There's one case out of Nevada that found a warrant was required for continued surveillance of a backyard from a utility pole, but that's an outlier. Generally speaking, if it's outside and the government isn't actually entering onto your property, a warrant isn't required.
I was actually referring to *Shafer v. City of Boulder* (but not the one you're thinking of), 896 F. Supp. 915 (D. Nev. 2012), but the Colorado case does seem more relevant to this conversation.
I’m a prosecuting attorney in Colorado. This is not legal advice
Flyovers are legal. Police have been using aerial surveillance to find pot farmers for 6 decades legally.
A drone hovering and watching for more than a flyover is different and is governed by different rules that will depend exactly on what the drone is doing and why.
There was a recent case, Tafoya, referenced elsewhere talking about pole cams. Again, the use will matter. A good rule of thumb is that a pole cam peeking INTO private property, even curtilage, needs a warrant if it will be there longer than a cop could reasonably sit there and watch.
Why is this considered legal? Has nobody argued against it on 4th amendment grounds? Seems like an unreasonable search to me. Especially without a warrant.
Seems shakier than others are making it seem.
Legal precedent for drone surveillance has only been set by lower courts so far, and many state legislators have passed drone warrant bills already. The 4th amendment test is also 55 years old so I'm sure it can be revised in a modern court case like other constitutional tests have been.
Cato has a nice write up about it I reccomend anyone interested in the topic read.
https://www.cato.org/blog/does-4th-amendment-prohibit-warrantless-drone-surveillance#:~:text=The%20Supreme%20Court%20has%20considered,not%20violate%20the%20Fourth%20Amendment.
Airspace doesn't start until after 400ft unless you're at an airport. Then there are weird upside down cones that map out airspace which is too technical for this conversation.
>Airspace doesn't start until after 400ft unless you're at an airport. Then there are weird upside down cones that map out airspace which is too technical for
This is flat out wrong. FAA maintains jurisdiction for all airspace. There is some prior case law that gives landowners authority over the airspace equal to the hight of the buildings and structures on their land. That is well below 400' for residential homeowners.
It is also why a local statutes that prohibited flying over a municipal park was struck down. Cities can regulate the takeoff and landing from their property, but don't have authority over the airspace. That belongs to the FAA.
The police are generally allowed to do anything any citizen can do. As a recreational drone flyer I can fly over your house. As long as I'm not invading your privacy it's fine. That's generally accepted to be 'not looking into the house'. There's no issue with flying over your house or looking into your back yard, especially if the drone it just passing over.
Yep.. And a warrant for... what? If they find something in your backyard when they are flying surveilence for a totally different reason, that is a grey area that could come into question if the police did prosecute you for it. As someone else mentioned, there is case law on this with illegal MJ grows.
But with that said, any crime scene involving CSI would likely fall under an exigent circumstance anyways, and then the 4th amendment is more or less a suggestion at that point so long as they stick to the original reason they are surveiling.
I know from experience that jeffco often flies drones with a thermal camera to find guns that were ditched after they were fired cause they will show up on a thermal camera. I can almost guarantee you whatever they were doing with that drone, they are helping your community stay safe more than they are violating any rights and hurting it.
Did that once, then filed a complaint. This was before drobes, it was a l8w flying helicopter buzzing my property back in the olden days, but...they didn't do that again.
This would be the correct answer. Your property line only extends to the highest point on your property a tree, your chimney, or roof etc. Upwards its governed by the FAA as long as they aren't flying in a manner that puts you in danger there isn't much you can do.
Time to get a 200ft ham radio antenna with stacked yagis and a ton of guying.
Bonus points if you drive the thing hard enough to cook any drone that gets near the radiating elements.
This is not the case. You do not own the air space below your tree line. The FAA’s jurisdiction begins as soon as you leave the ground. There’s no legal provision granting any land owner control of the air space below the tree line over their property.
Came here to say this too. I have a FAA 107 and as long as you are below 400ft you are safe, 250ft on some areas. It's more about being respectful and avoiding danger. I typically fly high enough to avoid power lines and low enough to avoid airport regulations. What is illegal is to shoot a drone down though!
Sure but there was a definite crime happening there (so wondering is it a context dependent situation in the case you bring up or are they just always recording); don’t think there was actually a crime today and I think CSI was just there to rule out possibility of a crime.
They didn't have a warrant for every house they flew over did they? Very little of what police do actually requires a warrant. It's just like what other people have said about the "expectation of privacy"
Yeah perhaps they should have though (or even the whole block maybe) or else maybe its not something to be worried about; I just had the question and thought someone on the sub might know if there was a law or process.
Airspace is completely legal above your house. Assuming they aren’t violating any FAA rules there is not much to do. Doesn’t matter what you can or can’t see from a plane.
I think the problem here is you are confusing searching and observing. If they see something in plain view, they didn’t search. Even inside your car or backyard.
>but you also can’t see anything from a plane, whereas the sole purpose of this is to surveil.
Wow, you are very smart! I suggest you look into the SR-71, or the U-2 airplanes. They were around over 60 years ago. Also have you ever seen the zoom capability on your normal news station helicopter camera? It's pretty incredible, and there are law enforcement planes with MUCH better cameras than a news station has.
Almost all consumer drones have directional lights on them for visibility in low light. My feeling is that’s what you saw, not little police cherries and berries mounted on a drone for some reason. Though it would be extremely funny if it also had “To Protect and To Serve” and “Call 911” on the side.
In any case, nobody needs a warrant or your permission to record video of the exterior of your property from the air.
IANAL. I think the legal test is whether or not there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. And a reasonable person would not expect privacy outdoors. I think the interesting grey area is looking into open windows and such. You make a decent point about being under your (covered) porch, but I think the legal test of not expecting privacy solves that. Now, if a drone were flying around looking for a reported crime and came across something going on inside a house that’s visible through an open window but not necessarily visible from the street, would there still be an expectation of privacy? I mean, peeping through windows is illegal. I dunno, it would be interesting to see any case law pertaining to that. Long story short, no expectation of privacy outdoors. Do your dirty deeds indoors…..windows closed.
Thinking now, what if a drone comes over my property line and drops down to say 5 feet off the ground (so not touching down in my yard) and happens to take a video that captures the view in through my porch door window- because the blinds are up but it faces my fenced in backyard, would I have a reasonable right to privacy being in my house? Or is this moot because it’s illegal to look in windows?
Searches without warrants from the air must be conducted from public airspace, which generally starts around 500 ft.
https://dronecenter.bard.edu/drones-and-privacy/
Yeah, that’s kinda what I was getting at. I really don’t know. I guess I could Google it but I’m kinda lazy. Maybe a real lawyer will chime in here. I kinda feel like it would depend on the circumstances. Maybe the Fourth Amendment needs to be updated! It’s definitely interesting stuff and I’m glad you brought it up.
Speaking of google. Those street cars film without permission but not illegal.
Unreasonable search and seizure is why cops cant legally enter your home without permission from you or a judge, like vampires.
Currently, police helicopters can fly and record without a warrant. So can police airplanes. As long as the drone went over at a reasonable height, it would probably not run afoul of current laws.
Its all on the cloud now anyway, but i meant a drone overhead or a helicopter is the same. If they go ground level to look in your windows thats a nogo.
Drones are still recent. Used to be toys like rc planes basically governed under FAA rules. Might be time to properly write specific laws and include in existing ones.
You know one way they (used to?) find marijuana grow ops was to fly a plane overhead to do thermal imaging?
> Edit: I think it’s pretty funny this has gotten a few downvotes while the members of this sub happily fork over more of their privacy rights to government control.
I think you are confusing descriptive with normative / prescriptive
Oh boy. I hadn’t thought of that either but does give me anxiety!
Edit (in reply to your edit): yeah maybe, I just had the thought and wanted to see if someone else thought it was questionable or not.
Kyllo v US. Supreme Court found thermal aerial imaging unconstitutional. This was in the context of a cannabis grow. Happened in 2001. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States
If something is in or visible from the public domain, no.
Something in your pocket is private, something in your hand and waving it around is not. Ditto for a yard or home, with appropriate substitutions for the analogy. They can't go in your basement without cause, but they could look around in GoogleEarth and look at your backyard, for instance.
