Reminds me of something from an old Mad Magazine. An old lady calls the police on a man walking around his apartment naked with the windows uncovered. The cop comes and looks out her window and says he doesn't see anything. The old lady says, "of course not, you need these!" and hands him a pair of binoculars.
I bet that if they flew drones over the Michigan State Supreme Court Justices' Houses and took pictures of THEIR backyards, the Justices would change their tune REAL quick!
It will be someone from code enforcement too. They will use the same 'line' as to why they violated the Justice's rights to privacy. Would love to just watch that Justice's facial expressions as the code enforcement person explains away. Definitely record that.
That's the next step. I fly, so I am in an interesting position. The airspace is open to any pilot, but privacy is the most important thing to respect and I take extra steps to show that to people I work with. This move by the state definitely invites drones to strat flying over judges and officials. We want to preserve their obviously bodacious standards and share that with the world.
I think the underlying problem is the use by local governments of civil charges as an end run around the constitution. We’ve had a couple of cases in New Mexico that stopped that practice. As Steve have pointed out, the constitution talks about the rights of the citizens, and not about whether or not it’s a civil or criminal case.
@@JP-gi7dw I never understood that concept. The ENTIRE POINT of the Constitution is to Protect "The People" from "The Government". Not "From Criminal Actions". So why does the case being Civil, instead of Criminal, suddenly allow unfair trials, no free lawyers to defend yourself, and the rules and laws to heavily punish the public and favor the government unconstitutionally? Like seriously, I was always taught "If you go to court, if you didn't have a lawyer, one would be appointed to you." It wasn't till I was like 23 I learned Civil and Criminal were different not just in name, but that you don't get a free lawyer, and forced to get one or defend yourself. It blew my fucking mind.
@@tedkaczynskiamericanhero3916 Oh I know. Too bad the Country is full of Cowards. 100 years ago, and the shit going on wouldn't have happened. Biden would have been Executed for Treason publically, and most of these corrupt officials would have been found dead and their homes and assets burned. But we live in a time of weakness, with weak men, that allow corruption to grow and destroy everything.
My ex wife was a cop. They do not know much law at all. Their jobs don't require much knowledge of the law, and they aren't all that smart or they wouldn't be cops.
Applying this to an HOA. Arizona courts have ruled that unless a violation of HOA rules had been reported by a person who can be lawfully present from where the reported violation was observed, the alleged violation cannot be enforced. In other words, the manager can’t open your gate and look into the back yard looking for something. Which makes sense.
@@hautehussey You can legally own and use binoculars too. Spying on people in their private property with them isn't necessarily legal just because owning and general use of them isn't prohibited.
@@5467nick "spying" involves circumventing measures taken for privacy, such as planting hidden cameras. At what magnification does viewing something from a publicly-accessible place become "spying?" Do +3 eyeglasses count?
In my LEO training, i seem to remember that a plain view search cannot use something like a ladder to gain advantage in seeing over a fence, seems like a drone is far beyond that...
I would think that if you need a drone to see it it falls outside the definition of in plain view. If you’re flying a drone you’re taking and extraordinarily measure to see something that is not in plain view.
I used to work as a County Noxious Weed director in Kansas. We were required to do random surveys of 10 sections of ground for Noxious Weeds each year. These were chosen randomly and sent to me each year by the state. There were of course very few people that were happy about this, and since I am huge believer in personal property I tried to only survey from the road and not enter. However there was one piece that was land locked in the middle of a large piece of ground that had no roads. The owner consulted a lawyer and agreed we had the right to do it and so he wouldn’t stop us. I made the decision to just not survey it at all and respect his desire for privacy. I left the county two years ago and have always felt good about my decision. Thanks for all you do to give people a voice, love the channel!
My State amended the trespass statute to include flying drones over private property below a couple of hundred feet. If flying one over property is trespass, then a warrant would be needed. In addition, the State Supreme Court ruled some while back that even in civil matters enforced by the government, a warrant would be necessary to authorize an intrusion into private affairs of people. A right without a remedy is no right at all.
Personally I think Google Earth is trespassing and it should not be allowed. I have heard that Google Earth is used by California, to look for building code violations such as buildings constructed without a permit. I live in Montana and the county where there are no building codes so it doesn't matter to me.
@@duanejackson6718 Google Earth can't be trespassing as there was no encroachment on the property, as the images are taken from well beyond the property (AKA satellite and/or planes).
@@duanejackson6718 Yes but there they are comparing images taken years apart, and looking for differences that then are investigated, from ground level. Here it was a fishing scheme, targeting all those in an area, or just some civil servant wanting to fix a slight they got from the one party. If this then is allowed all drone operators should fly by the houses and offices of the city councillors, taking video of them through all windows, as this ruling has said that this is legal so long as you are not law enforcement, and you are allowed to do it.
I'd have to agree. 4th amendment bar on unreasonable searches and seizures without a warrant/probable cause is not restricted to police, but all government actors. Which would include municipalities, town councils, etc. This is a bar on government action for protection of the people from the government, not just a single arm of the government that comes to mind most common being the police. Funny enough now that I'm thinking about it, even the courts accept this, since there's a legal concept of "Agent of the State", if you're acting as an agent of the state in any capacity, you're bound to the laws and restrictions set forth in the constitution and local state constitution and any local county, city, town, or municipality laws, regulations, or codes that would otherwise restrict state action; which includes police actions but is not limited to police actions.
And when government uses a civil action it's often a back door to criminal charges if the defendant doesn't comply with the Civil judgment, it can become a criminal matter, child support is a good example.
I don't see any sensible argument against that position, but the courts have worked very hard at coming up with "reasons" that our 4th amendment protections are more limited than most people would think is indicated by a simple reading of what it says. That said, from what I've seen SCOTUS has mostly upheld warrantless administrative searches only in relatively limited circumstances where people (including companies) have a reduced expectation of privacy because they're engaged in businesses that are closely regulated. If these people are running a junkyard that is regulated there's a good chance the 4A requirement wouldn't apply, but I gather they're just people who (might) treat their no-commercial property like a garbage dump.
The fourth amendment makes no exclusion for private entities, either. The courts have made that distinction out of deference and probably outright bribery from the wealthy and big corporate. There is absolutely no reason to allow a private entity to search and seize without a warrant in most cases, other than on one's own property against an intruder or a thief. To allow a private detective to enter and search a private citizen's home, land, or person is exactly what our founders intended to bar in the 4A along with the same actions committed by government actors. Otherwise, the wealthy can make themselves into a private government.
If the constitution restricts the actions of the government, it shouldn't matter whether the government employee in question is a police officer, secretary, janitor or college football coach (or for that matter a private contractor hired by the government), their actions represent the government and thus the restriction of action should apply to them.
As you pointed out, I too, read law plainly. I would hope, that any first law student understands, the PURPOSE of the Constitution is to LIMIT the "government". In my law enforcement training (many years ago) we were instructed just that. The Constitution limits government period. 👍👍 Good job Steve. Bob in Nevada
Yeah, I'm trying really hard to understand how Washington et al would have been like, "Oh King George, your soldiers can't conduct this search, but if you send your court functionary bureaucrats in, that's perfectly fine!" I seem to recall a big fight over tax collectors; pretty sure the folks in government - the ones who would support this local government's argument - would NOT consider them police!
"If there's a rule on the books but no one gets in trouble for breaking it? Why is the rule there?" Steve isn't that a description of the problem of qualified immunity?
Qualified immunity is even better as that’s not even a write law. It was a BS ruling from the Supreme Court which is unconstitutional as the Supreme Court can not write law.
The key word here is Enforcement. Code enforcement are by the nature of their primary function, a policing action. We don't call them "police" only because they are tasked with a narrow section of law, but they are still law enforcement. EVERYONE in the administrative branch is, to one extent or another, part of a policing organization.
Junk that cannot be seen without entering or overflying the property should be treated the same way as someone getting offended while peeking into our window and seeing us naked.
@@thewhitefalcon8539 Way to twist shit around. Not gonna spend all day looking it up, but the first case that comes up if you search for this, is a guy who stood around nude in front of his window in full public view. When you can easily be seen from public spaces or other people's property, you aren't in "the privacy of your own home" and acting like there's a meaningful difference between whipping your whang out in your front yard and standing around with it out in front of your window, because of a plate of glass is laughable.
Wow. Talk about angels dancing on pinheads, this is CRAZY. Even by California standards, that's an absurd decision. Your indignation is well-placed. Thanks Steve. Hopefully sanity will prevail.
Shouldn't the original agreement to clear the property have included an inspection agreement and stipulated how and when the inspection would take place?
If it had, then this case would have been thrown out on day 1, as it would no longer have been deemed "unreasonable". You know full well from this day on, that any agreement they enter into regarding zoning complaints will include a search allowance.
This reminds me of the Idaho Township using Google Satellite images to create building code violations over property improvements or modifications that couldn't possibly be seen or discovered any other way.
Thanks for explaining how the exclusionary rule is a direct implication of the Fourth Amendment, although many people might consider it "Judicial Activism". There is no right without a remedy is a fundamental principle of law. And since the exclusionary rule applies only in a criminal situations, the Supreme Court created the "Bivens Action" for civil cases where the Fourth Amendment has been violated but no criminal charges were filed. This latter is also based on the principle that there is no right without a remedy.
How hard would have it been for the township to have gotten a warrant? If there weren't drones, the city would have to get a warrant to go on the property.
Here's a concept: helicopters and planes. They could have seen what they wanted without getting a warrant or using a drone, but they chose to try a sensible and inexpensive approach.
I side with the warrant, but there are probably drones that allow angling the camera which would allow surveillance from just outside the property without a violation of airspace. That would be a whole new can of worms.
@@suedenim9208 the point is even from an airplane of helicopter the evidence should be suppressed without a warrant. It is a literal violation as there was no probable cause to look.
When it comes to government power being used against the people there should be no distinction between criminal and civil when it comes to gathering evidence and other intrusions. According to the current logic, as long as something is labeled as being a civil action, government is not barred from compelling you to be a witness against yourself and they can torture you.
If they don't pay the fine and stand their ground, at what point does it escalate to a criminal matter, and would that criminal matter be enforceable if it stems from an unconstitutional action?
Here they attach a lien to the deed of the property, with a 20% interest. Does not take long until they are due enough money to foreclose on the property. They are also selective on who they go after. They target the working poor who they know cannot afford a lawyer, if they could even find one that will take on the county.
A few issues here, now cops can use this method to gather evidence to get a warrant! Also, if a couple set up a privacy fence so they could set up a hot tub and skinny dip into it. Now you have a HUGE privacy issue because you are taking naked pictures of people who believed they have privacy because they took every precaution to ensure they were given privacy. It is no different then a peeping Tom looking into a woman's bathroom window to catch her getting dressed!
The Constitution doesn’t once mention “Police”; the constitution establishes the powers of government as well as limiting the power of “GOVERNMENT”. If you fail to limit the power of “regulators” they will forever increase their power. Civil v criminal is meaningless when government is bringing the action as there is a penalty that is faced.
absolutely agree. my take is the difference between civil and criminal is mostly "is this from another citizen or from the government" this city wants to say the difference is "could this have jail time?"
It limits the power of the Federal Government. The 10th Amendment acknowledges the expansive police powers of State Government, as has been upheld by the courts innumerable times.
