It seems like a weird bit of culture in the Land of the Free, where it's somehow acceptable to be surveilled by drone so people can see what you're doing in your own yard, so they can fine you.<p>I understand it if someone is doing it in view of other people, causing an eyesore, but if you have to go to <i>such</i> lengths to see what they're doing, then whom exactly are they harming with what they're doing on their own property?
Other documents suggest the drone was below 400 feet of altitude, to comply with FAA regulations. That makes the surveillance fall outside some established case law that law enforcement can surveil from "publicly navigable airspace (above 400 feet)" without a warrant.<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_surveillance_doctrine" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_surveillance_doctrine</a>
The article seems to skimp on selected detail. It looks like a violation of his agreement as to how many junk vehicles he can keep on the property.<p>But it isn't; they're not going after him for having too much junk, they've redefined some of his covered trucks as buildings, presumably because he <i>hadn't</i> violated his agreement.<p>Is that right?
You can count cars now with commercial satellite photography. (I'm not trying to articulate any point about the thread topic; I just think this is neat).<p><a href="https://www.planet.com/pulse/tasking-dashboard-50cm-12x-revisit-announcement/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.planet.com/pulse/tasking-dashboard-50cm-12x-revi...</a> (<i>"Planet Announces 50 cm SkySat Imagery"</i>)<p>I love how the RGB Bayer (?) grid turns moving cars into tiny rainbows! You can identify the lane directions by which way the colors go.
Ah, the American dream, owning land! Land that you can’t have any privacy on, or do with as you wish (in a resident capacity), because of the militant department called zoning who’s jobs consist of harassing the citizens they work for, sneaking around and snapping pictures, sending out threatening legal action warnings (yet rarely have the funds to persue legal action). But hey, it’s your land! Your chunk of America! You made it! Except, is it really yours when at any time, with or without the need to compensate you, the land can be taken by the local or federal government if they decide they want it for something else?<p>We are the land of the free, it’s true. Free to do whatever we want inside the invisible box restricting our freedoms that we don’t see around us our entire lives. But go live your life, you’re totally free to do so! Evenings after work, and maybe the weekends! If you make enough to enjoy that limited time off, and aren’t too tired.<p>/tangent<p>/rant
>The Michigan Supreme Court heard a case Wednesday that will determine if it was legal under the Fourth Amendment.<p>Is this something that's common in the USA? That you use the constitution right of the bat instead of federal laws like civil rights act?<p>And while I'm no lawyer, if I were to armchair; at first the title alone makes it a slam dunk for the house owner.<p>Unless the defendant can argue either there's a consent clause to surveillance/inspection in the zoning agreement the house owner agreed upon or that drone footage is evidence in plain sight[1].<p>[1]<a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_view_doctrine" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_view_doctrine</a>
> Maxon and the township signed an agreement in 2008 that Maxon would not face any zoning action if he did not increase the number of cars he had on his property. In 2010, 2016, 2017, and 2018, the township hired a company called Zero Gravity Aerial to do aerial drone surveys of Maxon’s property to ensure he was complying with the settlement.<p>Is there a reason why they couldn’t just use Satellite data from Google Maps? Or pay for existing commercial satellite images? Can’t believe it’s cheaper to pay for a drone for multiple years to validate the number of cars in his yard.
It’s interesting to note that the county restricted the amount of cars that could occupy the property, but did not otherwise control the environmental effects of running a maintenance yard.<p>What does the owner do with waste disposal? Various fluids and solids from the vehicles must be dealt with according to regulations. Are there any?
What about leak abatement?
Effects on groundwater and waterways?
Tires? Other hazardous waste?
Air pollution?
I didn’t see this mentioned in the article (but also I admittedly skimmed the article) but is it legal for <i>me</i>, a private citizen, to hire a drone company to fly over this guy’s yard? If so, I don’t see why the town can’t do it.
From a Fourth Amendment perspective, the doctrine is “people, not places”.<p>It’s difficult to assert that you intended for parts of your property that can easily be observed from the air to be private. It’s not like they used a drone to peer through his window and see the contents of his safe or something.
Seems reasonable to me that they'd hire a commercial company to do the drone surveillance instead of their own LE for the same reason that LE purchases e.g. cell phone data: to avoid an easily discoverable record and maintain plausible deniability.
If the city had used commercially available photos from an airplane or satellite, I doubt if there would be an issue. In many situations, flying a drone over someone's property can be considered trespass. However in many states tax assessors have the right to come onto your property to look around--code inspectors might have a similar right.<p>What they were looking for could probably have been obtained with drone photographs without going over the individual's property which would have probably given the town a stronger argument for being able to say they were "observing from outside the property."<p>What I'm curious about is what would happen if the property owner hired the company to fly over the city commissioners houses or government buildlings to take pictures.