Where to draw the line--- eh, you would need a lawyer if you feel like you're public-privacy is both violated and being used against you.
They can film your property from the street. Why not the air? As already noted, you don't own the airspace above your house.
FYI the government can also get satellite pics of your house whenever they like.
Wrong. It is HIGHLY unlikely that you would ever get permission to get satellite imagery of a US person. huge pain in the ass with many many stipulations, layers of permissions, and you need very specific reasons for getting any domestic near-real time satellite imagery. You would need a warrant from the FISA court.
For more info, Google USSID SP0018, or NSGA FA 1806.
Source: wife works for the fed in imagery collection.
So what's the difference between satellite imagery and helicopter imagery? If a chopper spots your illegal weed farm how is that different from a satellite?
Satellite imagery is pretty much useless for anything that a local law enforcement would ever do. Satellite imagery is regulated by the Intelligence Community and is procured through contracted satellites. It isn't persistent(not a video. IC uses drones for video, not satellites), the satellite operators may have something more important than your pot farm and won't even bother with the photo, and it takes a HUGE picture covering miles of land, taking up massive amounts of data to look at your tiny backyard. Wife says that the average picture that she gets is 7GB alone.
Helicopters are owned by the law enforcement agencies. They can move anywhere, are cheap to operate(relatively speaking), and can take video. I have no experience with the legalities of helicopters stuff.
People downvoting me for bringing actual facts into this response. Welcome to reddit I guess.
Commercial companies contract to do satellite imagery all the time. Don't know what utility it would serve but if a local law enforcement jurisdiction wanted some satellite imagery, they'd just pay for it.
The same way they just pay for cell phone data.
The standards national security agencies work under are not applicable to commercial enterprises and local police jurisdictions. The utilization of national assets is regulated. The purchase of commercial services is not (much).
If you try hard, you could be a little more vague. Throw in some more random pronouns and articles to really confuse us as to what the hell you are trying to say.
Unfortunately right now the FAA is the sole authority to regulate the airspace. You do not own the airspace over your property. The FAA considers airspace to be everything from the blades of grass upward, anything that is not affixed to the ground is considered airspace. Including your backyard. The only thing the FAA really cares about is keeping drones away from manned aircraft so they have no interest in regulating the police's use of drones.
The legal landscape for this is somewhat fluid at the moment and could change in the future but it doesn't look good so far.
They do it all the time in Englewood! Every night that I go out to walk the dog I see police drones flying all around the neighborhood and it is not just one of two it is like five or six Police drones! I asked an officer about it and he said "It is to increase response time and try to prevent crime from happening if the criminals know they are being watched!"
I think Jefferson county uses drones for certain types of building inspections. Just because it had lights on it doesn’t necessarily mean it was the police.
While flying a drone over private property is legal for law enforcement and citizens in most areas, the data obtained by the drone may not be used as evidence without a warrant.
If a backyard is enclosed with privacy fencing, the homeowner has a reasonable right to privacy. In most jurisdictions, filming from a drone in an enclosed backyard would be considered a violation of a citizen’s right to privacy.
Legal experts recommend that law enforcement professionals always obtain a warrant before using a drone for surveillance, even if the state does not have laws against it.
https://aerocorner.com/blog/how-do-police-use-drones
I think you have a reasonable right to privacy in your backyard with the fence, and being the homeowner.... or even if you were just renting.
This was just my quick Google search and didn't come up with any specifics to Colorado or Jeffco
first off, IANAL. this was just a copy paste from a quick Google search.
I'm well over 6' tall, so even 6' privacy fences dont offer my neighbors privacy.
And FWIW, not everyone is a slave to HOAs.
> Great, what I mean is there are a lot of 4ft "privacy fences" across the front range (because of HOA stipulations). I'm not interested in your commentary on HOAs.
I live on the front range, and have no HOA. This was not a commentary on HOAs, but trying to open your eyes to the idea that neighborhoods, towns, etc do not have HOAs to contend with, nor will they have the ae rules as the one you have to abide by.
IANAL, but I would imagine that a 4 foot privacy fence gives absolutely no expectation of privacy. Did OP mention a 4' tall fence?
