The Michigan Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of a local government in a case involving the use of a drone to take pictures of a rural salvage yard without permission. The court unanimously sided with Long Lake Township in their dispute with Todd and Heather Maxon, who objected to the aerial photos being taken as they felt it violated their right to not have unreasonable searches. The court determined that the fight over excessive junk on the heavily wooded parcel was a civil action, not a criminal case. The exclusionary rule, which prevents evidence obtained through illegal means from being used in court, was deemed to not apply in this situation.
Despite the controversial nature of the case, both liberal and conservative groups came together to support the Long Lake Township and urge the court to uphold the evidence collected by the drone. The township argued that without the photos and video evidence, they would have difficulty ensuring that the Maxons brought their property into conformity with local zoning and nuisance ordinances. The decision written by Justice Brian Zahra emphasized the importance of allowing the township to enforce their regulations regarding land use and property maintenance. The dispute began when neighbors claimed the Maxons were storing too many cars and other items on their property, which was being turned into a salvage yard in violation of a previous lawsuit settlement.
The use of aerial drones in law enforcement and civil matters has been a topic of debate in recent years, with concerns raised about privacy rights and Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. In this case, the Michigan Supreme Court sidestepped the issue of whether using a drone constituted an unreasonable search under the United States or Michigan Constitutions, focusing instead on the specific circumstances of the case. The court’s decision highlights the balance that must be struck between individual rights and the government’s ability to enforce laws and regulations. By allowing the drone evidence to be used in the civil action against the Maxons, the court set a precedent for future cases involving similar technology.
The involvement of groups like the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan and the Cato Institute in supporting the Maxons shows the broader implications of this case for civil liberties and property rights. The Mackinac Center for Public Policy and the Rutherford Institute also filed briefs on behalf of the Maxons, highlighting the diverse range of voices that were concerned about the potential implications of the court’s decision. On the other side, the Michigan Townships Association and Michigan Municipal League backed the township, emphasizing the importance of local governments being able to enforce zoning and nuisance ordinances to protect the community as a whole.
Overall, the Michigan Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of Long Lake Township represents a significant decision in the ongoing debate over the use of drones in law enforcement and civil enforcement. The court’s emphasis on the specific circumstances of the case and the need for local governments to enforce regulations to protect the community’s interests sets a precedent for future cases involving similar technology. The involvement of both liberal and conservative groups in the case underscores the complex nature of the issue and the importance of balancing individual rights with the broader goals of maintaining public order and safety. As technology continues to advance, it is likely that similar cases will arise in the future, and the court’s decision in this case will be an important reference point for how such disputes are resolved.
