#Warrant #Needed #Drone #Evidence #Code #Enforcement #Cases
According to the Michigan Supreme Court.
criminal law , No Warrant Needed for Drone Evidence in Code Enforcement Cases, lemon law,michigan lemon law,lemon law attorney,lemon law lawyer,http://www.lehtoslaw.com,steve lehto
they're already using sat imaging with AI to spot changes to properties.
That is surely Sieg Heil warning that the government is going too far.
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…
I've never been so glad that I live in an area where flying drones is illegal.
Oh come on Steve! Locals won't be involved in second-hand party evidence gathering/spying ('contractors' or not). I bet you also think 'tech companies' could work hand in hand with government too, bypassing court orders. Dont wanna name any names 'cuz they ain't guilty, NOT because they may/may not own any given platforms…
I have no doubt HOAs are going to abuse this as well.
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.
To be honest this one I'm very mixed on like I previously said if The drone is high up enough that it's not considered trespassing following all the FAA guidelines I'm not sure I have a problem with it now I do understand how it could be considered intrusive for the government to do it, but the government's also allowed to sit on the street and just take pictures of your house if they want to without a warrant because they're in public space for some reason to me this kind of feels the same. But at the same time I do understand why people don't want the government taking pictures of their property lol I will say I agree with about 90% of the stuff you post on here. I just don't know if I can get behind this one 100%
I can see the other way around, airspace has been well controlled/owned by the Government for decades.
What about flying near or around the perimeter of the property? The military can count the spots on a golf ball from a couple of miles away, so they don't necessarily need to fly directly over the property.
Wasn't there a case in the recent past where a state supreme court ruled that a drone was a stretch because it could hover at a lower altitude than a plane, so the plane view doctrine of seeing while flying over couldn't be used unless they got a warrant.
Has the Michigan Supreme court gotten a case right? Not one I've heard here makes a lick of sense. I was considering heading that way but the more I learn about Michigan, the more I realize staying in New Hampshire is best.
I think drone surveillance without a warrant would go over like a lead balloon here.
Freedom is being able to break the law. The government has the right to make you pay for it.
So we can take drone footage of corruot politician and government whenever we want without permission right?
So the constitution only protects you in criminal matters and not civil matters? That seems like an odd interpretation. I'm 1/3 through the video and I expect that Steve is going to ask, "why didn't they get a warrant?" it doesn't sound like something that was so urgent that they couldn't have spent a little time getting this.
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.
I can't stand people with trash all over their yard so I don't really care in this scenario.
Well, sounds like you don't never want to give them permission to trust pass. Just like you don't want to give them permission to search and there's another law they broke trust passing without permission.
I don't see the problem, the people were running a scrap yard which was against local ordinances.
What if they buy a high res satellite image of the town?
15:00 Give a bad idea inch to bad cops, and they will go a mile.
We’ve investigated ourselves and found nothing wrong, we’re from the government and we’re here to help you
Drones are so much cheeper than driving around and looking for issues.
I mean they have to Sue under forty two u s c Intentional tour and I would tell them to look at the 1945 human rights declaration states are bound by treaties.
What this clearly establishes is that all laws will have a corresponding civil code. If they can't get someone criminally due to that pesky constitution, they can get them in civil court and bypass all those awful rights. Then, simply imprison them when they can't pay the insane penalties.
In my opinion, the constitution is meant to limit all of the government in absolutely everything they do
What happens when the drone catches your 16 year old dressing in an upstairs room?
Is the next step a Federal Lawsuit?
Their argument then would require a contract that is notarized to enforce the code. What contact would I be under that allows a corporation to enforce code on my private property? They are incorporated.
Question Steve how are the justices of the Michelin Supreme Court picked?
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.
If they’re not allowed to do it, they’re not allowed to do it, period. Shouldn’t matter whether it would be used for civil rather than criminal. If allowed for civil, it encourages search and seizure without a warrant if the planned action is civil, which seems blatantly contrary to it not being allowed at all.
Is the code enforcement person a duly sworn law enforcement officer