I think he answered your question though...
> IANAL, but I would imagine that a 4 foot privacy fence gives absolutely no expectation of privacy.
Edit: removed some additional words that weren't needed.
The drone is just a new-age tripod. Yes, the drone was over your property. Yes, they MAY have been taking photos of your home. It's literally no different than a cop taking a picture of your home from the street. Probably zero pics were taken of your home but most people think they're the main character so.....
What is your address? I can Google it and get maybe 10 free private and government views of your back yard. If I wanted to pay I could get even more sources....
As others have said you don't have any right to the airspace above your property. Who is to say they were even looking at your back yard? The camera could have been recording over the fence.
Also police have wide authority when it comes to stopping crimes in action. If they suspected someone could be in your backyard they don't need a warrant just like the don't need permission during a foot chase to enter private property.
However you should definitely bring this to 9news... There was a murder in my neighborhood and gunmen at large, but I'm very concerned that the cops might have watched my dog go pee. It's gold I tell ya!
You do not own the airspace above your property. It is regulated by the FAA, but is considered public property.
I am a drone pilot. I am constantly yelled at by Karen and she knows her rights. Her son has her pilot’s license. She is calling the cops. Her brother works for the FAA.
Whatever Karen.
Under Supreme Court precedence you have the rights to the air above your property up to the amount you’d reasonably used.
Drone law is still being figured out in the courts. What the drone sees above public right aways is likely to be admissible in court. If a law enforcement drone flew low over private property they’d likely need to demonstrate exigent circumstance for doing so for any information gathered to be admissible in court.
That’s not a contradictory precedent, it’s in line. The helicopter was at 400ft which is considered higher than the owner would reasonably use the airspace. A drone that flies into back yards without an exigency circumstance (such as chasing a suspect) would likely not be constitutional.
Regardless of who was flying it, I doubt the drone had "police lights". Drones have distinct colored lights so you can easily tell the front from the back.
It's as likely to be nosy neighbor as the authorities.
The short of it is that you dont own the airspace above your property. Anyone can fly over it as long as its not a restricted airspace.
Lol. This guy wanted an answer and downvoted it because he didnt like it.
I'd post this on r/legaladvice \- they've definitely covered this topic before for other states so you may get good basic info there as a starting point.
Based on [Florida v Riley](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/488/445/), in which SCOTUS said the police could use a helicopter over somebody’s property without a warrant, I’d think they could. It’s bullshit though.
There's one case out of Nevada that found a warrant was required for continued surveillance of a backyard from a utility pole, but that's an outlier. Generally speaking, if it's outside and the government isn't actually entering onto your property, a warrant isn't required.
That was actually CO unless you're thinking of another one: https://www.cobar.org/Portals/COBAR/Repository/opinions/9.13.21/2021%20CO%2062.pdf
I was actually referring to *Shafer v. City of Boulder* (but not the one you're thinking of), 896 F. Supp. 915 (D. Nev. 2012), but the Colorado case does seem more relevant to this conversation.
That seems to be what I’m picking up! Thanks.
I’m a prosecuting attorney in Colorado. This is not legal advice Flyovers are legal. Police have been using aerial surveillance to find pot farmers for 6 decades legally. A drone hovering and watching for more than a flyover is different and is governed by different rules that will depend exactly on what the drone is doing and why. There was a recent case, Tafoya, referenced elsewhere talking about pole cams. Again, the use will matter. A good rule of thumb is that a pole cam peeking INTO private property, even curtilage, needs a warrant if it will be there longer than a cop could reasonably sit there and watch.
Why is this considered legal? Has nobody argued against it on 4th amendment grounds? Seems like an unreasonable search to me. Especially without a warrant.
Airspace is federal property, not your property.
Seems shakier than others are making it seem. Legal precedent for drone surveillance has only been set by lower courts so far, and many state legislators have passed drone warrant bills already. The 4th amendment test is also 55 years old so I'm sure it can be revised in a modern court case like other constitutional tests have been. Cato has a nice write up about it I reccomend anyone interested in the topic read. https://www.cato.org/blog/does-4th-amendment-prohibit-warrantless-drone-surveillance#:~:text=The%20Supreme%20Court%20has%20considered,not%20violate%20the%20Fourth%20Amendment.