@@barryomahony4983 : The federal constitution may allow the states more powers than the federal government but in no way can rights be restricted by the states beyond constitutional enumerations. The constitution is like minimum code, it is the bare minimum of what must be done. States can however grant more rights than the federal constitution but they cannot restrict things as they’re governed by the constitution.
City should not have access to Willy -Nilly as they see fit ! It's outside the city limits so why are they worried about it? Because they can't tax them as that wish ?
The town I lived in in the mid 90's passed a "junk" ordinance. I had a 59 Cadillac that I was restoring behind a privacy fence and a evergreen hedge, could not be seen from the street. One day soon after the ordinance went into effect I noticed a bright orange sticker on the windshield, it was a violation notice. There was a address to send a request for hearing application too. At the hearing I asked the employee of the city how they saw the car. He freely admitted that he came into the property and opened the gate in the fence, checking for violations. When the official hearing the case (not a judge) heard that he dismissed the violation and read the poor guy the riot act and asked him on the record how many citations he had given out doing the same thing. It was in the hundreds. When asked why he thought that was allowed he said "my supervisor said to do it." The official then told me I could go if I wanted but he was getting the guys boss in immediately and if I wanted to stay I could, so I did. It wasn't 15 minutes later that I watched the supervisor get torn a new one. Ended up that the city had to recind all of the citations that they had given out up to that point since they had no idea which ones were or were not good.
It’s mind boggling to me that any government, run and mandated in authority through law, can enact a civil suit. Private individuals suing each other in civil court is one thing but to have a govt entity do that? I balk at the notion. Virtually unlimited resources payed by the taxpayer (to include the defendant). What I’m getting here is basically if the govt can’t get its way through law it’ll do it in civil court instead as if it’s a private citizen. Shameful.
There are plenty of things which warrant legal action, but don't deserve criminal prosecution. I don't think we want to tell the government they're only allowed to use the biggest hammer to react to everything.
a friend of mine has a pool in back yard, he also two sets of twin girls 14/16 years old. at times a drone would hover over pool when the girls are swimming or sun bathing. the dad was afraid to shoot it down worrying the FAA could come after him. dad called me and was telling me about drone, i asked the dad to come over and bring his visa card. i found dad a powerful drone jammer that dropped the drone into the pool. PROBLEM SOLVED!!!
At one time in Fairgrove Michigan the council had local police enter back yards to check for expired plates on parked cars after midnight!!!!! Today that would be insanely dangerous! I hate zoning!!!
107 pilot here so take my answer in stride. They will claim it was used as a public safety action (a designation for search and rescue operations). The question should be if the drone itself complied with the Remote ID requirement. Illegal equipment = illegal search.
My take is that the actual question should be the applicability of any government employees actions that intersect with a private citizens enumerated rights. The prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures is applicable to ALL governments within the jurisdiction of the United States
Most of the public would likely consider the constitution written for the people, not police, FBI, CIA or local Government. It applies to all. Why this matter is in front of the Supreme Court is telling me someone with the city has an axe to grind with this property owner. If the case was being financed personally by the city attorney and manager, I doubt very much the matter would still be alive. this is another example of how the bullies in city Government will pursue things no matter how trivial when its not their money they are spending. This is how the legal system continues to be unjust to the public due to the cost of getting justice.
Steve, thoughts of an old retired cop. The The 4th amendment of the US Constitution, simply stated, was written to protect "We the People" from the government. Any part of the government. Code inforcerment officers are a part of the government, same as the police. Therefore they are restricted from violating the right of the people to be secure in their person, places and things. It has already been determined that the police, a government agency, using a drone to search is a violation of the 4th amendment if done so without a warrant. Just my thoughts on the U S Constituition. I do not know the Michigan Constitution. I greatly enjoy your channel... Wish I could sit with you , with a cup of coffee and talk...
Steve, I love your show and the issues that you present. Were I in this fight here's what I'd present and where I'd go: 1) The municipality is an arm of a government. 2) The 4th amendment protects (as you said) the PEOPLE to be secure in what I call the 4P's: Person, Property, Papers & Possessions. The rights in the Bill of Rights are INALIENABLE, and thus cannot be 'excluded' for ANY reason. 3) A drone overflight below 300 ft constitutes a form of Trespass in the same context as a person crossing over a property without actually touching the property (re: corner crossing). Therefore, as a member of a government, a drone overflight to effectively Search a property by anyone involved constitutes a criminal trespass and, as such, I would file criminal trespassing charges against the municipality and all the individuals involved in that action. Secondly, I would argue that NO EXEMPTIONS to the law are allowed when it comes ANY of the rights in the Bill of Rights as they are Inalienable, meaning they cannot be voided. These rights are meant to limit government from acting in a form of tyranny against the freedom, privacy and security of the people and, as such, cannot be blithely excluded at ANY level of government. I consider the argument that, as these folks are not police, they get a free pass to violate civil rights, especially in a civil action as mendacious. If that isn't sufficient, their ignorance of the law is not a defense in any state or at the federal level, so that argument is fallacious and moot. This would mean, in effect, regardless of prior case law or precedent, that the municipality violated their rights, regardless of the reason or nature of the conduct of the illegal search via drone. Again, love your show. I hope the IFJ manages to clobber the local municipality and protect the rights and security of the individuals who were wronged. Christopher
@Nickle : Just be careful to keep your "drone" at 400 feet AGL, oh, and check with the FAA before you overfly anybody's private property that they've designated a "no fly zone", you COULD be charged with trespassing, AND violation of FAA regulations! 🙂
"Our freedom's were not taken in a flood of new laws. It was like the drip, drip, drip from a slow leaking faucet". Quote from a survivor of Nazi Germany 1947.
I'm a helicopter pilot. The Civil Aviation Authority, a precursor to the FAA, established the original rule for airspace such that you must fly aircraft at a minimum altitude of 42' above ground level. Why? Because at THAT time, 42' was the minimum altitude determined by the CAA that would not disturb chickens on farms. Yes, chickens. Technically, that 42' height has not changed, which means you DO own the airspace from the ground to 42' above ground level. Above 42' that airspace belongs to the people, and the government manages that airspace for safety. Modern FAA regulations require you to maintain a "safe altitude above the ground," which is usually dictated by the type of aircraft, speed, balance and weight... for helicopters that's usually a minimum of 600' above ground, but it depends. Now, if you are flying a drone for recreation purposes, you do NOT need a license (depends on how close you are to an airport). If you are a government agency or flying a drone to make money (i.e., taking pictures for real-estate websites), you need a license under PART107 (available to anyone 16 years old if you pass the exams). Most fire departments use drones as part of their emergency response. In my opinion, you have NO right to privacy from the air based on historical precedence. In fact, ask your local tax assessor what tools they use to determine the value of property when it is fenced and not visible from the road. Many tax assessor offices use Google earth or fixed-wing aircraft GIS (Geographic Information System) surveys to determine if someone has increased the value of their property by adding a pool or other improvement, which is legal. If your city has a GIS map, guess what? You've been spied on from the air! Deal with it. Many cities pay fixed-wing pilots to take specialized GIS photos from the air to map boundaries, water erosion, changes in vegetation, development projects, streets, pollution, etc. Check your city's website. They usually make portions of that data available to the public. You aren't going to restrict satellites. You aren't going to restrict fixed-wing aircraft photography. You aren't going to restrict UAS (unmanned aerial system) photography. In 1990 Horton vs California, 496 U.S. 128, the Supreme Court held that the seizure of evidence in plain view does not constitute the invasion of privacy that the Fourth Amendment is meant to prohibit. I bet your state will decide something similar. By the way, I like this channel.
So if they just climbed over the fence and walked around taking pictures would those pictures still be allowed? Break into your house and whatever evidence they come up with has to be allowed because it's civil LAW rather than criminal LAW? If they found illegal activity while investigating the civil violations by climbing over the fence could the pictures be allowed to justify a warrant for criminal investigation?
remember property rights? This cities and townships gone way too far w code enforcement. I cannot even use my carport for anything besides a licensed/registered car
Without the exclusionary rule for civil cases the police might just get municipalities to investigate a code violation for them and sneak it through as part of a criminal case.
Q: if the township used a drone launched outside the homeowners' property and flew straight up, from either a public place or an authorized parcel (permission granted), isn't that an example of legal photography? Q: if they flew the drone over the homeowners' property without permission, isn't that criminal trespass? Seems to me, a countersuit alleging criminal trespass might have legs, regardless of whether the photographs are admitted or not in the township's lawsuit. Interesting case!
There are some vantage points that people normally don't expect others to have. An eight foot privacy fence is normally adequate to shield people swimming in an in ground pool or sunbathing in the back yard from a ground level neighbor's view. Frosting the lower half of a bathroom window would usually be adequate shielding from the view of someone on the same level across the back yard or walking along a public sidewalk. Aviation wouldn't be feasible if property rights extended into, or even TO space. At some point there needs to be an upper boundary. Many countries have a range of altitudes where aircraft can fly wherever and whenever their pilots desire with the exception of military reserves and the vicinity of busy airports. Minimum altitudes are specified to keep planes clear of things like trees, high voltage power lines all but exceptionally tall buildings. Most dones are required to remain below the minimum altitude for other aircraft to prevent collisions.
There are multiple ways the evidence could have been gathered without a warrant, because the only places people can't legally go is some poorly defined low altitudes above the ground the people own. Because there aren't any well established laws or court rulings about exactly how much airspace you own I don't see a valid argument for trespassing or the search being illegal.
@@suedenim9208 I wouldn't call the broadly-defined status quo rigorous. But I think the courts are pretty comfortable deferring to the FAA. If it's air space the FAA controls and regulates, then it doesn't belong to the property owner. So a drone that pops up 20 feet and has a look around, from airspace the FAA isn't interested in, over property where the drone operator and his flying thingee have a right to be, can probably take videos and photos all day long. Unless there are local ordinances adding restrictions. Which local governments can be expected to be within their rights to create. After all, flying thingees landing on people's heads might be considered a nuisance. Which means, what's permitted probably varies. A lot. Depending on where you are. Which doesn't answer the question posed in this case: if a law or ordinance was broken to obtain evidence, can it be excluded from a civil case? That's why we pay justices the big bucks: to decide questions like that one.
@@robertvirginiabeach I don't think airspace controlled and regulated by the FAA comes into it if we're talking about a drone flying up 20 feet from a property where drone and operator are permitted to be. The expectation of privacy is a slippery concept. A middle-aged Karen walks by a house and glances in the window, sees an adult man standing inside, naked, curtains open, grinning at her. Whose rights were violated? Answer: neither. A girl props binoculars on her second floor bedroom window sill to spy on a fenced backyard next door, where two boys are playing catch with a football. The boys can't be seen from ground level, but they are in sight from her vantage. Whose rights were violated? Answer: neither. The boys are nudists! Does that change anything? The girl snaps photographs. Does that change anything? I think, as a general rule, if you have the uncontested right to be where you are, it's legal to use your eyeballs, no restrictions. But there are a whale of a lot of laws and ordinances on the books. Your mileage may vary. And you might want to be wary of child pornography violations. (I deliberately didn't mention how old the hypothetical boys were.) Expectation of privacy probably isn't a magic wand you can wave to win every case everywhere. And I would not be surprised if the various courts deliver conflicting rulings. Slippery! There seem to be a lot of folks who think they can't be photographed in public without their consent. Including some police officers, as it happens. That's usually wrong. Maybe always wrong, at least in the US. It gets a little messier when eyeballs are located where they are permitted to be, and what they see is on private property. But I think, in most instances and most jurisdictions, the expectation of privacy varies considerably between inside a residence with blinds drawn, and in a yard which can be viewed from a legally-permitted vantage. That's my opinion, but I'm not issuing it from a bench, and I don't own a gavel.
