In all the discussion of privacy and police drones in the news, I have never seen anybody acknowledge that the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled on this in United States v Causby - 328 US 256 (1946) <div>
</div><div>While is is an old case it is still the precident ruling.
<div>
</div><div><span style="color: rgb(48, 48, 48); font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; ">
In a 5-2 opinion authored by Justice William O. Douglas, the Court concluded that the ancient common law doctrine "has no place in the modern world." Justice Douglas noted that, were the Court to accept the doctrine as valid, "every transcontinental flight would subject the operator to countless trespass suits. Common sense revolts at the idea." However, while the Court rejected the unlimited reach above and below the earth described in the common law doctrine, it also ruled that, "if the landowner is to have full enjoyment of the land, he must have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere." Without defining a specific limit, the Court stated that flights over the land could be considered a violation of the Takings Clause if they led to "a direct and immediate interference with the enjoyment and use of the land." Given the damage caused by the particularly low, frequent flights over his farm, the Court determined that the government had violated Causby's rights, and he was entitled to compensation. (Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone died on April 22; Justice Robert H. Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision in the case, leaving the court with 7 members.)
</span></div></div><div><span style="color: rgb(48, 48, 48); font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; ">
</span></div><div><span style="color: rgb(48, 48, 48); font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; ">Subsiquent opinions have generally used a lower limit of 400' as to what constitutes "</span><span style="color: rgb(48, 48, 48); font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; ">exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere". As the FAA currently limits police UAV to no higher then 400', it seems to eliminate their use for survalence and still be able to have admittable evidence.</span></div><div><span style="color: rgb(48, 48, 48); font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; ">
</span></div><div><span style="color: rgb(48, 48, 48); font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; ">I am sure this is a court case waiting to happen, but with the US Supreme Court precident on the side of the landowner having rights under the "Takings Clause" of the 5th Amendment, the government has problems.</span></div><div><span style="color: rgb(48, 48, 48); font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; ">
</span></div><div><span style="color: rgb(48, 48, 48); font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; ">Brad</span></div><div><span style="color: rgb(48, 48, 48); font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; ">
</span></div><div><span style="color: rgb(48, 48, 48); font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; ">
</span></div><div><span style="color: rgb(48, 48, 48); font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; ">Brad</span></div>