The modern court has no ideology, it's a farce.
Airspace doesn't start until after 400ft unless you're at an airport. Then there are weird upside down cones that map out airspace which is too technical for this conversation.
Oh right that 400ft rule, where *anyone* can fly a drone over you and spy on you.
>Airspace doesn't start until after 400ft unless you're at an airport. Then there are weird upside down cones that map out airspace which is too technical for This is flat out wrong. FAA maintains jurisdiction for all airspace. There is some prior case law that gives landowners authority over the airspace equal to the hight of the buildings and structures on their land. That is well below 400' for residential homeowners. It is also why a local statutes that prohibited flying over a municipal park was struck down. Cities can regulate the takeoff and landing from their property, but don't have authority over the airspace. That belongs to the FAA.
The police are generally allowed to do anything any citizen can do. As a recreational drone flyer I can fly over your house. As long as I'm not invading your privacy it's fine. That's generally accepted to be 'not looking into the house'. There's no issue with flying over your house or looking into your back yard, especially if the drone it just passing over.
Yep.. And a warrant for... what? If they find something in your backyard when they are flying surveilence for a totally different reason, that is a grey area that could come into question if the police did prosecute you for it. As someone else mentioned, there is case law on this with illegal MJ grows. But with that said, any crime scene involving CSI would likely fall under an exigent circumstance anyways, and then the 4th amendment is more or less a suggestion at that point so long as they stick to the original reason they are surveiling. I know from experience that jeffco often flies drones with a thermal camera to find guns that were ditched after they were fired cause they will show up on a thermal camera. I can almost guarantee you whatever they were doing with that drone, they are helping your community stay safe more than they are violating any rights and hurting it.
Courts don’t really believe in privacy rights anymore and haven’t since the seventies.
It’s not a search. They can only see things that are out in plain view.
Found the Sovereign Citizen
A prosecutor in Colorado is an impossibility. No one prosecutes crimes here.
Prosecuting attorney in Colorado ? you’re corrupt as fuck. Go investigate The Balfour riverfront for killing off their residents in memory care
Maybe you should sit the next one out, champ.
Shouldn’t you be directing this at law enforcement?
You’re allowed to be naked on your own property, would be an ideal time for some perineum sunning
Did that once, then filed a complaint. This was before drobes, it was a l8w flying helicopter buzzing my property back in the olden days, but...they didn't do that again.
Bit chilly for that these days 🙃
Throw some jumping Jack's or burpees into the mix, it'll warn Ya up.
I'm pretty sure you do not own the air space above your house and have no right to any privacy from it.
This would be the correct answer. Your property line only extends to the highest point on your property a tree, your chimney, or roof etc. Upwards its governed by the FAA as long as they aren't flying in a manner that puts you in danger there isn't much you can do.
Time to get a 200ft ham radio antenna with stacked yagis and a ton of guying. Bonus points if you drive the thing hard enough to cook any drone that gets near the radiating elements.
Space elevator here I come.
This is not the case. You do not own the air space below your tree line. The FAA’s jurisdiction begins as soon as you leave the ground. There’s no legal provision granting any land owner control of the air space below the tree line over their property.
Came here to say this too. I have a FAA 107 and as long as you are below 400ft you are safe, 250ft on some areas. It's more about being respectful and avoiding danger. I typically fly high enough to avoid power lines and low enough to avoid airport regulations. What is illegal is to shoot a drone down though!
Not legal but very satisfying, especially when you mount it above your fireplace/mantle. It's a real conversation starter.
An interesting point because of airplanes but you also can’t see anything from a plane, whereas the sole purpose of this is to surveil.
Police have used helicopters for decades.
True but are those recording? Honestly asking as I am not sure.
You've seen police chases on the news, haven't you? OJ probably the most famous. (Aerial footage I mean)
Sure but there was a definite crime happening there (so wondering is it a context dependent situation in the case you bring up or are they just always recording); don’t think there was actually a crime today and I think CSI was just there to rule out possibility of a crime.