Ten years ago, when I needed to study for my naturalization exam, one of the crucial topics was the Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights. The Constitution consists of seven primary articles that explain how the government should function and list the duties and rights of each governmental body. On the other hand, the Bill of Rights states what the government is not allowed to do. Whether it's a criminal or civil court (although I'm not entirely sure why the government can bring a case to a CIVIL court), the rights protected by the Bill of Rights should apply in every court against any governmental entity. This means that if you can be are fined or jailed, the Bill of Rights should protect your rights, regardless of the governmental body involved. Unfortunately, the Bill of Rights did not cover private entities that essentially function like a government, such as HOAs. But that's a separate topic...
I agree that the 4th Amendment should apply to any and all government actions, including those carried out by private actors on behalf of the government. The part that I can't believe it's that this 10-year abatement agreement did not provide for inspection to ensure compliance. A simple clause to this effect might be, "Parties agree that the Township, or its designee(s), may inspect the property at any time without prior notice or consent." Yes, the 4A matter is much more important generally, but if such a provision exists, then the 4A issue with respect to this one case is obviated. Hopefully, they stick to the 4A case and get a good result. Then get a warrant and get these people to clean up their property.
If a warrant was given for a reason that was not substantiated as probable cause, and the warrant was served, can the issuance of the warrant be contested in court? I once had a warrant where probable cause included, "because the owners would not agree to consent to the search". I don't think that is cause....but a Magistrate signed it.
No expectation of privacy is easier to prove when the drone is directly above the public right of way. Flying above the property is more like peeping into a window.
I have never understood the massive distinction between jail time and fines. Both result in loss of freedom. If I have to work to earn the money to pay off a fine, I most likely have lost my freedom to do what I want to do during the time it takes to do the work to pay off that fine.
That's why there's very little distinction between criminal and civil actions brought by the government. Suppose the government decides that illegal drugs are a civil violation instead of a criminal violation? Does any reasonable person think they can patrol the highways with drug code enforcement officers that can stop you and search your car with out probable cause as long as there's no possibility of going to jail?
@@suedenim9208 : "Unreasonable" search is really not difficult to understand. Does the government agent have a warrant? Does the government agent have a reasonable, articulable suspicion that you have "violated the law"? A "yes", or a "no" answered to either of those questions gives you the answer to whether the search is "reasonable". 🙂
I would love to hear your take on the original agreement about the conditions of the property. I wonder if it has an inspection clause that that is not mentioned in the news article's. If the city has an infection clause and the fence is stopping that and the owner is preventing the inspection a drone is permissible without a warrant. If there is no inspection clause then a warrant is required. It all goes back to the first agreement. Agree with your take oon the facts as posted.
Being a certified 107 drone pilot and do a lot of construction progression photo/video some of the laws being proposed bothers me. I agree about a certain amount of expected privacy, but what about police or news helicopters that have way better resolution than any consumer drone. What about the resolution of the satellites used for imaging these days? For $20 you can get a hi-res photo of any city block and see enough detail to see what kind of "flowers" someone is growing in their back yard. As I said, there need to be some privacy expectations, but there needs to be some balance, common sense and equity (between full scale aircraft and commercial drones) as well. Good channel BTW - thanks!
"Hey, we just flew a microphone and camera up to your window, hope you don't mind since we aren't going to press criminal charges, just post the video on the internet."
I 100% agree with you on the 4A argument. The 4th is against ANY arm of government whether federal, state, or local and matters not if it's for criminal or civil matters.
You generally own the airspace 400' above your property. This can change depending on your state, proximity to airport etc, but generally the FAA regulates 400' above ground level to be your property. It is also illegal to fly "drones" above 400'. So if the municipality flew below 400', they were trespassing, and if they flew above, they were in violation of FAA regulation. This is why aerial photography for zone enforcement and building permit violations, which is very common in some counties, is done with a light aircraft or helicopter to avoid trespassing. Alternatively, the city could've ordered same day satellite imagery and avoided all this mess.
Several aspects of this .... 1. The owners of the property had already entered into an agreement - to not violate zoning (junk) on their property. As such, they have (may have) voluntarily entered into an agreement to have limited enforcement of that agreement. 2. I have ... neighbor issues, they want me to repair their fence, and I don't want to. They now call the city on a regular basis; and the city finds something on my property; and cites me for it. As such, the city zoning people are not only police, they are also judge, jury and executioner. DANG STRATE they should be held to the same standard as police. If I don't pay the find by the city - vs not paying a fine for a criminal citation - what is going to happen? My neighbor also is not held to the same standard that I am (what you said about arbitrary standards); in (one of) my citations, they noted the similarity between my "junk" and their "junk"; however - they offered an excuse for the neighbors junk ... in my citation! I also read the standards for having a shed (almost none). I build a shed - and placed everything in it. The zoning person didn't 'like' the shed; and (knowing the end outcome) asked if I were to place walls on it; what "gap" could I have between the boards. Two inches? One inch? One half inch? (Keeping in mind... there is no standard); and he said he would allow one half inch. I then informed him that I would keep the shed to city standards -- and not alter it and that his 'decision' was arbitrary and capricious. Other quick points: They tried to fine me when I had an active / open building permit for stacked construction materials; they are not allowed to trespass - and in one instance they had to come onto my property to see the "offending" item (I dropped it and forgot to pick it up); they can't tell the difference between a fence and a spool of wire. Oh, and none of my 'complaints' on my neighbors property are investigated - even though they are the same 'issue' as mine.
Sounds like you live in Mesa County Colorado. I have the same issues here, they even violate state laws, and the local judges do not care. I gave them a list of almost 100 property's within 1 mile that have the same issues. The media gets us so bound up over the national elections, but it is the local ones that affect us the most. Yet we cannot find much on those running to make a good choice.
That's interesting that if you're a normal citizen that doesn't understand the law like lawyers and police, "ignorance of the law is no excuse" and they're punished anyways. But when it's a municipal employee that doesn't understand the law like lawyers and police we just allow ignorance of the law to be an excuse and just let it slide?
That's the entire concept of "Qualified immunity" For the police. "Well, the Officer didn't know that would break the law! So he gets Qualified immunity!" Can understand how stupid, ignorant, and hypocritical "Qualified immunity" is, huh?
@@Jirodyne Except it's worse than that. There are cases where officers intentionally violate the law knowing they can claim "Qualified immunity" later.
It seems to me the 4th should stand against any part of government trying to penalise people for money or “power “ which in effect is exactly what the police do.
I remember the first time I saw the Michigan hand thing. I was in the Marine Corps and we got a new guy. SSgt asked where he was from, guy said Michigan, SSgt asked what part. Man answered and SSgt shook his head, held up his hand and asked again. Man said he was from the upper peninsula. That was also the first time I'd heard someone called "One of them dirty Yoopers". SSgt wasn't even from Michigan, just had enough friends from there to know Edit: Note that I personally have no particular feelings towards people from anywhere in Michigan, as a Floridian it's not my place to judge.
Yoopers are generally quite awesome (as with any group, there will be exceptions). Overall they are friendly, helpful, even-tempered, brilliantly resourceful, full of dry humor, a real "live and let live" attitude. Even if they have personal prejudices, they won't hassle you they'll just steer clear of you and mind their own business. The only people that would dislike Yoopers are judgmental people who are full of themselves.
@@sparkyUSA1976 That's generally true for small towns anywhere, but as you point out there will be variations of it depending on how easy it is to "spot" an outsider. Outsiders are pretty easy to spot in the U.P. due to the lack of a "yooper" accent. To be fair, they have reason not to trust outsiders beyond tourists - a lot of government or corporate "outsiders" do their best to take advantage of both the local people and the local resources. Basically, until they get to know you personally that they can trust you they'll be suspicious so generally will avoid you. This means you may not get hired or you may find services are "all booked" and unavailable for you to schedule but oddly suddenly available for locals. Tourists are generally treated well, though - it's a tourist economy, they want you to bring your money, leave it with them and then go home.
We live in Texas. My husband says in Texas, First, You have to have an FAA license in order to fly a drone. 2nd. It's not legal to fly a drone over homes or airports.I hope that helps this case.
The question is..why is there a rule saying they can't have junk in their backyard, and why are they allowed to agree to this? They have a privacy fence..stop violating their peace.
Not taking sides on the question but what if your neighbor kept their household garbage in their back yard and it created rat and other vermin problems in the area? If it caused health and safety problems, would you just look the other way and say it's their property to do with as they please? In my scenario I can easily see the need for zoning rules to prevent the problem. But as Steve stated about the old car - one man's trash is another man's treasure.
@@kennethstaszak9990 : I'm actually inclined to disagree, when it comes to household garbage causing vermin problems for the entire neighborhood. That's a "safety of life" issue, in addition to the decline of property value issue.
@@daleallen7634 That's the point I was making. The OP questioned why there was an ordinance in the first place. My scenario was an example of why there could or should be.
@@kennethstaszak9990 I can't think of all scenarios but in general, I would say that I'm responsible for my own property and it's protection from pests. I had a property in Pennsylvania and despite keeping it clean and garbage free, I did have bears and deer and raccoons going through it just to name a few. Same goes for my property in Florida. Vermin just show up because our territories overlap. I used to not cut my grass as often as the township suggested, and my neighbors complaint was that there are going to be snakes showing up. The fact of the matter is, snakes are in Florida. I keep my house meticulously clean, but there are waterbugs daily because it's.. Florida. Now, if my neighbor had radioactive waist, and it was penetrating our groundwater or going through the walls and giving me cancer, that's a different thing in covered by different laws. I honestly think people should stop minding other people's businesses with what they see and focus more on the quality of life in their neighborhood in other ways. Here in Florida, I supposedly have a well-known drug dealer right across the street from me who does business in their house, but they keep their lawn meticulous and they don't leave garbage out on the front lawn and they pay their property taxes so I can't do much about it, so there goes the value of local ordinances regarding property aesthetics. If you lived in New York City, you will have rats around your property, weather you keep your property clean and your neighbor keeps their property clean or not. It's New York City, you're going to see rats on your property
I think setting has a lot to do with. If you're in an apartment building complex and your neighbor leaves their garbage out in the hallway, which apparently is allowed in some apartment complexes from what I've seen, then yes, they're garbage will attract roaches and rats into your house more than normal, but the property in this case was 5 acres I believe... Pretty doubtful that anything that they're doing is going to cause a direct correlation to their neighbor acquiring more vermin than normal. Apparently the waste that they have is not visible easily from ground level so unless they are operating a garbage dump back there, I don't see how they will be affecting their neighbors vermin problem much
I am no lawyer, nor do I sleep at Holiday Inn Expresses.. But I am a licensed Drone operator.. and everything I have been taught is that the FAA controls all airspace.. My services have been used before by property management companies to check on their property ( know this is a little different but still) .. I can fly in any FAA regulated airspace as long as I have the clearance as tot he airspace I am flying in and I am not exceeding 400AGL .. and that includes over property... because the FAA regulates it.. If hired, I fly over property for a lot of different reasons, although I never have for a "government agency" .. But I have for a Real Estate company who wanted aerial photos of a development they were planning on investing in.. So.. just looking at this from a drone operator POV and FAA regulations..
