The Fourth Amendment protects you against unreasonable search and seizure and gives you the right to privacy. Because of the protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment, law enforcement may only use drones for surveillance of private property if they have a warrant or if exigent circumstances apply.
Not only does law enforcement need a warrant to surveil your property with a drone, but they may also need a separate warrant to view that footage. Police officers don’t need warrants to use drones in public areas, such as street corners with high crime rates or events, for added security. If the police obtained drone surveillance footage illegally, our lawyers can challenge its admissibility. Even if drone footage is admissible, it may be too blurry to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, which our lawyers can expose.
For a free and confidential case assessment from Overson & Bugden, call our Salt Lake City criminal defense lawyers at (801) 758-2287.
Does the Fourth Amendment Prohibit Drone Surveillance in Private Places in Utah?
Generally, protections under the Fourth Amendment restrict drone surveillance over private property. Utah also has specific rules governing police drone use under Utah Code § 72-10-802(1), and requires law enforcement to obtain a warrant first. The police most likely need a second warrant to view the videos the drone captured.
While a warrant is generally required to use drones for surveillance on private property in Utah, there are exceptions to this rule. Exigent circumstances enable law enforcement to use drones to surveil the area and gain information before entering the property, such as during an active shooter scenario. Drone footage may help law enforcement survey the scene and determine the best approach.
If law enforcement used a drone to surveil your private property in Utah but did not have a warrant, and exigent circumstances did not apply, our lawyers can help. We can file a motion to suppress any illegally obtained videos and stop them from being used as evidence. If that is most of the prosecution’s case, the charges against you might even be dismissed.
Does the Fourth Amendment Prohibit Drone Surveillance by Civilians?
Police departments in Utah are allowed to use drone surveillance obtained by non-government actors, other civilians, also, under certain circumstances. We may also successfully prevent such footage from being used by the prosecution or shown to the jury by challenging it on your behalf.
Law enforcement may only use or view drone footage from non-government actors if the footage appears relevant to the commission of a crime, or if officers believe in good faith that the footage is relevant to an ongoing, imminent emergency, and viewing the footage will help remedy it.
Does the Fourth Amendment Prohibit Drone Surveillance in Public Places in Utah?
The Fourth Amendment assures the reasonable expectation of privacy in private, not public places. You do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a visible, public area, like a park or street.
Police departments may use drones to enhance security and oversight at public events. They can also use drones in emergencies, such as natural disasters, and other reasons unrelated to criminal investigations.
Utah also allows police officers to use drones to assist in locating missing persons in public areas, although this is not for surveillance purposes.
Suppose drone footage from a public event happened to capture someone committing a crime, and the police saw this when reviewing the footage. The drone footage may be admissible in that situation, and our Layton, UT criminal defense lawyers may have to approach your case from a different angle.
What if My Drone Surveillance Violated My Fourth Amendment Rights?
The police violating an individual’s rights to obtain evidence generally renders that evidence inadmissible. Don’t panic if, after an arrest, the police claim they have drone footage of you allegedly committing a crime, whether in public or private.
Suppose, in theory, illegally obtained footage showed a defendant breaking a law on their own property. Our lawyers can explain to the judge why the footage violates your Fourth Amendment right to a reasonable expectation of privacy, which may persuade them to exclude such video evidence from being used against you and shown to the jury.
Don’t speak to the police before speaking to our lawyers. Law enforcement might claim they have drone footage that implicates you, knowing they cannot use it against you during a trial and hoping to elicit a confession. Rather than taking police officers at their word, let us bring you up to speed on the evidence and its legitimacy.
What if Drone Surveillance Footage Didn’t Violate My Fourth Amendment Rights?
When police officers go by the book and get a warrant from a judge to use drones to surveil someone on their private property, the prosecution may use video evidence against them during a trial. However, that doesn’t mean such evidence is enough to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Our lawyers can provide the crucial context that the footage lacks to clear your name.
If drone footage is admissible because your Fourth Amendment right was not violated, it may not hurt you as much as you think. Drone footage, especially when filmed from a distance, is not always very clear. The jury may be unable to confirm that you are the person in the footage because of the angle or lighting, casting reasonable doubt on the prosecution’s case.
Tell us what we need to know about the charges and any footage captured by law enforcement drones. We will be able to review this footage ahead of the trial and prepare our responses, providing context, such as correspondence that proves you were coerced into participating in criminal conduct.
Call Us for Help with Your Criminal Case in Utah
Get help from Overson & Bugden with your case by calling our Ogden, UT criminal defense lawyers at (801) 758-2287.
