Flying/Hovering Overhead and Remote Photography

Administrator
Site Admin
Posts: 11757
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 4:15 am

Flying/Hovering Overhead and Remote Photography

Postby Administrator » Fri Oct 03, 2014 1:04 pm

Flying/Hovering Overhead and Remote Photography

California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986)
Here the observation of marijuana was made from a fixed-wing aircraft flying in navigable airspace at an altitude over 1,000 feet. The court concluded that here the helicopter was not in navigable airspace as that term is defined at 49 U.S.C. 1301(29), but recognized that the helicopter was lawfully positioned because federal regulations allow operation of helicopters at altitudes less than the minimum permitted to fixed-wing aircraft, provided that the helicopter operates without hazard to persons or property, see 14 CFR §§ 91.79(d) (1986). Cf. California v. Sabo, 481 U.S. 1058.


United States v. Fernandez, 58 F.3d 593; 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 17076 [11th Cir. 1995]
Aerial surveillance from altitude 500 feet above property did not violate privacy rights.

State v. Stokes, 511 So. 2d 1317; 1987 La. App. LEXIS 9967, No. 18,992-KW [La. App. 2 Cir. 1987]
Photographs taken in an open field did not violate any privacy right as there was no expectation of privacy.

Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445; 109 S. Ct. 693; 102 L. Ed. 2d 835; 1989 U.S. LEXIS 580; 57 U.S.L.W. 4126
Surveillance of interior of partially covered greenhouse in residential backyard from vantage point of helicopter located 400 feet above greenhouse did not constitute "search" for which warrant was required under Fourth Amendment.

Dow Chemical Co. v. United States, 476 U.S. 227; 106 S. Ct. 1819; 90 L. Ed. 2d 226; 1986 U.S. LEXIS 155; 54 U.S.L.W. 4464
Taking photographs of petitioner's industrial plant from navigable airspace without search warrant was not unreasonable.

Escobar v. Roca, 926 F. Supp. 30; 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7066,Civil No. 95-1173 (PG) [D.C. P.R.]
Defendants aver that their agent took the photograph in question from a public road, and that plaintiff was never aware of the photographer's presence. Mojica does not dispute these assertions. The Court further finds from examination of the photograph that the photograph depicts only the home, and no persons are in the photograph. When these facts are viewed in light of the standard announced in Figueroa, the Court finds that the act of taking the photograph was not an invasion of the plaintiff's privacy.
David A. Szwak
Bodenheimer, Jones & Szwak, LLC
416 Travis Street, Suite 1404, Mid South Tower
Shreveport, Louisiana 71101
318-424-1400 / Fax 221-6555
President, Bossier Little League
Chairman, Consumer Protection Section, Louisiana State Bar Association

Return to “Invasion of Privacy: State Law”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 4 guests