A government must have a warrant, an HOA doesn't need one. A Township is Government. The photos are inadmissible AND the Township is in violation and subject to punitive damages.
Thank you again Steve for bringing these actions to light. Who would've thunk it could happen? I'm thinking that if those people own that property, its NOT city property. Or are we to believe that no one can fully own any property unless co operated with the city. If the "junk" in behind their house wasn't visible to busy bodies spying on others activities, then putting a camera over that property seems like intrusion on the home/property owners privacy rights and protection from unreasonable illegal searches resulting in prosecution.
I agree with you on this. I have 4 classic vehicles currently parked beside my shop that one of my neighbors would lobe to see disappear. A good 100k sitting there. Good thing where I live as long as they are on my property then the neighbors can just not look at then when they drive by.
@@sidserv1978 Watch what they do. My neighbor complained enough that the commissioners passed a "Rubbish code", they have such a broad definition, you can include dam near every thing. here. "2.7 Junk Vehicle. Any vehicle which is inoperable, which is wholly or partially dismantled, or which does not bear current license plates and registration, unless such vehicle would under no circumstances be licensable under Colorado statutes or is used as a historical display. For purposes of this Ordinance, the definition of “vehicle” means a device that is capable of moving itself, or of being moved, from place to place upon wheels or endless tracks and includes but is not limited to: an automobile, a motor vehicle, a noncommercial or recreational vehicle, an off-highway vehicle, a truck, a farm tractor, a snowmobile, a lawn mower, and any trailer or camper designed to be drawn by or carried upon a motor vehicle, all as defined in section 42-1-102, C.R.S. 2.9 Rubbish. Any trash, junk, garbage, litter, refuse, debris, lawn or garden waste (yard clippings, branches, and leaves), newspapers, magazines, glass, metal, plastic or paper containers or packaging, remnant construction or demolition materials, unused or unusable building materials, vehicle parts, junk vehicle(s), abandoned or junk equipment, used appliances or furniture, oil, carcasses of dead animals, any object likely to injure any person or create a traffic hazard, rejected or unused matter, organic or inorganic refuse, rejected or waste food, offal, swill, ash, manure, sawdust, or any other object which has been discarded or abandoned and outside storage of used or waste tires (except as otherwise regulated pursuant to the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and Facilities Act, part 1 of Article 20 of Title 30, C.R.S., and any rules and regulations promulgated thereunder)." No one showed up to contest it because they hid it all the way through.
You are 100% correct. Just like in the Bruen decision, when dealing with any constitutional provisions, the text and history should be applied. A plain reading should suffice, but as you said, it sounds like the court is overthinking the issue. As in Bruen, and other 2A cases lately, there are courts and prosecutors that still argue against recent supreme court decisions because they want more control and don't care for the Constitution. Courts will continue to construe this until it's challenged appropriately.
Here is a key point for your consideration, if they or you used a high-resolution high-flying drone, they would be able to see onto any properties they want to without ever leaving their own yard so to speak.
The fact that advanced technology has to be used to assist humans in their investigation should itself be proof that it's an "unreasonable search". Imagine we invent a product that has "X-Ray vision" that can easily see through any barrier just by dialing in the distance you want to view. Do you think it's reasonable that an official can just drive around on public roads looking through people's walls to see if there are drugs sitting openly on a kitchen table?
Without special permission from the FAA, drones are limited to 400 feet above ground level and operate within visual line of sight of the operator. There is no exception for civil authorities or commercial use.
Logically, if the zoning search were found legal, could evidence found during a drone search be turned over to the police for criminal investigation because the information was legally obtained and not poisoned fruit?
Sounds like a terrible ruling. If violation of constitutional rights doesn't exclude evidence in a CIVIL matter, you just do the following: 1) Get whatever evidence you need, regardless of violations of defendant's rights. 2) Go after them civilly with all this ill-gotten evidence, rather than criminally. 3) Win handily as a result, resulting in an unmanageable penalty. (Remembering they can always change the laws to make anything they want a civilly actionable matter, and set the penalty to whatever they want, or often it's already such a wide range the judge could already just decide to make it unmanageable.) 4) Throw them in jail based on non-payment of judgement.
I see why this is important to officials and probaly law enforcement as well. Not enough eveidence for the police to get a warrant, so have the code enforcement officer do it and then review the footage. Whenever the government agencies are that ivested in a case and willing to shell out lage sums, look for the ultier motive. By the way I hope the Michigan wildfire near Grayling gets under control. It is a terrible thing for the people in the areas.
I guess my question is how many photos were taken of other peoples private property that because no infractions were seen and no charges were brought fourth, these people don't know they have been spied on and photos exist of their private property.
@@darksu6947 Yes they do, but in most cases it is limited in resolution to around 2-5m, though the one office I worked in had it at 1cm resolution, for some reason. However for a municipality to use those images, in any way related to city or town functions, they are required to buy a licence to do so, which gives them very limited rights. Now, if the defence went to Google, and asked if anybody in the city management, either at home or at work (so all map lookups with geolocation in the IP allocation of the town, or any Google account that does get used in the district even if via a VPN), had looked at the area in question within a certain distance of the house, at any resolution, in the weeks prior to this, then they could allow Google to join in to a copyright violation against them, and they would have the entire Alphabet legal team assisting in the case, and the ensuing massive copyright claim against the town. The google maps are limited in resolution, unless the city or township has paid to use them, then they get the latest maps, and previous ones, at full resolution when acquired. Same for street view, you can get rights to use it for commercial use, which is defined as either being used to generate money, or work that is going to result in the payment of any consideration.
That ruling is contrary to existing constitutional law regarding government searches of private property in support of enforcing health and safety rules. A health inspector may not enter a Private business or home to do an inspection if opposed by the holder without a warrant. The government can base the Rescission of a permit because the holder refuses inspection but the government may not force its way onto the property.
The entire US Constitution, including all amendments thereto, Must be construed to apply to ALL matters, regardless of who may or may not understand the meaning or applicability of any law or limitation.
If this rule stands the police will have different agencies fly drones and try to catch crimes and then they will turn that footage over to the police and the police would act on it saying a warrant was not needed because they were not the ones flying the drones so it should be admitted
I do agree that if the only way you can see the property is via drone that does not constitute a violation of the ordinance. But I think the city has the right to use photos from the drone. As the homeowners don't own the airspace. Since anyone can use that airspace would that not make that a public space? So it would be the same as if they could see the junk from the public road. No warrant needed. *Edit* Now that I've finished the video I realize you said it's not about the drone issue lol. I agree that if a warrant is required for a drone then it doesn't matter what government entity is doing it. They should be required to have a warrant.
Reminds me of something from an old Mad Magazine. An old lady calls the police on a man walking around his apartment naked with the windows uncovered. The cop comes and looks out her window and says he doesn't see anything. The old lady says, "of course not, you need these!" and hands him a pair of binoculars.
I heard she was standing on a box peeping thru a knot hole in the fence.
😂😅😂😅
😂😅😂😅
Many colonialists knew it was better living with a tyrant living 4000 miles away than 4000 tyrants living next door.. 😊😊
Either way why cant you walk around your own home naked?
@@imjashingyou3461 that's because we live in America, land of the free and home of the braves?? 😊😊
I bet that if they flew drones over the Michigan State Supreme Court Justices' Houses and took pictures of THEIR backyards, the Justices would change their tune REAL quick!
Who gave power to the government?? 😊😊
It will be someone from code enforcement too. They will use the same 'line' as to why they violated the Justice's rights to privacy. Would love to just watch that Justice's facial expressions as the code enforcement person explains away. Definitely record that.
I first thought of the "what if they did that to the Justices" line when SCOTUS upheld the city seizing property to turn into a shopping center.
That's the next step. I fly, so I am in an interesting position. The airspace is open to any pilot, but privacy is the most important thing to respect and I take extra steps to show that to people I work with. This move by the state definitely invites drones to strat flying over judges and officials. We want to preserve their obviously bodacious standards and share that with the world.
I think the underlying problem is the use by local governments of civil charges as an end run around the constitution. We’ve had a couple of cases in New Mexico that stopped that practice. As Steve have pointed out, the constitution talks about the rights of the citizens, and not about whether or not it’s a civil or criminal case.
Yup.. it's ironic that many other rights don't apply in civil cases.. 💯💯
@@JP-gi7dw At least, that’s the story and they’re sticking to it. 😂
@@JP-gi7dw I never understood that concept. The ENTIRE POINT of the Constitution is to Protect "The People" from "The Government". Not "From Criminal Actions". So why does the case being Civil, instead of Criminal, suddenly allow unfair trials, no free lawyers to defend yourself, and the rules and laws to heavily punish the public and favor the government unconstitutionally?
Like seriously, I was always taught "If you go to court, if you didn't have a lawyer, one would be appointed to you." It wasn't till I was like 23 I learned Civil and Criminal were different not just in name, but that you don't get a free lawyer, and forced to get one or defend yourself. It blew my fucking mind.
@@JirodyneThere's only one way to fix the corruption, and it's right there at number 2 in the constitution
@@tedkaczynskiamericanhero3916 Oh I know. Too bad the Country is full of Cowards. 100 years ago, and the shit going on wouldn't have happened. Biden would have been Executed for Treason publically, and most of these corrupt officials would have been found dead and their homes and assets burned.
But we live in a time of weakness, with weak men, that allow corruption to grow and destroy everything.
The implication that police officers understand the law seems like a rather novel concept
A couple weeks in a classroom doesn’t leave much time to study law, so they enforce their feelings.
@@jeffbergstrom oh really, they're allowed to be ignorant of the law but normal citizens aren't???? WTF!
My ex wife was a cop. They do not know much law at all. Their jobs don't require much knowledge of the law, and they aren't all that smart or they wouldn't be cops.
@@kevinerbs2778 My favorite Supreme Court decision. The cops can lie to you, but if you lie to them it's a crime.
Touche!!😂😂😂
Applying this to an HOA. Arizona courts have ruled that unless a violation of HOA rules had been reported by a person who can be lawfully present from where the reported violation was observed, the alleged violation cannot be enforced.
In other words, the manager can’t open your gate and look into the back yard looking for something. Which makes sense.
But you can legally fly a drone.
@@hautehusseyThat boots all the way down your throat me thinks.
@@hautehussey You can legally own and use binoculars too. Spying on people in their private property with them isn't necessarily legal just because owning and general use of them isn't prohibited.
@@5467nick "spying" involves circumventing measures taken for privacy, such as planting hidden cameras. At what magnification does viewing something from a publicly-accessible place become "spying?" Do +3 eyeglasses count?
@@5467nick except that is legal as well.
In my LEO training, i seem to remember that a plain view search cannot use something like a ladder to gain advantage in seeing over a fence, seems like a drone is far beyond that...
Actually, a drone is just a rung-less ladder power my a mechanical motor.
@@dand3953 It's more like a very tall periscope.
You’re about 20 years out of date
I would think that if you need a drone to see it it falls outside the definition of in plain view. If you’re flying a drone you’re taking and extraordinarily measure to see something that is not in plain view.
