I agree with you as long as the property surveilled is their curtilage and they have installed sufficient coverage to prevent view from a public roadway (fence, hedge, trees). They would then have a (diminished) expectation of privacy.
The issue are the SCOTUS decisions in California v. Ciraolo (fixed wing aircraft surveillance from 1,000 ft) and Florida v. Riley (helicopter surveillance of a greenhouse from 400 ft above private property).
yeah, like I said, from a certain elevation. Apparently not 1000 ft, nor 400 ft, but this drone which is 20-50 ft or so would, i assume, fall into that expectation of privacy.
But as another user pointed out, this photo is from Australia, and I dont know the laws there, more cucked than the US though but I dont know in what capacity.
I agree with you as long as the property surveilled is their curtilage and they have installed sufficient coverage to prevent view from a public roadway (fence, hedge, trees). They would then have a (diminished) expectation of privacy.
The issue are the SCOTUS decisions in California v. Ciraolo (fixed wing aircraft surveillance from 1,000 ft) and Florida v. Riley (helicopter surveillance of a greenhouse from 400 ft above private property).
yeah, like I said, from a certain elevation. Apparently not 1000 ft, nor 400 ft, but this drone which is 20-50 ft or so would, i assume, fall into that expectation of privacy.
But as another user pointed out, this photo is from Australia, and I dont know the laws there, more cucked than the US though but I dont know in what capacity.