ATIONAL CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT

MEMORANDUM

DATE: June 17th, 2019

TO: Jose Tellez, Chief of Police

FROM: Officer Gabriel Gonzales

SUBJECT: Use of Drones for Observation/Surveillance

Case law precedent up to present day has a developing theme which appears to

show more interest in protecting the privacy of individuals and limiting law enforcement

in the scope of their investigations when using advanced technological devices.

In the given scenario, probable cause does not exist to obtain a search warrant.

Unfortunately a search warrant would be irrelevant at the time given the circumstances.

I feel the observation by use of an Unmanned Ariel Vehicle (UAV), or drone, would be

appropriate given case law precedent, but only specific to a type of surveillance which

can be conducted. Given the capabilities of the optics and extended time of stationary

flight, there would be a limited scope of observations available to an officer in this

scenario. However, depending on the discoveries by use of a drone, this investigation has

extreme potential for the suppression of evidence and/or violations of the right to privacy

as established by the Fourth Amendment.

In comparing case law precedent, the mere modest observation by use of a drone

would not necessarily be seen as an unconstitutional “search”. Below are case law

synopsizes which I believe support the use of a drone.

 • In Dow Chemical Co. v. United States (1986), no warrant was required for

standard aerial photographs of facilities from public airspace with standard

photographic equipment.

• In California v. Ciraolo (1986), a warrantless aerial observation of a backyard to

the naked eye of a passenger on an airplane at 1000 feet was deemed NOT a

violation of the Fourth Amendment.

• In Kyllo v. United States (2001), the court found using a thermal imaging device

to detect radiating heat coming from INSIDE of a residence was deemed an

unconstitutional search.

• In Florida v. Jardines (2013), the curtilage of a residence had a heightened

expectation of privacy from officers PHYSICALLY entering to conduct a

“search” with a drug sniffing dog.

• In United States v. Jones (2012) and Grady v. North Carolina (2015), tracking

devices that were PHYSICALLY AFFIXED to private property (person/vehicle)

for an extended time were deemed an unconstitutional search.

While prior case law shows no exact circumstance where the use of a drone is an

obvious intrusion or search, there is an important factor to contemplate in regards to

privacy. Is observation/surveillance of a residence by the use of a drone, equipped with

precision optical and flight capabilities, an expectation that society is prepared to

recognize as “reasonable”? (Katz v. United States)

Like I mentioned, case law precedent shows the courts do not favor the use of

advanced observational devices to infringe upon private property or persons. As law

enforcement leaders, we must use prior court opinions, acknowledge the trends set by
them and use this information to avoid future Forth Amendment violations and the

suppression of evidence. I would generally oppose the use of drones for surveillance

absent a search warrant.

Respectfully,

Officer Gabriel Gonzales

References:

California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986). Retrieved from

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/476/207/

Dow Chemical Co. v. United States, 476 U.S. 227 (1986). Retrieved from

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/476/227/

Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013). Retrieved from

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/569/1/

Grady v. North Carolina, 575 U.S. ___ (2015). Retrieved from

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/575/14-593/

Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967). Retrieved from

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/389/347/

United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012). Retrieved from

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/565/400/