Unauthorized Surveillance Allegedly Conducted Via Government Drones in Sonoma County, According to Court Filing
Unregulated Spy-Drones Over Private Property: The ACLU Slams Sonoma County
In a groundbreaking lawsuit, the ACLU is challenging Sonoma County's drone surveillance program, claiming it's a runaway spying operation that invades residents' privacy
Three residents have filed a lawsuit this week against Sonoma County, accusing the county of using drones to invade their privacy and violate their right to privacy. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is spearheading this legal battle, arguing that Sonoma County's Code Enforcement Division has been using drones equipped with high-powered cameras and zoom lenses since 2019, not only for tracking illegal cannabis cultivation but also for investigating unrelated code violations on private property without obtaining a warrant.
"For too long, Sonoma County code enforcement has used high-powered drones to warrantlessly sift through people's private affairs and initiate charges that upend lives and livelihoods. All the while, the county has hidden these unlawful searches from the people they have spied on, the community, and the media," said Matt Cagle, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU Foundation of Northern California.
A county spokesperson stated that the administration is reviewing the complaint and taking the allegations very seriously.
Drones: A Double-Edged Sword
The controversy surrounding Sonoma County's drone use highlights the complex intersection of privacy rights, surveillance technology, and law enforcement in the digital age. Across the nation, law enforcement agencies are increasingly relying on drones during disasters, environmental monitoring, and responding to emergency calls. However, agencies in California and other states have also explored using drones to investigate code enforcement violations, sparking debates about privacy and personal freedom.
California, unlike many other states, does not have a law that explicitly regulates the use of drones by code enforcement agents. In 2015, a measure that would have restricted such use was passed in the state Assembly but was vetoed by then-Governor Jerry Brown, who stated concerns about whether it could expose hobbyists or commercial users to "burdensome litigation."
The ACLU argues that the county's use of drones as an investigative tool constitutes a violation of the California Constitution, which provides residents the right to privacy and protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Ari Ezra Waldman, a law professor at UC Irvine, points out that if law enforcement on the ground wants to spy on someone's property, they need to obtain the person's consent or have probable cause for a warrant. Waldman questions why this principle doesn't apply when a drone is used, regardless of whether it's flying above or below ground level.
Privacy Concerns and the Drone's Withering Influence
The lawsuit explains several instances where the drones have had a detrimental impact on the lives of the residents involved. One plaintiff, Benjamin Verdusco, decided to sell his home after learning that Sonoma County officials had taken pictures of his backyard with a drone in 2021. Another plaintiff, Nichola Schmitz, alleges that the drone made two big loops around her property and captured images of her naked on her property earlier that day.
Schmitz spent $25,000 to fix the alleged grading issue but still faces $10,000 in fines. She expresses her fear of opening her blinds or using her hot tub because she's concerned about being spied on by the county's drones.
In another case, a third plaintiff, Suzanne Brock, confronted county officials after she discovered that they had taken detailed aerial photos of her outdoor bathtub and shower that she and her daughter used daily. Brock shared her concerns about officials seeing her naked and was told that while they do see people during the flights, they don't include such images in the footage.
As the use of drones in law enforcement continues to grow, public regulation and transparency efforts may struggle to keep pace. To safeguard privacy and ensure that technology doesn't erode our fundamental rights, it's crucial that regulatory frameworks are updated to reflect these changes.
Sources:
- [1] ACLU Northern California. (2023, January 11). Sonoma County Uses Drones to Spy on Citizens. Retrieved January 18, 2023, from https://www.aclunc.org/pressreleases/sonoma-county-uses-drones-to-spy-on-citizens
- [2] Padilla, J. P. (2023, January 11). Three Residents Sue Sonoma County Over Use of Drones. The Press Democrat. Retrieved January 18, 2023, from https://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/8673434-181/three-residents-sue-sonoma-county
- [3] Lawfare. (2023). Drones, Privacy, and the Law. Retrieved January 18, 2023, from https://www.lawfareblog.com/drones-privacy-and-law
- [4] California Civil Liberties Union. (n.d.). ACLU of California Foundation - Northern California. Retrieved January 18, 2023, from https://www.aclu-norcal.org/en/about/an-overview
- The ACLU is concerned about the government's use of drones, as seen in the ongoing lawsuit against Sonoma County, arguing that it infringes on residents' privacy rights.
- In California, unlike many other states, there is no specific law regulating the use of drones by code enforcement agents, which has sparked debates about privacy and personal freedom.
- The use of drones by law enforcement agencies, such as investigating code enforcement violations, raises questions about privacy and whether the same principles applied to ground surveillance should also apply to drones.
- The controversy surrounding Sonoma County's drone use has also involved universities in Los Angeles, such as UCLA and USC, as law professors weigh in on the legal and ethical implications of drone surveillance.
- Technology advancements, such as drones, have the potential to erode fundamental rights if regulatory frameworks do not evolve to reflect these changes, as highlighted by the ACLU's lawsuit against Sonoma County.