... or using an infrared imager to "see" what the naked eye cannot see.
I used to work as a County Noxious Weed director in Kansas. We were required to do random surveys of 10 sections of ground for Noxious Weeds each year. These were chosen randomly and sent to me each year by the state. There were of course very few people that were happy about this, and since I am huge believer in personal property I tried to only survey from the road and not enter. However there was one piece that was land locked in the middle of a large piece of ground that had no roads. The owner consulted a lawyer and agreed we had the right to do it and so he wouldn’t stop us.
I made the decision to just not survey it at all and respect his desire for privacy.
I left the county two years ago and have always felt good about my decision.
Thanks for all you do to give people a voice, love the channel!
I fully expect some state to redefine all crimes as civil offenses, so that they can thereafter ignore all those pesky rights that defendants have.
It would be nice fi they would do that for non - violent crimes like check fraud.
My State amended the trespass statute to include flying drones over private property below a couple of hundred feet. If flying one over property is trespass, then a warrant would be needed. In addition, the State Supreme Court ruled some while back that even in civil matters enforced by the government, a warrant would be necessary to authorize an intrusion into private affairs of people. A right without a remedy is no right at all.
Personally I think Google Earth is trespassing and it should not be allowed. I have heard that Google Earth is used by California, to look for building code violations such as buildings constructed without a permit. I live in Montana and the county where there are no building codes so it doesn't matter to me.
@@duanejackson6718 Google Earth can't be trespassing as there was no encroachment on the property, as the images are taken from well beyond the property (AKA satellite and/or planes).
@@duanejackson6718 You can think anything you want, but when you're stupid a lot of what you think is going to be wrong.
@@duanejackson6718 Yes but there they are comparing images taken years apart, and looking for differences that then are investigated, from ground level. Here it was a fishing scheme, targeting all those in an area, or just some civil servant wanting to fix a slight they got from the one party.
If this then is allowed all drone operators should fly by the houses and offices of the city councillors, taking video of them through all windows, as this ruling has said that this is legal so long as you are not law enforcement, and you are allowed to do it.
Thanks for telling me this as I said I would shoot a drone spying on me. I was told against FAA regulations and I would be arrested.
I'd have to agree. 4th amendment bar on unreasonable searches and seizures without a warrant/probable cause is not restricted to police, but all government actors. Which would include municipalities, town councils, etc. This is a bar on government action for protection of the people from the government, not just a single arm of the government that comes to mind most common being the police.
Funny enough now that I'm thinking about it, even the courts accept this, since there's a legal concept of "Agent of the State", if you're acting as an agent of the state in any capacity, you're bound to the laws and restrictions set forth in the constitution and local state constitution and any local county, city, town, or municipality laws, regulations, or codes that would otherwise restrict state action; which includes police actions but is not limited to police actions.
And when government uses a civil action it's often a back door to criminal charges if the defendant doesn't comply with the Civil judgment, it can become a criminal matter, child support is a good example.
Exactly. The constitution was strictly written to protect from government of any kind.
I don't see any sensible argument against that position, but the courts have worked very hard at coming up with "reasons" that our 4th amendment protections are more limited than most people would think is indicated by a simple reading of what it says. That said, from what I've seen SCOTUS has mostly upheld warrantless administrative searches only in relatively limited circumstances where people (including companies) have a reduced expectation of privacy because they're engaged in businesses that are closely regulated. If these people are running a junkyard that is regulated there's a good chance the 4A requirement wouldn't apply, but I gather they're just people who (might) treat their no-commercial property like a garbage dump.
Who are the 🤡🤡 that VOTED repeatedly for the government to be their masters?? 😊😊
The fourth amendment makes no exclusion for private entities, either. The courts have made that distinction out of deference and probably outright bribery from the wealthy and big corporate. There is absolutely no reason to allow a private entity to search and seize without a warrant in most cases, other than on one's own property against an intruder or a thief. To allow a private detective to enter and search a private citizen's home, land, or person is exactly what our founders intended to bar in the 4A along with the same actions committed by government actors. Otherwise, the wealthy can make themselves into a private government.
If the constitution restricts the actions of the government, it shouldn't matter whether the government employee in question is a police officer, secretary, janitor or college football coach (or for that matter a private contractor hired by the government), their actions represent the government and thus the restriction of action should apply to them.
As you pointed out, I too, read law plainly. I would hope, that any first law student understands, the PURPOSE of the Constitution is to LIMIT the "government". In my law enforcement training (many years ago) we were instructed just that. The Constitution limits government period. 👍👍 Good job Steve. Bob in Nevada
Yeah, I'm trying really hard to understand how Washington et al would have been like, "Oh King George, your soldiers can't conduct this search, but if you send your court functionary bureaucrats in, that's perfectly fine!" I seem to recall a big fight over tax collectors; pretty sure the folks in government - the ones who would support this local government's argument - would NOT consider them police!
Ironically, most Americans are well-trained law abiding 🐑 🐑 that VOTED repeatedly for the corrupt system to be their masters.. 💯💯
"No, your honor. We are not fining them, we are taking an unplanned donation."
It appears to me that the township has it in for this homeowner and are going to go to any length to convict them!
Yeah. It's personal.
You need to run for a judgeship Steve. We need more jurists like you.
He has stated he never wants to be a judge.
Go Steve, go! "A car up on blocks is a barn find without the barn!" Great reframe. 😅
It's 2087. Hell has frozen over. Civilization has crumbled. Apocalypse came and went. This case is still going through the court system.
And just think of all the money that defendants have wasted on legal costs, probably more than what the house and property was worth.
"If there's a rule on the books but no one gets in trouble for breaking it? Why is the rule there?"
Steve isn't that a description of the problem of qualified immunity?
Oh good connection. i think you're right.
Qualified immunity is even better as that’s not even a write law. It was a BS ruling from the Supreme Court which is unconstitutional as the Supreme Court can not write law.
Nah.. qualified immunity is there to protect the masters from the slaves.. 😊😊
@@JP-gi7dw Cops aren't masters of anything. That's why they are cops.
I believe qualified immunity was created by the courts.
The key word here is Enforcement. Code enforcement are by the nature of their primary function, a policing action. We don't call them "police" only because they are tasked with a narrow section of law, but they are still law enforcement. EVERYONE in the administrative branch is, to one extent or another, part of a policing organization.
Junk that cannot be seen without entering or overflying the property should be treated the same way as someone getting offended while peeking into our window and seeing us naked.
Either way If you do not want to see someone's junk do not intrude to look .
@@alt3241 LMAO!
In the USA, land of the free, if someone peeks into your window and sees you naked, you're committing a crime, not them.
@@thewhitefalcon8539 Way to twist shit around.
Not gonna spend all day looking it up, but the first case that comes up if you search for this, is a guy who stood around nude in front of his window in full public view.
When you can easily be seen from public spaces or other people's property, you aren't in "the privacy of your own home" and acting like there's a meaningful difference between whipping your whang out in your front yard and standing around with it out in front of your window, because of a plate of glass is laughable.
You're not into building codes then?
Wow. Talk about angels dancing on pinheads, this is CRAZY. Even by California standards, that's an absurd decision. Your indignation is well-placed. Thanks Steve. Hopefully sanity will prevail.
Shouldn't the original agreement to clear the property have included an inspection agreement and stipulated how and when the inspection would take place?
It's quite obvious that the legal dept. of the Municipality messed up many aspects of this story.
If it had, then this case would have been thrown out on day 1, as it would no longer have been deemed "unreasonable".
You know full well from this day on, that any agreement they enter into regarding zoning complaints will include a search allowance.
@@hugbearsx4 most cities/towns do not expect the 🐑 🐑 to fight back against their masters.. 💯💯
This reminds me of the Idaho Township using Google Satellite images to create building code violations over property improvements or modifications that couldn't possibly be seen or discovered any other way.
Thanks for explaining how the exclusionary rule is a direct implication of the Fourth Amendment, although many people might consider it "Judicial Activism". There is no right without a remedy is a fundamental principle of law. And since the exclusionary rule applies only in a criminal situations, the Supreme Court created the "Bivens Action" for civil cases where the Fourth Amendment has been violated but no criminal charges were filed. This latter is also based on the principle that there is no right without a remedy.
How hard would have it been for the township to have gotten a warrant? If there weren't drones, the city would have to get a warrant to go on the property.
8:13 Where's the probable cause for a warrant?
Here's a concept: helicopters and planes. They could have seen what they wanted without getting a warrant or using a drone, but they chose to try a sensible and inexpensive approach.
I side with the warrant, but there are probably drones that allow angling the camera which would allow surveillance from just outside the property without a violation of airspace. That would be a whole new can of worms.
It’s not a criminal case so no warrant needed
@@suedenim9208 the point is even from an airplane of helicopter the evidence should be suppressed without a warrant. It is a literal violation as there was no probable cause to look.
When it comes to government power being used against the people there should be no distinction between criminal and civil when it comes to gathering evidence and other intrusions. According to the current logic, as long as something is labeled as being a civil action, government is not barred from compelling you to be a witness against yourself and they can torture you.
we can torture you, and we promise to let you go after we give you a civil fine...
If they don't pay the fine and stand their ground, at what point does it escalate to a criminal matter, and would that criminal matter be enforceable if it stems from an unconstitutional action?
It doesn’t escalate to criminal itself but maybe contempt of court if you ignore the civil judgment ordered by the judge.
Here they attach a lien to the deed of the property, with a 20% interest. Does not take long until they are due enough money to foreclose on the property. They are also selective on who they go after. They target the working poor who they know cannot afford a lawyer, if they could even find one that will take on the county.
The county would likely use a lien and condemn the property to be sold out from under the owners.
A few issues here, now cops can use this method to gather evidence to get a warrant! Also, if a couple set up a privacy fence so they could set up a hot tub and skinny dip into it. Now you have a HUGE privacy issue because you are taking naked pictures of people who believed they have privacy because they took every precaution to ensure they were given privacy. It is no different then a peeping Tom looking into a woman's bathroom window to catch her getting dressed!
The Constitution doesn’t once mention “Police”; the constitution establishes the powers of government as well as limiting the power of “GOVERNMENT”.
If you fail to limit the power of “regulators” they will forever increase their power. Civil v criminal is meaningless when government is bringing the action as there is a penalty that is faced.
absolutely agree.
my take is the difference between civil and criminal is mostly "is this from another citizen or from the government"
this city wants to say the difference is "could this have jail time?"
It limits the power of the Federal Government. The 10th Amendment acknowledges the expansive police powers of State Government, as has been upheld by the courts innumerable times.
@@barryomahony4983 : The federal constitution may allow the states more powers than the federal government but in no way can rights be restricted by the states beyond constitutional enumerations. The constitution is like minimum code, it is the bare minimum of what must be done. States can however grant more rights than the federal constitution but they cannot restrict things as they’re governed by the constitution.
Who gave power to the government?? Gods?? 😊😊😊
City should not have access to Willy -Nilly as they see fit ! It's outside the city limits so why are they worried about it? Because they can't tax them as that wish ?
Whether or not they have a badge and gun, they work for the government and ought to face constraints on their conduct.