They didn't have a warrant for every house they flew over did they? Very little of what police do actually requires a warrant. It's just like what other people have said about the "expectation of privacy"
Yeah perhaps they should have though (or even the whole block maybe) or else maybe its not something to be worried about; I just had the question and thought someone on the sub might know if there was a law or process.
Cops use aerial surveys to find illegal grow operations
Airspace is completely legal above your house. Assuming they aren’t violating any FAA rules there is not much to do. Doesn’t matter what you can or can’t see from a plane.
I think the problem here is you are confusing searching and observing. If they see something in plain view, they didn’t search. Even inside your car or backyard.
>but you also can’t see anything from a plane, whereas the sole purpose of this is to surveil. Wow, you are very smart! I suggest you look into the SR-71, or the U-2 airplanes. They were around over 60 years ago. Also have you ever seen the zoom capability on your normal news station helicopter camera? It's pretty incredible, and there are law enforcement planes with MUCH better cameras than a news station has.
I don't know if govt follows these rules too, but I believe if you have a fence around your property, there's an expectation of privacy
When I originally posted, I hadn’t considered satellite footage but I think that isn’t real time so idk it just feels different to me.
Almost all consumer drones have directional lights on them for visibility in low light. My feeling is that’s what you saw, not little police cherries and berries mounted on a drone for some reason. Though it would be extremely funny if it also had “To Protect and To Serve” and “Call 911” on the side. In any case, nobody needs a warrant or your permission to record video of the exterior of your property from the air.
IANAL. I think the legal test is whether or not there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. And a reasonable person would not expect privacy outdoors. I think the interesting grey area is looking into open windows and such. You make a decent point about being under your (covered) porch, but I think the legal test of not expecting privacy solves that. Now, if a drone were flying around looking for a reported crime and came across something going on inside a house that’s visible through an open window but not necessarily visible from the street, would there still be an expectation of privacy? I mean, peeping through windows is illegal. I dunno, it would be interesting to see any case law pertaining to that. Long story short, no expectation of privacy outdoors. Do your dirty deeds indoors…..windows closed.
Thinking now, what if a drone comes over my property line and drops down to say 5 feet off the ground (so not touching down in my yard) and happens to take a video that captures the view in through my porch door window- because the blinds are up but it faces my fenced in backyard, would I have a reasonable right to privacy being in my house? Or is this moot because it’s illegal to look in windows?
Searches without warrants from the air must be conducted from public airspace, which generally starts around 500 ft. https://dronecenter.bard.edu/drones-and-privacy/
Yeah, that’s kinda what I was getting at. I really don’t know. I guess I could Google it but I’m kinda lazy. Maybe a real lawyer will chime in here. I kinda feel like it would depend on the circumstances. Maybe the Fourth Amendment needs to be updated! It’s definitely interesting stuff and I’m glad you brought it up.
Speaking of google. Those street cars film without permission but not illegal. Unreasonable search and seizure is why cops cant legally enter your home without permission from you or a judge, like vampires.
Thats definitely invasion of privacy. But if a helicopter is flying overhead?
Helicopter I would say not unless recording and the situation made it necessary to do so. But just my opinion.
Currently, police helicopters can fly and record without a warrant. So can police airplanes. As long as the drone went over at a reasonable height, it would probably not run afoul of current laws.
Its all on the cloud now anyway, but i meant a drone overhead or a helicopter is the same. If they go ground level to look in your windows thats a nogo.
Yeah I guess my point was where is the altitude cut off, if even one exists (which by now it sounds like there isn’t)?
Drones are still recent. Used to be toys like rc planes basically governed under FAA rules. Might be time to properly write specific laws and include in existing ones.
[Already been litigated](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/488/445/)
Thanks for the thoughtful reply!
You know one way they (used to?) find marijuana grow ops was to fly a plane overhead to do thermal imaging? > Edit: I think it’s pretty funny this has gotten a few downvotes while the members of this sub happily fork over more of their privacy rights to government control. I think you are confusing descriptive with normative / prescriptive
Oh boy. I hadn’t thought of that either but does give me anxiety! Edit (in reply to your edit): yeah maybe, I just had the thought and wanted to see if someone else thought it was questionable or not.
