I'm going to "deter" it.
Good luck with that. The kind of deterrence that you are referring to is a federal Brian and likely involves committing local and state crimes at the same time. You wouldn't be the first guy that got in serious trouble for deterring an unmanned aircraft.
Hi Steve. Thank you for reviewing this. In Fresno County California, the county is using Google Earth to check rural property for unapproved buildings over 120sq'. They are doing this when home owners apply for permits for solar systems. Then holding up the solar process until property is brought into compliance. See where we go from here.
I don't understand why it's so difficult for them to just get a fuckin warrant.
...because they have no evidence.
@@snex000 Exactly. Same thing when an officer pulls you over without probable cause. They pull you over illegally and then start gathering evidence without authority or right.
They had to get proof to get warrant.
@@mrsentinel4911At least there you have a mechanism to get everything thrown out. It's rare, but it happens.
@@snex000 Honegly it's not that. It's fairly easy to get a warrant because most judges just rubber stamp them to begin with. It's more like they are just lazy.
Any offense that can result in a fine or jail time should be a criminal offense
I sure hope IFJ will take this up to the S.C.O.T.U.S. ( it wont be the first time a unanimous decision by a state supreme court was overturned by S.C.O.T.U.S.!!)!!
Hi Steve, my next door neighbor had an illegal junk yard (about 100 lawn mowers, snow blowers, small engines, etc) for about a decade. The town only made a stink until he put up fencing shielding the mess from the street. BUT all the abutting neighbors still had a front row seat to all the mess. 5 abutting neighbors complained that the eyesore decreased their property values but nothing happened. He eventually moved away but we're worried the oil and gas has soaked into the ground water.
I have a friend who lives in a rural area, large yard, small junk yard. His junk yard is full of junk spewed everywhere, but its surrounded by a small fenced in area. The town would undoubtedly fine him for the state of his junk yard... If it was viewable from the street/public, as in that case, it could be considered an eye sore. He's had the junk yard in the state its in, or near in, for the last 2 decades. No problems at all. I asked one time when we were cleaning up the junk yard a bit as to why he bothers cleaning it up, and he said it's to keep the city happy. We didn't change much, still looked like a 'junk yard' but it was just more organized. By this logic, the town could fly a drone over his junk yard and say that his junk yard is a nuisance. Despite it not being a nuisance, not being viewable from public, not being a problem for 2 decades, but the city could fine him for it... It's wrong. MANY people do this because over the decades of their lives they gather a lot of stuff. My friend has piles of aluminum, 2 or 3 'junk' cars that he's kept for sentimental reasons, dozens of bicycles from his years of working on bikes for the town parade... many many things that he considers some level of sentimental. Now, all the people that do things similarly could find themselves in court over these trivial things that aren't a problem. The town is just looking for more ways to generate revenue. If these govt. facilities had no monetary gain incentive to do this, then THEY WOULDNT BE DOING IT. They are doing it PURELY TO GAIN MORE REVENUE. They're basically saying that while these locations are clean enough from street view, and tidy enough to not bother ANYBODY and have NO COMPLAINTANT against these property owners, but if you can see something messy from the sky via drone/plane, then they're still in violation WITH NO COMPLAINTANT. If something like this becomes the standard, a LOT of hard working innocent American citizens are about to have their property unlawfully searched via drone in hopes that this government BUSINESS could make some money.
Now to the 2nd thing you mentioned at the end of the video. Get ready for all neighborhoods in ghetto run-down areas to now have drones flying over them at all times. The amount of people smoking weed in their back yard, out of public view, will now have to worry about police drones videoing them from above, all under the guise of 'code enforcement'. If you really think that any police department would simply not act on this opportunity then you're more gullible than most people here.
Given that weed is going to be a perscription drug in about 90 days, I wouldn't worry too much about that.
I dont think its only a revenue generating opportunity, but potentially a source of land and property sold at a loss due to these kinds of actions going on the record. Again potentially, the municipality and/or elites would/could seize ...or fine... the owners in such a way they'd make living hell out of their lives so much the owners would want to or have to move. Just to find peace. There goes peacefully holding property. Shame on this court and municipality for giving any credence and taking this action.
I guess the township could wait until enough vehicles accumulated and contaminated the groundwater. Isn’t a drone equivalent to a flying traffic camera?😮
This is clearly a warrantless search. How could it be anything else?
Plain view. Faa allows you to fly over private property.
@@sirsparc Planes aren't using pictures for court. How stupid do you have to be?
