As technology advances and improves, the language of the Fourth Amendment needs to be re-interpreted. The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from searches of their property by the government that would violate their reasonable expectation of privacy. The definition of “reasonable expectation of privacy” has evolved as technology has advanced.
In Long Lake Township v Maxon, Docket No. 349230 scheduled for publication, the Michigan Court of Appeals further elaborated on the “reasonable expectation of privacy” as it pertains to unmanned drones. In this case, the plaintiff alleged a violation of a Settlement Agreement between the two parties by adding additional “junk” to the property. To support its position, the plaintiff proffered aerial photographs of defendants’ property taken via unmanned drone. Defendant argued that the photographs should be suppressed as a violation of defendants’ rights under the Fourth Amendment.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals found that drone surveillance violates an individual’s expectation of privacy. The Court considered Supreme Court decisions ruling on low flying helicopters and planes but distinguished them. The Supreme Court decisions had stated that as a result of general air traffic at higher altitudes, property is not protected if visible from a publicly navigable airspace or from a non-aerial vantage point. The Court held a drone was more akin to the infrared imaging technology in Kyllo v United States, 533 US 27; 121 S Ct 2038 (2001) than the helicopter and low-flying planes.
The key takeaway from this case is that the Court ultimately determined because drones are more maneuverable, stealthy, intrusive, targeted, and less frequent than other forms of technology, they violate a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy and any evidence obtained via drone, without a warrant or traditional exception to a warrant, is not permissible.
The full text of the opinion can be found at: http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov/OPINIONS/FINAL/COA/20210318_C349230_47_349230.OPN.PDF