The town I lived in in the mid 90's passed a "junk" ordinance. I had a 59 Cadillac that I was restoring behind a privacy fence and a evergreen hedge, could not be seen from the street. One day soon after the ordinance went into effect I noticed a bright orange sticker on the windshield, it was a violation notice. There was a address to send a request for hearing application too.
At the hearing I asked the employee of the city how they saw the car. He freely admitted that he came into the property and opened the gate in the fence, checking for violations. When the official hearing the case (not a judge) heard that he dismissed the violation and read the poor guy the riot act and asked him on the record how many citations he had given out doing the same thing. It was in the hundreds. When asked why he thought that was allowed he said "my supervisor said to do it." The official then told me I could go if I wanted but he was getting the guys boss in immediately and if I wanted to stay I could, so I did.
It wasn't 15 minutes later that I watched the supervisor get torn a new one. Ended up that the city had to recind all of the citations that they had given out up to that point since they had no idea which ones were or were not good.
It’s mind boggling to me that any government, run and mandated in authority through law, can enact a civil suit. Private individuals suing each other in civil court is one thing but to have a govt entity do that? I balk at the notion. Virtually unlimited resources payed by the taxpayer (to include the defendant). What I’m getting here is basically if the govt can’t get its way through law it’ll do it in civil court instead as if it’s a private citizen. Shameful.
There are plenty of things which warrant legal action, but don't deserve criminal prosecution. I don't think we want to tell the government they're only allowed to use the biggest hammer to react to everything.
Good point
the State & city & county should be banned from Civil court then.
If a government entity loses a lawsuit, they should have to pay the legal costs of the defendant.
a friend of mine has a pool in back yard, he also two sets of twin girls 14/16 years old. at times a drone would hover over pool when the girls are swimming or sun bathing. the dad was afraid to shoot it down worrying the FAA could come after him. dad called me and was telling me about drone, i asked the dad to come over and bring his visa card. i found dad a powerful drone jammer that dropped the drone into the pool. PROBLEM SOLVED!!!
That's way cool I will have to look into a drone Jammer. I've had low flying drones over my property a few times
and then you were arrested and the FCC fined you several thousand dollars for jamming a frequency used by aircraft, right?
At one time in Fairgrove Michigan the council had local police enter back yards to check for expired plates on parked cars after midnight!!!!! Today that would be insanely dangerous! I hate zoning!!!
Outstanding explanation. The words in the 4th means something. It limits GOVERNMENT...not we the people. Well explained Steve.
You are going to see lots of backyards in that town covering their yards with arial camouflage.
How can any property be in violation of nuisance abatement ordinances if the alleged nuisance is not visible at ground level?
Exactly. It can't really be much of a nuisance then.
How about you ask again after your well becomes useless because of the used motor oil draining into it fro you're neighbor's fenced in junkyard?
Derelict vehicles and other debri might become refuges for vermin like rats or breeding places for mosquitos.
Sounds like the ordinance is the nuisance. 😊
@@suedenim9208 Very good point to bear in mind.
I know you have no interest in being a judge but videos like this reinforce my belief that you would be one of the best judges ever to sit the bench!
I could see him doing a show like Judge Judy/People's Court or something. That would be fun.
A good question for the property owners to ask is if the operator of the drone was properly licensed under the FAA part 107 rules.
107 pilot here so take my answer in stride. They will claim it was used as a public safety action (a designation for search and rescue operations). The question should be if the drone itself complied with the Remote ID requirement. Illegal equipment = illegal search.
My take is that the actual question should be the applicability of any government employees actions that intersect with a private citizens enumerated rights. The prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures is applicable to ALL governments within the jurisdiction of the United States
Most of the public would likely consider the constitution written for the people, not police, FBI, CIA or local Government. It applies to all. Why this matter is in front of the Supreme Court is telling me someone with the city has an axe to grind with this property owner. If the case was being financed personally by the city attorney and manager, I doubt very much the matter would still be alive. this is another example of how the bullies in city Government will pursue things no matter how trivial when its not their money they are spending. This is how the legal system continues to be unjust to the public due to the cost of getting justice.
Steve, thoughts of an old retired cop. The The 4th amendment of the US Constitution, simply stated, was written to protect "We the People" from the government. Any part of the government. Code inforcerment officers are a part of the government, same as the police. Therefore they are restricted from violating the right of the people to be secure in their person, places and things. It has already been determined that the police, a government agency, using a drone to search is a violation of the 4th amendment if done so without a warrant.
Just my thoughts on the U S Constituition. I do not know the Michigan Constitution. I greatly enjoy your channel... Wish I could sit with you , with a cup of coffee and talk...
Steve, I love your show and the issues that you present.
Were I in this fight here's what I'd present and where I'd go:
1) The municipality is an arm of a government.
2) The 4th amendment protects (as you said) the PEOPLE to be secure in what I call the 4P's: Person, Property, Papers & Possessions. The rights in the Bill of Rights are INALIENABLE, and thus cannot be 'excluded' for ANY reason.
3) A drone overflight below 300 ft constitutes a form of Trespass in the same context as a person crossing over a property without actually touching the property (re: corner crossing).
Therefore, as a member of a government, a drone overflight to effectively Search a property by anyone involved constitutes a criminal trespass and, as such, I would file criminal trespassing charges against the municipality and all the individuals involved in that action.
Secondly, I would argue that NO EXEMPTIONS to the law are allowed when it comes ANY of the rights in the Bill of Rights as they are Inalienable, meaning they cannot be voided. These rights are meant to limit government from acting in a form of tyranny against the freedom, privacy and security of the people and, as such, cannot be blithely excluded at ANY level of government. I consider the argument that, as these folks are not police, they get a free pass to violate civil rights, especially in a civil action as mendacious. If that isn't sufficient, their ignorance of the law is not a defense in any state or at the federal level, so that argument is fallacious and moot.
This would mean, in effect, regardless of prior case law or precedent, that the municipality violated their rights, regardless of the reason or nature of the conduct of the illegal search via drone.
Again, love your show. I hope the IFJ manages to clobber the local municipality and protect the rights and security of the individuals who were wronged.
Christopher
Lets have lots of drones takeing pictures of local politicians, police officers, town planners back yards.
How can they object?
Now that's an idea! 😄👍🧡
@Nickle :
Just be careful to keep your "drone" at 400 feet AGL, oh, and check with the FAA before you overfly anybody's private property that they've designated a "no fly zone", you COULD be charged with trespassing, AND violation of FAA regulations!
🙂
Why escalate? An argument is being taken seriously. Let's see the outcome first. Get popcorn!
"If you have nothing to hide, why would the cameras be a problem?" Right? Isn't that the excuse they used on us?
@@MonkeyJedi99 Exactly. Interesting how angry they get when people follow their lead.
"Our freedom's were not taken in a flood of new laws. It was like the drip, drip, drip from a slow leaking faucet". Quote from a survivor of Nazi Germany 1947.
I'm a helicopter pilot. The Civil Aviation Authority, a precursor to the FAA, established the original rule for airspace such that you must fly aircraft at a minimum altitude of 42' above ground level. Why? Because at THAT time, 42' was the minimum altitude determined by the CAA that would not disturb chickens on farms. Yes, chickens. Technically, that 42' height has not changed, which means you DO own the airspace from the ground to 42' above ground level. Above 42' that airspace belongs to the people, and the government manages that airspace for safety. Modern FAA regulations require you to maintain a "safe altitude above the ground," which is usually dictated by the type of aircraft, speed, balance and weight... for helicopters that's usually a minimum of 600' above ground, but it depends.
Now, if you are flying a drone for recreation purposes, you do NOT need a license (depends on how close you are to an airport). If you are a government agency or flying a drone to make money (i.e., taking pictures for real-estate websites), you need a license under PART107 (available to anyone 16 years old if you pass the exams). Most fire departments use drones as part of their emergency response. In my opinion, you have NO right to privacy from the air based on historical precedence. In fact, ask your local tax assessor what tools they use to determine the value of property when it is fenced and not visible from the road. Many tax assessor offices use Google earth or fixed-wing aircraft GIS (Geographic Information System) surveys to determine if someone has increased the value of their property by adding a pool or other improvement, which is legal.
If your city has a GIS map, guess what? You've been spied on from the air! Deal with it. Many cities pay fixed-wing pilots to take specialized GIS photos from the air to map boundaries, water erosion, changes in vegetation, development projects, streets, pollution, etc. Check your city's website. They usually make portions of that data available to the public. You aren't going to restrict satellites. You aren't going to restrict fixed-wing aircraft photography. You aren't going to restrict UAS (unmanned aerial system) photography. In 1990 Horton vs California, 496 U.S. 128, the Supreme Court held that the seizure of evidence in plain view does not constitute the invasion of privacy that the Fourth Amendment is meant to prohibit. I bet your state will decide something similar.
By the way, I like this channel.
So if they just climbed over the fence and walked around taking pictures would those pictures still be allowed? Break into your house and whatever evidence they come up with has to be allowed because it's civil LAW rather than criminal LAW? If they found illegal activity while investigating the civil violations by climbing over the fence could the pictures be allowed to justify a warrant for criminal investigation?
remember property rights? This cities and townships gone way too far w code enforcement. I cannot even use my carport for anything besides a licensed/registered car
@Gretchen K. The cops need to be able to get their drugs somewhere.
Without the exclusionary rule for civil cases the police might just get municipalities to investigate a code violation for them and sneak it through as part of a criminal case.
Exactly! Especially if it's a serious crime they are obligated to mandatory report.
Just made the same argument..
Is this the same court that gave us the ludicrous “lug nut case”?
I watch your channel quite often now, and it has been helping me get more advanced in English. Adding some vocabulary that is :)
Q: if the township used a drone launched outside the homeowners' property and flew straight up, from either a public place or an authorized parcel (permission granted), isn't that an example of legal photography?
Q: if they flew the drone over the homeowners' property without permission, isn't that criminal trespass?
Seems to me, a countersuit alleging criminal trespass might have legs, regardless of whether the photographs are admitted or not in the township's lawsuit.
Interesting case!
There are some vantage points that people normally don't expect others to have. An eight foot privacy fence is normally adequate to shield people swimming in an in ground pool or sunbathing in the back yard from a ground level neighbor's view. Frosting the lower half of a bathroom window would usually be adequate shielding from the view of someone on the same level across the back yard or walking along a public sidewalk.
Aviation wouldn't be feasible if property rights extended into, or even TO space. At some point there needs to be an upper boundary. Many countries have a range of altitudes where aircraft can fly wherever and whenever their pilots desire with the exception of military reserves and the vicinity of busy airports. Minimum altitudes are specified to keep planes clear of things like trees, high voltage power lines all but exceptionally tall buildings. Most dones are required to remain below the minimum altitude for other aircraft to prevent collisions.
There are multiple ways the evidence could have been gathered without a warrant, because the only places people can't legally go is some poorly defined low altitudes above the ground the people own. Because there aren't any well established laws or court rulings about exactly how much airspace you own I don't see a valid argument for trespassing or the search being illegal.
@@suedenim9208 I wouldn't call the broadly-defined status quo rigorous. But I think the courts are pretty comfortable deferring to the FAA. If it's air space the FAA controls and regulates, then it doesn't belong to the property owner.
So a drone that pops up 20 feet and has a look around, from airspace the FAA isn't interested in, over property where the drone operator and his flying thingee have a right to be, can probably take videos and photos all day long.
Unless there are local ordinances adding restrictions. Which local governments can be expected to be within their rights to create. After all, flying thingees landing on people's heads might be considered a nuisance.
Which means, what's permitted probably varies. A lot. Depending on where you are.
Which doesn't answer the question posed in this case: if a law or ordinance was broken to obtain evidence, can it be excluded from a civil case?
That's why we pay justices the big bucks: to decide questions like that one.
@@robertvirginiabeach I don't think airspace controlled and regulated by the FAA comes into it if we're talking about a drone flying up 20 feet from a property where drone and operator are permitted to be.
The expectation of privacy is a slippery concept.
A middle-aged Karen walks by a house and glances in the window, sees an adult man standing inside, naked, curtains open, grinning at her.
Whose rights were violated? Answer: neither.
A girl props binoculars on her second floor bedroom window sill to spy on a fenced backyard next door, where two boys are playing catch with a football. The boys can't be seen from ground level, but they are in sight from her vantage.
Whose rights were violated? Answer: neither.
The boys are nudists! Does that change anything?
The girl snaps photographs. Does that change anything?
I think, as a general rule, if you have the uncontested right to be where you are, it's legal to use your eyeballs, no restrictions. But there are a whale of a lot of laws and ordinances on the books. Your mileage may vary.
And you might want to be wary of child pornography violations. (I deliberately didn't mention how old the hypothetical boys were.)
Expectation of privacy probably isn't a magic wand you can wave to win every case everywhere. And I would not be surprised if the various courts deliver conflicting rulings. Slippery!
There seem to be a lot of folks who think they can't be photographed in public without their consent. Including some police officers, as it happens. That's usually wrong. Maybe always wrong, at least in the US.
It gets a little messier when eyeballs are located where they are permitted to be, and what they see is on private property. But I think, in most instances and most jurisdictions, the expectation of privacy varies considerably between inside a residence with blinds drawn, and in a yard which can be viewed from a legally-permitted vantage.
That's my opinion, but I'm not issuing it from a bench, and I don't own a gavel.
So this ruling says, the "Code Enforcer" can kick in your front door to see if your toilet is hooked up right???
It will come to that, if they are left unchecked.
Did you see the video of them breaking into the woman's house, guns drawn, over possible building permit infraction?
There might even be a non-low flow showerhead in use in California! 🚿 Gotta bust up your shower asap!
Ten years ago, when I needed to study for my naturalization exam, one of the crucial topics was the Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights. The Constitution consists of seven primary articles that explain how the government should function and list the duties and rights of each governmental body. On the other hand, the Bill of Rights states what the government is not allowed to do. Whether it's a criminal or civil court (although I'm not entirely sure why the government can bring a case to a CIVIL court), the rights protected by the Bill of Rights should apply in every court against any governmental entity. This means that if you can be are fined or jailed, the Bill of Rights should protect your rights, regardless of the governmental body involved.
Unfortunately, the Bill of Rights did not cover private entities that essentially function like a government, such as HOAs. But that's a separate topic...
I agree that the 4th Amendment should apply to any and all government actions, including those carried out by private actors on behalf of the government.
The part that I can't believe it's that this 10-year abatement agreement did not provide for inspection to ensure compliance. A simple clause to this effect might be, "Parties agree that the Township, or its designee(s), may inspect the property at any time without prior notice or consent."
Yes, the 4A matter is much more important generally, but if such a provision exists, then the 4A issue with respect to this one case is obviated.
Hopefully, they stick to the 4A case and get a good result. Then get a warrant and get these people to clean up their property.
courts, "when the governmetn wants to fine you its okay to ignore the 4th ammendment."
If a warrant was given for a reason that was not substantiated as probable cause, and the warrant was served, can the issuance of the warrant be contested in court?
I once had a warrant where probable cause included, "because the owners would not agree to consent to the search". I don't think that is cause....but a Magistrate signed it.
great show Steve
Thanks
No expectation of privacy is easier to prove when the drone is directly above the public right of way. Flying above the property is more like peeping into a window.
I have never understood the massive distinction between jail time and fines. Both result in loss of freedom.
If I have to work to earn the money to pay off a fine, I most likely have lost my freedom to do what I want to do during the time it takes to do the work to pay off that fine.
That's why there's very little distinction between criminal and civil actions brought by the government. Suppose the government decides that illegal drugs are a civil violation instead of a criminal violation? Does any reasonable person think they can patrol the highways with drug code enforcement officers that can stop you and search your car with out probable cause as long as there's no possibility of going to jail?
When an activity is only punishable by a fine, that activity is legal for a price
The bill of rights is so simply written and easy to understand that it baffles the mind that anyone can not understand the comands in it.
You'd think that "well-regulated militia" would be easy to understand, but "unreasonable searches" is definitely subjective.
@@suedenim9208 :
"Unreasonable" search is really not difficult to understand.
Does the government agent have a warrant?
Does the government agent have a reasonable, articulable suspicion that you have "violated the law"?
A "yes", or a "no" answered to either of those questions gives you the answer to whether the search is "reasonable".
🙂
The bill of rights also does not differentiate between criminal and civil actions.
@@johntracy72 Nope hence why it shouldnt matter like Steve said
@@suedenim9208 well regulated militia isnt the comand, shall not be infringed is
I would love to hear your take on the original agreement about the conditions of the property. I wonder if it has an inspection clause that that is not mentioned in the news article's. If the city has an infection clause and the fence is stopping that and the owner is preventing the inspection a drone is permissible without a warrant. If there is no inspection clause then a warrant is required. It all goes back to the first agreement.
Agree with your take oon the facts as posted.
Being a certified 107 drone pilot and do a lot of construction progression photo/video some of the laws being proposed bothers me. I agree about a certain amount of expected privacy, but what about police or news helicopters that have way better resolution than any consumer drone. What about the resolution of the satellites used for imaging these days? For $20 you can get a hi-res photo of any city block and see enough detail to see what kind of "flowers" someone is growing in their back yard. As I said, there need to be some privacy expectations, but there needs to be some balance, common sense and equity (between full scale aircraft and commercial drones) as well. Good channel BTW - thanks!
"Hey, we just flew a microphone and camera up to your window, hope you don't mind since we aren't going to press criminal charges, just post the video on the internet."
Our rights are important. We should strive to keep and protect our rights.
I 100% agree with you on the 4A argument. The 4th is against ANY arm of government whether federal, state, or local and matters not if it's for criminal or civil matters.
You generally own the airspace 400' above your property. This can change depending on your state, proximity to airport etc, but generally the FAA regulates 400' above ground level to be your property. It is also illegal to fly "drones" above 400'. So if the municipality flew below 400', they were trespassing, and if they flew above, they were in violation of FAA regulation.
This is why aerial photography for zone enforcement and building permit violations, which is very common in some counties, is done with a light aircraft or helicopter to avoid trespassing.
Alternatively, the city could've ordered same day satellite imagery and avoided all this mess.
Several aspects of this ....
1. The owners of the property had already entered into an agreement - to not violate zoning (junk) on their property. As such, they have (may have) voluntarily entered into an agreement to have limited enforcement of that agreement.
2. I have ... neighbor issues, they want me to repair their fence, and I don't want to. They now call the city on a regular basis; and the city finds something on my property; and cites me for it. As such, the city zoning people are not only police, they are also judge, jury and executioner. DANG STRATE they should be held to the same standard as police. If I don't pay the find by the city - vs not paying a fine for a criminal citation - what is going to happen? My neighbor also is not held to the same standard that I am (what you said about arbitrary standards); in (one of) my citations, they noted the similarity between my "junk" and their "junk"; however - they offered an excuse for the neighbors junk ... in my citation! I also read the standards for having a shed (almost none). I build a shed - and placed everything in it. The zoning person didn't 'like' the shed; and (knowing the end outcome) asked if I were to place walls on it; what "gap" could I have between the boards. Two inches? One inch? One half inch? (Keeping in mind... there is no standard); and he said he would allow one half inch. I then informed him that I would keep the shed to city standards -- and not alter it and that his 'decision' was arbitrary and capricious. Other quick points: They tried to fine me when I had an active / open building permit for stacked construction materials; they are not allowed to trespass - and in one instance they had to come onto my property to see the "offending" item (I dropped it and forgot to pick it up); they can't tell the difference between a fence and a spool of wire. Oh, and none of my 'complaints' on my neighbors property are investigated - even though they are the same 'issue' as mine.
Sounds like you live in Mesa County Colorado. I have the same issues here, they even violate state laws, and the local judges do not care. I gave them a list of almost 100 property's within 1 mile that have the same issues.
The media gets us so bound up over the national elections, but it is the local ones that affect us the most. Yet we cannot find much on those running to make a good choice.
That's interesting that if you're a normal citizen that doesn't understand the law like lawyers and police, "ignorance of the law is no excuse" and they're punished anyways. But when it's a municipal employee that doesn't understand the law like lawyers and police we just allow ignorance of the law to be an excuse and just let it slide?
That's the entire concept of "Qualified immunity" For the police. "Well, the Officer didn't know that would break the law! So he gets Qualified immunity!"
Can understand how stupid, ignorant, and hypocritical "Qualified immunity" is, huh?
How many times did you VOTE for the shit show?? 😊😊😊
@@Jirodyne Except it's worse than that. There are cases where officers intentionally violate the law knowing they can claim "Qualified immunity" later.
Get this man to a million subs folks!
👍💪👏
sounds like an end run around all privacy fences.
It seems to me the 4th should stand against any part of government trying to penalise people for money or “power “ which in effect is exactly what the police do.
Who gave power to the government?? 😊😊
I remember the first time I saw the Michigan hand thing. I was in the Marine Corps and we got a new guy. SSgt asked where he was from, guy said Michigan, SSgt asked what part. Man answered and SSgt shook his head, held up his hand and asked again. Man said he was from the upper peninsula. That was also the first time I'd heard someone called "One of them dirty Yoopers". SSgt wasn't even from Michigan, just had enough friends from there to know
Edit: Note that I personally have no particular feelings towards people from anywhere in Michigan, as a Floridian it's not my place to judge.
LOL Live and let live!
Yoopers are generally quite awesome (as with any group, there will be exceptions). Overall they are friendly, helpful, even-tempered, brilliantly resourceful, full of dry humor, a real "live and let live" attitude. Even if they have personal prejudices, they won't hassle you they'll just steer clear of you and mind their own business. The only people that would dislike Yoopers are judgmental people who are full of themselves.
@@sparkyUSA1976 That's generally true for small towns anywhere, but as you point out there will be variations of it depending on how easy it is to "spot" an outsider. Outsiders are pretty easy to spot in the U.P. due to the lack of a "yooper" accent. To be fair, they have reason not to trust outsiders beyond tourists - a lot of government or corporate "outsiders" do their best to take advantage of both the local people and the local resources. Basically, until they get to know you personally that they can trust you they'll be suspicious so generally will avoid you. This means you may not get hired or you may find services are "all booked" and unavailable for you to schedule but oddly suddenly available for locals. Tourists are generally treated well, though - it's a tourist economy, they want you to bring your money, leave it with them and then go home.
@@sparkyUSA1976 Hope you got to see the Northern Lights/Aurora Borealis. Spectacular views up there of the night sky with very little light pollution.
