S.D.Ind.: Drone use that didn’t go over curtilage was reasonable

The use of a drone to surveil plaintiffs’ home from a distance in a child welfare case was not unreasonable. The drone didn’t fly over the house or curtilage, and the police were concerned plaintiffs had a “small arsenal” and could use it. Dircks v. Barnes, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128862 (S.D. Ind. July 26, 2023):

Further, the scenario begs the question as to what harm did the drone search even cause such that it could be considered unreasonable? Barry was not charged with any crimes and the drone gathered no information used against him. Fourth Amendment “unreasonable search” law is overwhelmingly and understandably the province of criminal law – did the government illegally obtain evidence used to charge someone with a crime? Nothing of the sort happened here. Information was gathered about someone who had refused to comply with a welfare check and was understood to be paranoid and have access to a “small artillery” in his home. Under these circumstances, the drone search did not violate any established Fourth Amendment standards.

This entry was posted in Drones, Reasonable expectation of privacy. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.