from ocj.com
Drones have the potential to revolutionize agriculture, at least according to “The Huffington Post” on Dec. 13, 2013. When the mainstream media pays attention to agricultural innovations, it is noteworthy. This piece detailed various drone uses such as warding off birds from fields, pollinating trees, conducting snow surveys to forecast water supply, monitoring irrigation, and planting or harvesting crops. This discussion even concluded with a positive environmental statement that drones will enable farmers to be even more environmentally friendly because they can be even more precise when applying fertilizer, water or pesticides.
A drone is technically an “unmanned aircraft system” or “UAS” that flies without an onboard pilot, relies on GPS for guidance and contains a data link to a control station on the ground. The Federal Aviation Administration has jurisdiction over U.S. airspace. Although the FAA has not approved commercial drone usage, that is expected to change within the next several years.
The old adage “your strength is also your weakness” applies to drones. The same capability that enables a farmer to monitor and service his acreage can also be used by the government for surveillance and inspection. I’m anticipating much litigation involving drones, specifically what constitutes legal use by the government and what Constitutional protections are afforded by the Fourth Amendment right to privacy, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.
Back in my law school days, I studied what is considered the seminal case weighing the right of the government to conduct aerial surveillance vs. the expectation of privacy and protection from unreasonable searches and seizures. Dow Chemical Company v. U.S., 476 U.S. 227 (1986), was decided by the United States Supreme Court by a 5-4 split majority of the justices
It all began when Dow Chemical Company denied the EPA a follow-up on-site inspection under the Clean Air Act of its Midland, Mich. facilities. In response, EPA conducted an unannounced aerial inspection. When Dow became aware EPA had taken aerial photographs of its facilities, it filed suite in District Court, alleging that EPA conducted a warrantless search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The District Court ruled that the aerial inspection violated Dow’s “expectation of privacy” from searches. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the ruling on the ground that Dow only expected privacy with respect to indoor property.
Alan is serial entrepreneur, active angel investor, and a drone enthusiast. He co-founded DRONELIFE.com to address the emerging commercial market for drones and drone technology. Prior to DRONELIFE.com, Alan co-founded Where.com, ThinkingScreen Media, and Nurse.com. Recently, Alan has co-founded Crowditz.com, a leader in Equity Crowdfunding Data, Analytics, and Insights. Alan can be reached at alan(at)dronelife.com