Oregon Court of Appeals Rules Against Warrantless Aerial Surveillance in Marijuana Bust
In a significant decision, the Oregon Court of Appeals has ruled that the Oregon State Police erred in using warrantless aerial surveillance to bust an illegal marijuana operation. The ruling has been hailed by civil rights advocates and privacy watchdogs, who have long been concerned about the increasing use of surveillance technology by law enforcement.
The case involved a 54-year-old woman, Sengdara Nakhiengchahn, who was charged with two felonies for possession and manufacturing of marijuana. The Oregon State Police had used a surveillance plane to capture footage of her property, which showed what appeared to be a large-scale marijuana grow operation. The footage was used as evidence in her trial, but Nakhiengchahn argued that it was obtained without a warrant and therefore unconstitutional.
The Court of Appeals agreed with Nakhiengchahn, ruling that the use of warrantless aerial surveillance was a violation of her privacy rights. The court noted that the technology used by the police, a camera attached to an aircraft, allowed them to see information that would not have been visible to the naked eye. This, the court ruled, was a form of “technologically enhanced surveillance” that required a warrant.
The ruling is a significant blow to the Oregon State Police, which had argued that the use of aerial surveillance was necessary to detect and prevent illegal activities. The police had used the technology in the past to monitor marijuana grows, but this ruling suggests that they will need to obtain a warrant before using it in the future.
The decision has been welcomed by civil rights advocates, who have long been concerned about the use of surveillance technology by law enforcement. “This ruling is a major victory for privacy and civil liberties,” said Luke Miller, Nakhiengchahn’s trial attorney. “It’s important for Oregonians to maintain the right to privacy, and be free from government intrusion absent legal justification for such intrusion.”
The ruling has also sparked concerns about the use of surveillance technology by law enforcement more broadly. “This decision highlights the need for greater transparency and accountability in the use of surveillance technology by law enforcement,” said Jeramie D. Scott, senior counsel and director for the Electronic Privacy Information Center’s Project on Surveillance Oversight. “We hope that in the future, law enforcement will seek a warrant before conducting aerial surveillance, so a neutral arbiter can decide whether the search is warranted.”
The Oregon State Police have declined to comment on the ruling, but the agency has previously defended its use of aerial surveillance.