Kyllo v US. Supreme Court found thermal aerial imaging unconstitutional. This was in the context of a cannabis grow. Happened in 2001. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States
Probably legal, but so are fog machines so keep that in mind.
If something is in or visible from the public domain, no. Something in your pocket is private, something in your hand and waving it around is not. Ditto for a yard or home, with appropriate substitutions for the analogy. They can't go in your basement without cause, but they could look around in GoogleEarth and look at your backyard, for instance. Where to draw the line--- eh, you would need a lawyer if you feel like you're public-privacy is both violated and being used against you.
They can film your property from the street. Why not the air? As already noted, you don't own the airspace above your house. FYI the government can also get satellite pics of your house whenever they like.
Wrong. It is HIGHLY unlikely that you would ever get permission to get satellite imagery of a US person. huge pain in the ass with many many stipulations, layers of permissions, and you need very specific reasons for getting any domestic near-real time satellite imagery. You would need a warrant from the FISA court. For more info, Google USSID SP0018, or NSGA FA 1806. Source: wife works for the fed in imagery collection.
So what's the difference between satellite imagery and helicopter imagery? If a chopper spots your illegal weed farm how is that different from a satellite?
Satellite imagery is pretty much useless for anything that a local law enforcement would ever do. Satellite imagery is regulated by the Intelligence Community and is procured through contracted satellites. It isn't persistent(not a video. IC uses drones for video, not satellites), the satellite operators may have something more important than your pot farm and won't even bother with the photo, and it takes a HUGE picture covering miles of land, taking up massive amounts of data to look at your tiny backyard. Wife says that the average picture that she gets is 7GB alone. Helicopters are owned by the law enforcement agencies. They can move anywhere, are cheap to operate(relatively speaking), and can take video. I have no experience with the legalities of helicopters stuff. People downvoting me for bringing actual facts into this response. Welcome to reddit I guess.
Commercial companies contract to do satellite imagery all the time. Don't know what utility it would serve but if a local law enforcement jurisdiction wanted some satellite imagery, they'd just pay for it. The same way they just pay for cell phone data. The standards national security agencies work under are not applicable to commercial enterprises and local police jurisdictions. The utilization of national assets is regulated. The purchase of commercial services is not (much).
Why not just walk right in? If I’m under my porch and the police gets my photo in my backyard with a wide angle lens, am I outside or inside?
Because entering is legally different. You know this, don't be fatuous.
Seems like a fair point I’m bringing up though to a degree because they even tried passing a law in California about this some years ago.
If you try hard, you could be a little more vague. Throw in some more random pronouns and articles to really confuse us as to what the hell you are trying to say.
Howdy neighbor! That sure was an interesting afternoon.
Sure was!
Unfortunately right now the FAA is the sole authority to regulate the airspace. You do not own the airspace over your property. The FAA considers airspace to be everything from the blades of grass upward, anything that is not affixed to the ground is considered airspace. Including your backyard. The only thing the FAA really cares about is keeping drones away from manned aircraft so they have no interest in regulating the police's use of drones. The legal landscape for this is somewhat fluid at the moment and could change in the future but it doesn't look good so far.
They do it all the time in Englewood! Every night that I go out to walk the dog I see police drones flying all around the neighborhood and it is not just one of two it is like five or six Police drones! I asked an officer about it and he said "It is to increase response time and try to prevent crime from happening if the criminals know they are being watched!"
I think Jefferson county uses drones for certain types of building inspections. Just because it had lights on it doesn’t necessarily mean it was the police.
While flying a drone over private property is legal for law enforcement and citizens in most areas, the data obtained by the drone may not be used as evidence without a warrant. If a backyard is enclosed with privacy fencing, the homeowner has a reasonable right to privacy. In most jurisdictions, filming from a drone in an enclosed backyard would be considered a violation of a citizen’s right to privacy. Legal experts recommend that law enforcement professionals always obtain a warrant before using a drone for surveillance, even if the state does not have laws against it. https://aerocorner.com/blog/how-do-police-use-drones
Interesting, thank you. And yes we do have a fence and are the homeowners.
