[ad_1]
This week, three residents filed a lawsuit against Sonoma County, attempting to block code enforcement from using drones to block aerial images of their homes in what the American Civil Liberties Union calls an “run-controlled spy operation.”
The lawsuit filed by the ACLU on behalf of three residents alleges that the county began tracking illegal cannabis cultivation using drones with high-power cameras and zoom lenses in 2019, but since then, authorities have been able to use the device more than 700 times to find other code violations of private property without first seeking a warrant.
“For too long, Sonoma County Code Enforcement has launched accusations that use powerful drones to ensure people’s private issues and support their lives and livelihoods.
A Sonoma County spokesman said the county is considering the complaint and said he “takes the claim very seriously.”
The lawsuit comes amid a national debate over the use of drones by government agencies increasingly relying on unmanned aircraft during disasters and increasingly relying on unmanned aircraft for environmental surveillance and response to emergency calls. Recently, some agencies in California and other states have used drones to investigate code enforcement violations.
In 2024, nearly half of Sonoma County drone flights included non-cannabis violations, including unauthorized construction, waste conditions and zoning violations, according to data included in the complaint.
“Using a drone in someone’s private space raises the question of what is considered private,” said Ali Ezra Waldman, a law professor at UC Irvine.
Waldman said if law enforcement on the ground wants to see someone’s property on the other side of a tall fence or tree, they must either get that person’s consent or have a possible cause for the warrant. “Why shouldn’t that apply to the ground?” he said.
California has no laws regulating the use of drones by code enforcement agents.
In 2015, state legislators approved measures to restrict the use of drones on private property without the owner’s permission. Then gov. Jerry Brown rejected the bill, saying it could expose then-hobby investigators and commercial users to “a burdensome lawsuit.”
The ACLU argues that the use of drones as a county’s investigation tool is in violation of the California Constitution, which provides people with the right to privacy and opposes irrational searches and seizures.
“I think our expectations of privacy are based on social norms. People don’t usually expect someone to have the very high power detailed ability to capture extraordinary details on cameras that are bustling with their property,” Waldman said. “The existence of this technology doesn’t mean you need to roam your life expecting you to have no privacy from any direction.”
The lawsuit also alleges that the county’s drone policy has been eased over the past few years. In 2019, the policy required inspectors to receive real estate complaints before deploying the drone. Currently, the authorities do not have such requirements and can instead launch a “discretionary, aggressive investigation,” the complaint states.
Residents named in the lawsuit say the drones floating above their homes have led to continued privacy concerns and the loss of enjoyment of their property. According to the complaint, one plaintiff, Benjamin Verdesco, decided to sell his home after learning that the county had taken photos of his backyard with a drone in 2021.
Another deaf plaintiff, Nicola Schmitz, was unable to hear the fuss of the drone floating above her property on October 10, 2023. She rushed to the bedroom to close the curtains, worried about how long the drone was there, and whether she had seen her naked with her property earlier that day.
She claimed that the drone had made two big loops around her property, and soon afterwards, for two violations of the county code, one for illegal grading, the other for her property, because her father had a small cabin built on the land in 1981.
ACLU lawyers allege that the evidence obtained by the drone was illegal because staff members had no search warrants.
“This horrifying experience shattered my sense of privacy and security,” Schmitz said in a statement. “I’m afraid to open the blind or go outside because I know who knows when the county drones are spying on me.”
Third plaintiff Suzanne Brock confronted county officials after learning he had taken detailed aerial photographs of the outdoor tub and showers she and her daughter used daily.
She expressed concern to the inspector that she may have seen her naked in the bathtub. Code Enforcement Inspector Ryan Sharp told her, “When we see something like that, we turn around.”
When Brock asked if county officials would meet people during the flight, Sharp told her yes, adding, “I won’t put it in the footage of the camera.”
[ad_2]Source link