Drones are way lower than the 1000 feet for aircraft.
@@delresearch5416 FAA controls the air space below 1000 ft AGR.
@@svn5994 obviously you have no concepts of drones and authority to fly. Get educated.
Hey Steve, I think I recall a video stating that you own the airspace above your property. Might’ve been a different state tho. Great vids Steve, thank you. Look forward to many more.
I'm in fire code enforcement. There is more to code issues than just the eyesore. There is also increased fuel load and the threat that poses to neighboring properties. The foam rubber seat cushions, plastics, and tires of cars are a very significant fuel load. That's why there are fire restrictions on how close flammable and combustible storage can be to property lines, the arrangement of flammable and combustible fuel piles including Fire Department access for firefighting, and the total volume permitted. It's common for zoning ordinances to consider this. I have used aerial photos many times in code enforcement. The city I worked for paid for high resolution aerial photos every few years. I've used those as well as Google Earth satellite photos in code enforcement. An example of how we used it was to identify improper cleaning of hood systems in commercial cooking that was leaving huge grease stains on the roofs of buildings. I found that the cleaning companies were doing the job right if the section of roof was visible from the ground, but if there was a parapet wall obscuring the view they were not. The worst was buildup about 20' x 30' and at it's thickest point thicker than my foot in my boot. The poor elderly owner of the business thought he was paying somebody to do the job right. The inside of his kitchen was very clean and he had just paid somebody to clean the hood system two weeks previous. He did not know about the horrible grease stain on the roof. That first one was brought to my attention by the property manager that oversaw that strip mall. After that I started using aerial photos to find similar throughout town. The fire code, adopted by the state legislature, gives inspectors the authority to perform inspections at any reasonable time. The only time we ever involved the police was when a property owner refused to allow an inspection. Then we obtained a warrant and took an officer with us for our protection. But we did no fire code enforcement through the police. The code gave the Fire Marshal and the city Building Official full authority to do all enforcement actions. We never turned anything over to the police to take care of. Their only role was to provide protection for us while we did our inspection in a hostile situation. I'm in Idaho, and maybe Michigan law is slightly different. But last I looked the international fire code was the code adopted by 47 states. Some states make minor adjustments, some make somewhat major adjustments, but most are based on the IFC.
I lived near a junk yard and there was usually a bad fire every few years. They closed it properly for that reason.
Also, we never once discussed charging fees to "make money for the city". We did discuss charging fees to pay for the cost of inspections that are required by the code . The thinking in our city council was similar to the following:
I'll use an extreme example to illustrate the point. Let's say that somebody decided they wanted to build a fireworks factory. Obviously there are big safety considerations. To protect the citizens of our community, the zoning ordinance should restrict such a business from going in right in the middle of a residential neighborhood. But beyond that sort of thing, there is a need to protect the citizens who are just driving down the road next to it. If somebody wants to put in that kind of business, they should be fully responsible to pay for the costs required by the fire code. Counsel did not feel that it was right to come out of the general fund. Why should an elderly grandmother have to help fund the cost of somebody's hazardous business? Similarly, why should the lowest hazard types of businesses such as, say, an accountants office, also have to fund it? The pricing of the hazardous product should be built in to cover the costs required to produce it. That is the only sort of discussion that ever happened in my city. Maybe greedy politicians looking for cash have tried to nickel and dime people to death in other areas, but here there was a very strong comment and I believe unanimous, desire of the mayor and city council was to only charge businesses for the things required for the business to operate, not in excess of that. So the fees were based upon the hourly wage for inspectors plus the use of the car, computer system, etc. But it wasn't designed to fund some politician's pet flower garden at a park, or some other such project.
The cost of the fire code inspection is minimal. The whole municipality is paying for the Fire Dept whether they're inspecting for code violations or sleeping.
@@alanwhite3280 Nope. We have full-time inspectors who understand the fire code way better than the engine crews. I did both at different times in my career. There's a huge learning curve to it. Until one gains an education in the specifics of it, one has no idea. This includes full-time firefighters, including myself before I got the education. You have to do it full-time to be good at it. We worked 40 hour weeks, during the day as inspectors. We did not sleep at the station waiting for emergency calls as inspectors. We had about 4500 commercial properties in our city with 3 inspectors, but one of them spent most of his time doing plan reviews for new construction. The funding from the inspection fees helped to partially pay for one more wage, so we got a fourth inspector. Still, there was no way to keep up with everything we should do in town with the new construction inspections, etc. One of our duties is also to investigate fires. We didn't sit around waiting for that, but would have to get pulled off of inspections. It does not go over well at all with construction contractors to stand them up for their inspections as buildings are being built. They need them for their funding from the bank, and don't care about our need to investigate fires. I can't blame them.
