A pair of Sonoma County farm owners say that county’s drone surveillance program is unconstitutional, and they’ve enlisted the ACLU to bring a lawsuit, which could set a legal precedent affecting SFPD’s new drone-happy policies.  

Thursday morning, Mayor Daniel Lurie and crypto mogul Chris Larsen had themselves a press conference touting Larsen’s $9.4 million gift to the SFPD to buy several multiple-hundred-thousand-dollar, high-end drones. And the police department says these drones are very effective at catching car thieves and break-in artists. So it sure seems we’re moving full-speed ahead on cities using surveillance drones, and the general public coming to accept this.

Or are we? KTVU reports that the ACLU is suing Sonoma County over its drone use. In this case, they're suing over the county's Code Enforcement Division using drones, which they use primarily to try to identify illegal cannabis grow operations. But two women who own farms in Sonoma County say the drones are surveilling them in their everyday lives, including taking video of them naked in their hot tubs.

"This horrible experience has shattered my sense of privacy and security," plaintiff Nichola Schmitz said in a press release announcing the lawsuit. "I'm afraid to open my blinds or go outside to use my hot tub because who knows when the county's drone could be spying on me."

The second plaintiff is also a woman who complained of hot tub privacy violation issues. Obviously, outdoor hot tubs are far more common in Sonoma County than they are in San Francisco. But the ACLU says the civil liberties drawbacks of drone surveillance apply to all Californians, and all Americans.

"We all have the right to go about our lives in privacy in and around our homes without having to worry about a government drone flying overhead and recording us without a warrant or our knowledge," ACLU of Northern California senior staff attorney Matt Cagle said in the same press release. “For too long, Sonoma County code enforcement has used high-powered drones to warrantlessly sift through people's private affairs and initiate charges that upend lives and livelihoods. All the while, the County has hidden these unlawful searches from the people they've spied on, the community, and the media."

Though it probably should be noted that both of the women plaintiffs were cited by the county after the drones flew over their properties — one for an unpermitted dwelling unit, and the other for unpermitted construction of barns.

"There was a single flyover from the public right of way (not over the property) on October 10, 2023, by Code Enforcement to confirm/deny the allegations of construction without permit for the sheds," a code inspector wrote to one of the plaintiffs, according to the lawsuit. "The flyover was conducted according to policy. Any other flyovers were not done by Code Enforcement. No warrant was obtained or required by law."

The ACLU’s lawsuit is seeking to have this use of drone surveillance declared unconstitutional, and have it discontinued. That would be quite a precedent, and one that could have ramifications here in SF, particularly with the police department.

Related: Meet the New Drones the SFPD Will Be Using (and Is Actually Already Using) [SFist]

Image: Jason Mavrommatis via Unsplash