Drone Surveillance, Warrant Requirements, and Fourth Amendment Rights

A Pennsylvania and Federal Legal Analysis with Defense Strategies

1. Use of Drone and Aerial Surveillance in Criminal Investigations

Law enforcement agencies increasingly deploy both traditional aerial platforms (helicopters, fixed-wing aircraft) and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs, commonly known as drones) in criminal investigations. These tools can monitor suspects, locate missing persons, provide tactical overwatch during emergencies, and even conduct preemptive reconnaissance in “Drone as First Responder” (DFR) programs, where drones arrive at scenes before patrol officers.

While operationally advantageous, these practices raise significant constitutional and privacy concerns—particularly when undertaken without a search warrant.

2. Legal Thresholds for Warrants

A. Federal Aerial Surveillance Doctrine

The U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized that observations made from public navigable airspace may not constitute a “search” under the Fourth Amendment if they are within public view.

• California v. Ciraolo (1986) – Police flew a fixed-wing aircraft at 1,000 feet and observed marijuana plants in a fenced backyard. The Court held there was no reasonable expectation of privacy because the plants were visible from public airspace.

• Florida v. Riley (1989) – Police used a helicopter at 400 feet to view marijuana inside a partially covered greenhouse. A plurality upheld the search, reasoning the airspace was publicly navigable and observation was unaided by advanced technology.

B. Technological Enhancement and Heightened Scrutiny

The Court has signaled greater concern when law enforcement uses advanced technology to observe areas otherwise shielded from public view. In Kyllo v. United States (2001), thermal imaging of a home’s interior without a warrant was deemed a search, underscoring that technology revealing intimate details is constitutionally significant.

Drones differ from traditional aircraft in their ability to:

• Hover for extended periods at low altitudes

• Operate quietly and covertly

• Capture high-resolution imagery and video

• Employ thermal, infrared, and zoom optics

These features magnify intrusion potential, making traditional “flyover” precedents less directly applicable.

C. State Statutes and Legislative Trends

While the Supreme Court sets the minimum constitutional standard, more than 20 states—including Pennsylvania—have enacted statutes regulating drone use. Some states explicitly require warrants for drone-based surveillance of private property, reflecting growing legislative concern over aerial privacy intrusions.

3. Pennsylvania’s Independent Constitutional Protections

Pennsylvania’s Constitution (Article I, § 8) provides broader privacy rights than the federal Fourth Amendment. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court requires an independent state constitutional analysis, considering history, policy, and precedent.

• Commonwealth v. Edmunds (1991) – Established the framework for interpreting Article I, § 8 independently, often granting greater protection than federal law.

• Commonwealth v. Alexander (2020) – Restored the “limited automobile exception,” requiring both probable cause and exigent circumstances to search a vehicle without a warrant, demonstrating the Court’s willingness to exceed federal privacy baselines.

4. Pennsylvania Aerial Surveillance Precedent

The leading Pennsylvania aerial surveillance case, Commonwealth v. Oglialoro (1990), involved state police hovering a helicopter approximately 50 feet over a pole barn located within the curtilage of the defendant’s home. Officers made multiple passes to observe marijuana plants through a translucent roof. The Court suppressed the evidence, citing the hazard, noise, and extreme intrusiveness of the low-altitude flight.

This reasoning translates readily to drone surveillance: prolonged hovering, noise, vibration, and proximity to protected spaces may render an otherwise lawful vantage point constitutionally unreasonable.

5. Privacy Expectations in Drone Surveillance

The Fourth Amendment and Article I, § 8 center on the “reasonable expectation of privacy” test:

1. Subjective – The individual actually expects privacy.

2. Objective – Society recognizes that expectation as reasonable.

3. High Protection Zones – Homes and curtilage, where intimate activities occur.

4. Low Protection Zones – Open fields, or areas visible from lawful public vantage points.

5. Drones Blur the Line – Their stealth, maneuverability, and sensory capabilities allow observation beyond what is normally possible from public vantage points, challenging existing privacy frameworks.

   
   

6. Defense Strategies Against Warrantless Drone Surveillance

1. Argue Hazard/Intrusiveness – Use Oglialoro to show low-altitude hovering is unreasonable due to safety risks and intrusive presence.

2. Emphasize State Constitutional Protections – Cite Edmunds and Alexander to argue Pennsylvania’s Article I, § 8 demands warrants for sustained or technologically enhanced drone monitoring, even if federal law might allow it.

3. Challenge the Technology’s Scope – Argue that zoom, thermal imaging, or night vision surpass naked-eye observation, invoking Kyllo’s reasoning.

4. Leverage Statutory Policy – Point to 18 Pa.C.S. § 3505 as legislative recognition that drone surveillance in private spaces is a privacy harm, supporting reasonableness challenges.

5. Scrutinize Oversight Gaps – Highlight absence of clear policy, retention limits, or judicial authorization in police drone programs.

   
   

7. Conclusion

Drone surveillance has outpaced much of the controlling case law, forcing courts to adapt aerial surveillance precedents to new technology. While the federal baseline still tolerates certain warrantless aerial observations, Pennsylvania’s Constitution and cases like Oglialoro provide stronger grounds for suppression in drone-related cases. Defense counsel should exploit these state-specific protections, emphasizing technological intrusiveness, low-altitude persistence, and the state’s historically robust privacy jurisprudence.

References

• Commonwealth v. Oglialoro, 579 A.2d 1288 (Pa. 1990).

• Commonwealth v. Edmunds, 586 A.2d 887 (Pa. 1991).

• Commonwealth v. Alexander, 243 A.3d 177 (Pa. 2020).

• California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986).

• Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989).

• Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001).

• 18 Pa.C.S. § 3505 (Unlawful use of unmanned aircraft).

• Act 78 of 2018 (statewide preemption of local drone regulation).

• “Aerial Trespass and the Fourth Amendment,” Michigan Law Review (2023).

• “Drones as First Responders: Police Departments Test New Uses for Technology,” The Washington Post, Aug. 4, 2025.

---

NOTHING IN THIS OR ANY OTHER BLOG POST CONSTITUTES LEGAL ADVICE OR FORMS AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FIRM AND THE READER. INFORMATION ORIGINATING FROM THIS WEBSITE IS INTENDED FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY.