The government has erected the ultimate suspect society

View this email in your browser ([link removed])
[link removed]



** For Immediate Release: September 13, 2023
------------------------------------------------------------


** No, the Government Should Not Be Allowed to Use Warrantless Aerial Drone Surveillance to Snoop on Citizens at Home
------------------------------------------------------------

LANSING, Mich. — The Rutherford Institute is pushing back against efforts by government officials to use warrantless aerial drone surveillance to snoop on citizens at home ([link removed]) and spy on their private property.

In filing a joint amicus brief ([link removed]) with Cato Institute in Long Lake Township v. Maxon, Institute attorneys are calling on the Michigan Supreme Court to hold government officials accountable for violating the Fourth Amendment by not obtaining a search warrant before using a drone to take aerial photographs of private property, which was not observable from the ground, in order to gather evidence of a civil zoning violation.

“Americans are being swept up into a massive digital data dragnet that does not distinguish between those who are innocent of wrongdoing, suspects, or criminals. Aerial drone surveillance has become a de facto snitch for the police state,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People ([link removed]) . “By subjecting Americans to surveillance without their knowledge or compliance, the government has erected the ultimate suspect society. In such an environment, there is no such thing as ‘innocent until proven guilty.’”
MAKE THE GOVERNMENT PLAY BY THE RULES OF THE CONSTITUTION: SUPPORT THE FIGHT FOR FREEDOM ([link removed])

In 2008, Long Lake Township brought a zoning action against Todd Maxon, alleging that he was using his five-acre property where he lives as an illegal salvage or junkyard due to having automobiles which he worked on fixing up as a hobby. The case settled that year in Maxon’s favor with a dismissal and the Township agreeing to reimburse a portion of his attorneys’ fees. However, the government did not stop in its pursuit to penalize Maxon and his wife. In 2010, 2016, 2017, and 2018—without obtaining any search warrant—Township officials used a drone to take aerial photographs of the Maxons’ property, which was not visible from the ground because it is blocked by buildings and trees. The Township then filed another zoning action in 2018, alleging that the Maxons had increased the scope of the junk cars and material on their property. The Maxons argued that the aerial surveillance and photographs by the drones of their property was an unlawful search in violation of the Fourth Amendment and
should therefore be excluded from evidence because people do not reasonably expect drones with high powered cameras to surveil their private property at relatively low altitudes. The trial court denied the Maxons’ motion to suppress the images.

Noting the maneuverability, speed, and stealth of drones which could fly directly up to an open bathroom window, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that persons do have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their property against drone surveillance and that government officials must therefore obtain a warrant for such surveillance. However, although the Court of Appeals held that government officials had violated the Fourth Amendment, the court further held that the exclusionary rule does not apply in civil cases to suppress unconstitutionally obtained evidence. The Maxons appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court. In weighing in before the Court on behalf of the Maxons’ right to be free from warrantless aerial drone surveillance, The Rutherford Institute and Cato Institute warned ([link removed]) that failure to apply the exclusionary rule will create a roadmap for the government to circumvent Fourth Amendment protections by simply
classifying its fines as “civil” to punish people for violating its laws and ordinances.

Clark M. Neily, III and Laura A. Bondank of the Cato Institute helped advance the arguments in the Long Lake Township v. Maxon amicus ([link removed]) brief ([link removed]) .

The Rutherford Institute ([link removed]) , a nonprofit civil liberties organization, provides legal assistance at no charge to individuals whose constitutional rights have been threatened or violated and educates the public on a wide spectrum of issues affecting their freedoms.

This press release is also available at www.rutherford.org ([link removed]) .

Source: [link removed]
[link removed] Share ([link removed])
[link removed]: https%3A%2F%2Fmailchi.mp%2Frutherford%2Fno-the-government-should-not-be-allowed-to-snoop-on-citizens-at-home Tweet ([link removed]: https%3A%2F%2Fmailchi.mp%2Frutherford%2Fno-the-government-should-not-be-allowed-to-snoop-on-citizens-at-home)
[link removed] Forward ([link removed])
CLICK HERE TO MAKE A TAX-DEDUCTIBLE DONATION ([link removed])

To donate via PayPal, please click below:
[link removed]

============================================================
** Follow us on Facebook ([link removed])
** Follow us on Facebook ([link removed])
** Follow us on Twitter ([link removed])
** Follow us on Twitter ([link removed])
** YouTube ([link removed])
** YouTube ([link removed])
CONTACT INFORMATION
Nisha Whitehead
(434) 978-3888 ext. 604
** [email protected] (mailto:[email protected])

THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE
Post Office Box 7482
Charlottesville, VA 22906-7482
Phone: (434) 978-3888
** www.rutherford.org ([link removed])

Copyright © 2023 The Rutherford Institute, All rights reserved.

You are receiving this email because of your interest in the work of The Rutherford Institute. Founded in 1982 by constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead, The Rutherford Institute is a civil liberties organization that provides free legal services to people whose constitutional and human rights have been threatened or violated. To discontinue your membership electronically, or if you feel you are receiving this message in error, please follow the link below.

Under the regulations of the United States Internal Revenue Service, The Rutherford Institute is incorporated as a 501(c)(3) tax exempt nonprofit organization. Donations to support The Rutherford Institute’s legal and educational work help to safeguard the constitutional rights of all Americans. Donations are tax-deductible. In compliance with general industry standards of a nonprofit organization, the Institute is audited annually by an independent accounting firm.

** unsubscribe from this list ([link removed])

** update subscription preferences ([link removed])