Your statement as a Code Enforcement Busybody totally inapplicable to the matter Steve discussed. None of the points raised bring up potential fire hazard issues in the instant case Steve discusses. The enclosed fenced property constitutes publicly unviewable curtilage plain and simple. There's zero compelling government purpose in harassing the property owners, as nothing the may have stored is causing any form of detriment to anybody wrongfully invading their privacy. By the way, FAA Regulations mandate passing aircraft have to be 500' or higher PASSING over. Period. Exclamation Point! That bars Warrantless surveillance drone activity within that given curtilage.
This comes back to…’Do you own the air space above your property’…
does this mean that back in the 70's and 80's that when states used Helicopters to look for pot crops on my property, that it was unconstitutional ?
Well I think this means that if they were looking for criminal activity it may have been unconstitutional, but if they were looking for civil violations then it was okay.
It depends on what their official purpose was in the helicopter, where exactly they flew, and whether that activity had been reviewed against the Constitution. There are things that were done by the government/police in the 70's and 80's that are unacceptable today. Court interpretations of "plain view" have narrowed over the years or had to be revisited due to changes in technology and methodology. What may be (or have been) acceptable then and now also depends on the circumstances.
Another thing to consider is the government may be allowed to enter property or take actions to conduct inspections without warrant. There is a fine line between inspections and searches. Generally that inspection authority has been reviewed and the right of the public has been found to outweigh an individual right, or found to be minimally invasive and therefore "reasonable." The key is the intent/purpose of the inspection. Generally, inspections are related to a regulated activity such a commercial business, operating vehicles/vessels, hunting/fishing, land assessment, or code enforcement and not major criminal activity. Sometimes, inspections reveal criminal activity and it may still be admissible. However, if it's clear the inspection was used specifically to detect criminal activity, i.e. circumvent the fourth amendment, then it may not be.
So I circle back to what their official purpose was for being in the helicopter. There is a difference between flying over land and happening to spot something, versus specifically flying over land to look for something in particular, versus specifically flying over land to perform a regulatory inspection. In other words: were they lawfully placed.
Are you sure the drone went over the property? What if it was two streets over and just went straight up. They had neighbors saying hey, they keep getting more junk. And they have a history of doing it. I'm with the township on this one.
Actual problems with an unlicensed salvage yard; vermin, toxic runoff, increased fire risk, overflow of trash and debris....
Thank goodness we have amazing people like you that have never junked anything
@@apersonontheinternet8006 licensed facilities have to have remediation measures for those things. Especially toxic run-off which can contaminate water sources for hundreds of miles downstream. An unlicensed facility is unlikely to take the same level of care.
@@apersonontheinternet8006 I said "unlicensed." Licensed salvage yards have to comply with numerous agencies and frequent inspections.
@@apersonontheinternet8006 Keyword: unlicensed. Salvage yards are necessary but they are regulated for several reasons.
I live in Rogers city very near this. A lot of stuff like this is mostly complaints from retirees moving from Detroit Ann arbor Grand rapids ECT. They move in and drive up prices on everything from homes and property. The property in question here is a farm. It's a constant battle. They have turned our rural communities into a retirement village.
Steve got this wrong. It is unreasonable to give up your right to privacy and quiet enjoyment of your property perpetually to resolve a code enforcement action. That's a life sentence.
What is the difference between having property outdoors in a provate area of your property and having it in a shed without walls? A barn? A house? Landowner has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the non public areas of his property.
Since the state provides zero evidence the property is used as an unlicensed salvage yard, or that any business occured on the property, that allegation is spurious.
Anyone contemplating moving a business to Michigan will certainly reconsider.
No the lesson is if you want to do illegal stuff you should keep it indoors or otherwise covered. Airspace is public, if it can be seen by a small plane a municipalities drone can absolutely take a picture of it from a public space...
@@davidb2045
The air above my home is public? WTF
@@lgDukeCity5018
Yes like it or not the national airspace above everybody's home is public domain. Anybody can utilize the NAS in accordance with FAA regulations.
@@lgDukeCity5018 It sure is.
@8:08, good point Steve! Add inspections in the agreement for enforcement.