We all know the FARs on Minimum Alt, especially the partC 'sparse' bit about 'distance from' rather than 'Alt Above'.
With that in mind, peruse the following-
articles.philly.com/1990-08-30/news/25930815_1_trial-on-drug-charges-helicopter-state-police
Helicopter Search Ruled Hazard;
Man Wins Drug Case Retrial
August 30, 1990|By Charles Pukanecz, Special to The Inquirer
An Upper Bucks County man has been granted a new trial on drug charges after a state Supreme Court ruling that a state police helicopter was flying dangerously close to the ground when it spotted marijuana through the transparent roof of his barn.
The ruling, filed last Thursday, may limit the way state law enforcement officials use helicopters in drug searches. The court did not find that the search violated the man's privacy, as defense attorneys had argued, but agreed that the search presented a hazard to those on the ground because the helicopter had flown too low.
Privacy? what privacy, aint no expectation of privacy from regular air traffic (
aka within FARs and not violating min alt FAR distance in part c). The court saw a problem with the closness of the heli to the barn, not that they cant look inside when at Minimum FAR Alts
another article on it-
http://articles.mcall.com/1990-08-31...rijuana-plants
New Trial For `Pot' Farmer
State's Top Court Rules Police Tactics Dangerous
August 31, 1990|by MARY GAGNIER, The Morning Call
The state Supreme Court has granted an Upper Bucks man a new trial after ruling that a state police helicopter, hovering 50 feet above a barn designed for marijuana cultivation, endangered the man's wife and their property.
one more
http://articles.mcall.com/1990-08-31...rijuana-plants
As a case on point, in Commonwealth v. Oglialoro, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reasoned that by using a transparent or translucent roof on a pole barn located within the curtilage of the defendant's house, the defendant "knowingly exposed his [marijuana plants] to persons lawfully operating aircraft over his property who might decide to take a look." 525 Pa. 250, 579 A.2d 1288, 1292 (Pa. 1990). The court thus rejected the suggestion that any expectation of privacy attached in such situations. Id. However, the court held that the police-surveillance flight, which involved a helicopter hovering fifty feet above the barn for fifteen seconds, had violated FAA regulations and thus the Fourth Amendment because it "represented a hazard to persons and property on the ground."
wow, no mention of Property Air Rights as to enjoyment/use of property (Causby),
just that the heli was below FAR min Alt (distance) and uh.. danger or threat??