We live in Texas. My husband says in Texas, First, You have to have an FAA license in order to fly a drone. 2nd. It's not legal to fly a drone over homes or airports.I hope that helps this case.
Your argument is 100% correct and it should be case law ! You should argue the case to the Michigan Supreme Court, and tell it's common sense du !
CONGRATULATIONS!!! 😃 400,000 subscribers 🎉🎉🎉
The question is..why is there a rule saying they can't have junk in their backyard, and why are they allowed to agree to this? They have a privacy fence..stop violating their peace.
Not taking sides on the question but what if your neighbor kept their household garbage in their back yard and it created rat and other vermin problems in the area? If it caused health and safety problems, would you just look the other way and say it's their property to do with as they please? In my scenario I can easily see the need for zoning rules to prevent the problem. But as Steve stated about the old car - one man's trash is another man's treasure.
@@kennethstaszak9990 :
I'm actually inclined to disagree, when it comes to household garbage causing vermin problems for the entire neighborhood.
That's a "safety of life" issue, in addition to the decline of property value issue.
@@daleallen7634 That's the point I was making. The OP questioned why there was an ordinance in the first place. My scenario was an example of why there could or should be.
@@kennethstaszak9990 I can't think of all scenarios but in general, I would say that I'm responsible for my own property and it's protection from pests. I had a property in Pennsylvania and despite keeping it clean and garbage free, I did have bears and deer and raccoons going through it just to name a few. Same goes for my property in Florida. Vermin just show up because our territories overlap. I used to not cut my grass as often as the township suggested, and my neighbors complaint was that there are going to be snakes showing up. The fact of the matter is, snakes are in Florida. I keep my house meticulously clean, but there are waterbugs daily because it's.. Florida. Now, if my neighbor had radioactive waist, and it was penetrating our groundwater or going through the walls and giving me cancer, that's a different thing in covered by different laws. I honestly think people should stop minding other people's businesses with what they see and focus more on the quality of life in their neighborhood in other ways. Here in Florida, I supposedly have a well-known drug dealer right across the street from me who does business in their house, but they keep their lawn meticulous and they don't leave garbage out on the front lawn and they pay their property taxes so I can't do much about it, so there goes the value of local ordinances regarding property aesthetics. If you lived in New York City, you will have rats around your property, weather you keep your property clean and your neighbor keeps their property clean or not. It's New York City, you're going to see rats on your property
I think setting has a lot to do with. If you're in an apartment building complex and your neighbor leaves their garbage out in the hallway, which apparently is allowed in some apartment complexes from what I've seen, then yes, they're garbage will attract roaches and rats into your house more than normal, but the property in this case was 5 acres I believe... Pretty doubtful that anything that they're doing is going to cause a direct correlation to their neighbor acquiring more vermin than normal. Apparently the waste that they have is not visible easily from ground level so unless they are operating a garbage dump back there, I don't see how they will be affecting their neighbors vermin problem much
I am no lawyer, nor do I sleep at Holiday Inn Expresses.. But I am a licensed Drone operator.. and everything I have been taught is that the FAA controls all airspace.. My services have been used before by property management companies to check on their property ( know this is a little different but still) .. I can fly in any FAA regulated airspace as long as I have the clearance as tot he airspace I am flying in and I am not exceeding 400AGL .. and that includes over property... because the FAA regulates it..
If hired, I fly over property for a lot of different reasons, although I never have for a "government agency" .. But I have for a Real Estate company who wanted aerial photos of a development they were planning on investing in..
So.. just looking at this from a drone operator POV and FAA regulations..
A government must have a warrant, an HOA doesn't need one. A Township is Government. The photos are inadmissible AND the Township is in violation and subject to punitive damages.
Ben asking for help to move a guy named Steve one foot to left or right, so that he can see the screen
Well done on hitting 400k Steve.
Very complicated case, yet it seems so straight forward...
Thank you again Steve for bringing these actions to light. Who would've thunk it could happen? I'm thinking that if those people own that property, its NOT city property. Or are we to believe that no one can fully own any property unless co operated with the city. If the "junk" in behind their house wasn't visible to busy bodies spying on others activities, then putting a camera over that property seems like intrusion on the home/property owners privacy rights and protection from unreasonable illegal searches resulting in prosecution.
Awesome. Thank you. You really made me think this through! Great stuff. Great exercise.
Haha! Extra hard because I fly a drone too😅
I have seen those tv shows where they buy a car out of someone back yard and sold it at an auction for over $50k. so one mans junk is not always junk.
I agree with you on this. I have 4 classic vehicles currently parked beside my shop that one of my neighbors would lobe to see disappear. A good 100k sitting there. Good thing where I live as long as they are on my property then the neighbors can just not look at then when they drive by.
@@sidserv1978 Watch what they do. My neighbor complained enough that the commissioners passed a "Rubbish code", they have such a broad definition, you can include dam near every thing. here.
"2.7 Junk Vehicle. Any vehicle which is inoperable, which is wholly or partially dismantled, or which
does not bear current license plates and registration, unless such vehicle would under no
circumstances be licensable under Colorado statutes or is used as a historical display. For
purposes of this Ordinance, the definition of “vehicle” means a device that is capable of moving itself, or of being moved, from place to place upon wheels or endless tracks and includes but is not limited to: an automobile, a motor vehicle, a noncommercial or recreational vehicle, an off-highway vehicle, a truck, a farm tractor, a snowmobile, a lawn mower, and any trailer or camper designed to be drawn by or carried upon a motor vehicle, all as defined in section 42-1-102,
C.R.S.
2.9 Rubbish. Any trash, junk, garbage, litter, refuse, debris, lawn or garden waste (yard clippings,
branches, and leaves), newspapers, magazines, glass, metal, plastic or paper containers or
packaging, remnant construction or demolition materials, unused or unusable building
materials, vehicle parts, junk vehicle(s), abandoned or junk equipment, used appliances or
furniture, oil, carcasses of dead animals, any object likely to injure any person or create a traffic
hazard, rejected or unused matter, organic or inorganic refuse, rejected or waste food, offal,
swill, ash, manure, sawdust, or any other object which has been discarded or abandoned and
outside storage of used or waste tires (except as otherwise regulated pursuant to the Solid
Wastes Disposal Sites and Facilities Act, part 1 of Article 20 of Title 30, C.R.S., and any rules and
regulations promulgated thereunder)."
No one showed up to contest it because they hid it all the way through.
You are 100% correct. Just like in the Bruen decision, when dealing with any constitutional provisions, the text and history should be applied. A plain reading should suffice, but as you said, it sounds like the court is overthinking the issue. As in Bruen, and other 2A cases lately, there are courts and prosecutors that still argue against recent supreme court decisions because they want more control and don't care for the Constitution. Courts will continue to construe this until it's challenged appropriately.
If you VOTED, you gave power and consent to be ruled by the corrupt system.. 😂😂
You must be a hockey fan :-) ...Bruen, not Bruin :-)
@@leonspears No, but I thought I had missed it. Thanks for correcting me. I've since edited it to reflect that.
“I didn’t see that in the fourth amendment” that’s a great line Steve
right is right and they shouldn't been able to fly their property and I think the city should be sue over this too.
Here is a key point for your consideration, if they or you used a high-resolution high-flying drone, they would be able to see onto any properties they want to without ever leaving their own yard so to speak.
The fact that advanced technology has to be used to assist humans in their investigation should itself be proof that it's an "unreasonable search". Imagine we invent a product that has "X-Ray vision" that can easily see through any barrier just by dialing in the distance you want to view. Do you think it's reasonable that an official can just drive around on public roads looking through people's walls to see if there are drugs sitting openly on a kitchen table?
Without special permission from the FAA, drones are limited to 400 feet above ground level and operate within visual line of sight of the operator. There is no exception for civil authorities or commercial use.
Logically, if the zoning search were found legal, could evidence found during a drone search be turned over to the police for criminal investigation because the information was legally obtained and not poisoned fruit?
"We all know; There's people out there complain about everything."
So true.
Sounds like a terrible ruling.
If violation of constitutional rights doesn't exclude evidence in a CIVIL matter, you just do the following:
1) Get whatever evidence you need, regardless of violations of defendant's rights.
2) Go after them civilly with all this ill-gotten evidence, rather than criminally.
3) Win handily as a result, resulting in an unmanageable penalty. (Remembering they can always change the laws to make anything they want a civilly actionable matter, and set the penalty to whatever they want, or often it's already such a wide range the judge could already just decide to make it unmanageable.)
4) Throw them in jail based on non-payment of judgement.
I see why this is important to officials and probaly law enforcement as well. Not enough eveidence for the police to get a warrant, so have the code enforcement officer do it and then review the footage. Whenever the government agencies are that ivested in a case and willing to shell out lage sums, look for the ultier motive. By the way I hope the Michigan wildfire near Grayling gets under control. It is a terrible thing for the people in the areas.
So did you know government agencies are not legally required to "serve and protect" people from harm?? 😊😊
I guess my question is how many photos were taken of other peoples private property that because no infractions were seen and no charges were brought fourth, these people don't know they have been spied on and photos exist of their private property.
Google has maps of the entire surface of the earth.
@@darksu6947 Yes they do, but in most cases it is limited in resolution to around 2-5m, though the one office I worked in had it at 1cm resolution, for some reason. However for a municipality to use those images, in any way related to city or town functions, they are required to buy a licence to do so, which gives them very limited rights. Now, if the defence went to Google, and asked if anybody in the city management, either at home or at work (so all map lookups with geolocation in the IP allocation of the town, or any Google account that does get used in the district even if via a VPN), had looked at the area in question within a certain distance of the house, at any resolution, in the weeks prior to this, then they could allow Google to join in to a copyright violation against them, and they would have the entire Alphabet legal team assisting in the case, and the ensuing massive copyright claim against the town.
The google maps are limited in resolution, unless the city or township has paid to use them, then they get the latest maps, and previous ones, at full resolution when acquired. Same for street view, you can get rights to use it for commercial use, which is defined as either being used to generate money, or work that is going to result in the payment of any consideration.
That ruling is contrary to existing constitutional law regarding government searches of private property in support of enforcing health and safety rules. A health inspector may not enter a
Private business or home to do an inspection if opposed by the holder without a warrant. The government can base the
Rescission of a permit because the holder refuses inspection but the government may not force its way onto the property.
The entire US Constitution, including all amendments thereto, Must be construed to apply to ALL matters,
regardless of who may or may not understand the meaning or applicability of any law or limitation.
The question I have is how is their trashed up property an eyesore if it is only visible from the air?
It can't be an eyesore, so what is the violation?
Where is a law that defines an eyesore? I could show you properties I do not like, but the owners think it is art.
If this rule stands the police will have different agencies fly drones and try to catch crimes and then they will turn that footage over to the police and the police would act on it saying a warrant was not needed because they were not the ones flying the drones so it should be admitted
Steve, it amazes me how you know Michigan like the back of your hand. 😉😂😂
I do agree that if the only way you can see the property is via drone that does not constitute a violation of the ordinance. But I think the city has the right to use photos from the drone. As the homeowners don't own the airspace. Since anyone can use that airspace would that not make that a public space? So it would be the same as if they could see the junk from the public road. No warrant needed.
*Edit* Now that I've finished the video I realize you said it's not about the drone issue lol. I agree that if a warrant is required for a drone then it doesn't matter what government entity is doing it. They should be required to have a warrant.