Welcome back, Drone Law Nation! Today we are back with Part 7 of our series on the Constitutional issues raised when police use drones.
Our talk today hits the third of our three “aerial surveillance” cases, Florida v. Riley. This case deals with naked-eye surveillance of marijuana plants inside a greenhouse through an open panel in the greenhouse roof. The surveillance took place from a helicopter hovering at 400 feet above the ground.
Was this a “search” that requires a warrant under the Fourth Amendment? The Florida Supreme Court said “yes,” but the U.S. Supreme Court said “no.” The reasons that the U.S. Supreme Court reached that conclusion may be important for future “police drone” cases.
Listen in for more about what the future might be.
Links for you:
Police Drones Part 1
Police Drones Part 2
Police Drones Part 3
Police Drones Part 4
Police Drones Part 5
Police Drones Part 6
Florida v. Riley
U.S. Constitution: Amendment 4
Listen in iTunes
Listen in Stitcher
Listen on YouTube
Listen in your browser
Follow @DroneLawToday on Twitter!
What questions do you have about Drone Law? Click here to let us know!
Nothing in this podcast is legal advice! Please don’t make legal decisions for yourself or your business before consulting counsel of your choice.
Download your FREE copy of “The Drone Revolution: How Robotic Aviation Will Change the World,” right here: CLICK FOR BOOK!
Learn more about our law firm, Ausley McMullen, at www.ausley.com.
Keep on flying,