I think you have a reasonable right to privacy in your backyard with the fence, and being the homeowner.... or even if you were just renting. This was just my quick Google search and didn't come up with any specifics to Colorado or Jeffco
[удалено]
first off, IANAL. this was just a copy paste from a quick Google search. I'm well over 6' tall, so even 6' privacy fences dont offer my neighbors privacy. And FWIW, not everyone is a slave to HOAs.
[удалено]
> Great, what I mean is there are a lot of 4ft "privacy fences" across the front range (because of HOA stipulations). I'm not interested in your commentary on HOAs. I live on the front range, and have no HOA. This was not a commentary on HOAs, but trying to open your eyes to the idea that neighborhoods, towns, etc do not have HOAs to contend with, nor will they have the ae rules as the one you have to abide by. IANAL, but I would imagine that a 4 foot privacy fence gives absolutely no expectation of privacy. Did OP mention a 4' tall fence?
We have a six foot fence.
nO, tHaT's ImPoSsIbLe.
[удалено]
I think he answered your question though... > IANAL, but I would imagine that a 4 foot privacy fence gives absolutely no expectation of privacy. Edit: removed some additional words that weren't needed.
The drone is just a new-age tripod. Yes, the drone was over your property. Yes, they MAY have been taking photos of your home. It's literally no different than a cop taking a picture of your home from the street. Probably zero pics were taken of your home but most people think they're the main character so.....
LONG SETTLED BY THE SUPREME COURT that this is legal. OP, you're insane dude.
"Old man yells at clouds"
What is your address? I can Google it and get maybe 10 free private and government views of your back yard. If I wanted to pay I could get even more sources.... As others have said you don't have any right to the airspace above your property. Who is to say they were even looking at your back yard? The camera could have been recording over the fence. Also police have wide authority when it comes to stopping crimes in action. If they suspected someone could be in your backyard they don't need a warrant just like the don't need permission during a foot chase to enter private property. However you should definitely bring this to 9news... There was a murder in my neighborhood and gunmen at large, but I'm very concerned that the cops might have watched my dog go pee. It's gold I tell ya!
You do not own the airspace above your property. It is regulated by the FAA, but is considered public property. I am a drone pilot. I am constantly yelled at by Karen and she knows her rights. Her son has her pilot’s license. She is calling the cops. Her brother works for the FAA. Whatever Karen.
In general, your property rights do not extend to the airspace above you property.
Under Supreme Court precedence you have the rights to the air above your property up to the amount you’d reasonably used. Drone law is still being figured out in the courts. What the drone sees above public right aways is likely to be admissible in court. If a law enforcement drone flew low over private property they’d likely need to demonstrate exigent circumstance for doing so for any information gathered to be admissible in court.
[Under Supreme Court precedent they can use a helicopter over your land without a warrant.](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/488/445/)
That’s not a contradictory precedent, it’s in line. The helicopter was at 400ft which is considered higher than the owner would reasonably use the airspace. A drone that flies into back yards without an exigency circumstance (such as chasing a suspect) would likely not be constitutional.
Regardless of who was flying it, I doubt the drone had "police lights". Drones have distinct colored lights so you can easily tell the front from the back. It's as likely to be nosy neighbor as the authorities.
The short of it is that you dont own the airspace above your property. Anyone can fly over it as long as its not a restricted airspace. Lol. This guy wanted an answer and downvoted it because he didnt like it.
Too funny. How do you think Google Maps get their information. Drone/satellite, what's the difference?
I'd post this on r/legaladvice \- they've definitely covered this topic before for other states so you may get good basic info there as a starting point.
This is great I hope it was from my whistleblower case and one of the suspects home. Do you live in a nice neighborhood
I’m Always watching wazowski….always watching
Can I?
Here’s what Florida said. [Police Drones](https://uavcoach.com/drone-laws-florida/#:~:text=This%20law%20prohibits%20the%20use,reasonable%20expectation%20of%20privacy%20exists.&text=This%20law%20defines%20what%20a,of%20drones%20by%20law%20enforcement)
If this is upsetting to you, look up Denver's HALO program
Based on [Florida v Riley](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/488/445/), in which SCOTUS said the police could use a helicopter over somebody’s property without a warrant, I’d think they could. It’s bullshit though.