ACLU hosts the Somos Idaho Rally at the Statehouse with a focus on immigration
This week Governor Little signed HB 83 into law which was immediately followed by a lawsuit by the ACLU. A federal judge temporarily block the Immigration Cooperation and Enforcement Act for 14 days.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
11 hours ago
- Yahoo
Government drones used in 'runaway spying operation' to peek into backyards in Sonoma County, lawsuit says
Three residents filed a lawsuit this week against Sonoma County seeking to block code enforcement from using drones to take aerial images of their homes in what the American Civil Liberties Union is calling a "runaway spying operation." The lawsuit, filed by the ACLU Wednesday on behalf of the three residents, alleges that the county began using drones with high-powered cameras and zoom lenses in 2019 to track illegal cannabis cultivation, but in the years since, officials have used the devices more than 700 times to find other code violations on private property without first seeking a warrant. "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 have spied on, the community, and the media," Matt Cagle, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU Foundation of Northern California, said in a statement. A spokesperson for Sonoma County said the county is reviewing the complaint and takes "the allegations very seriously." Read more: Will these drones 'revolutionize' 911 response? L.A. suburb will be first to test The lawsuit comes amid a national debate over the use of drones by government agencies who have increasingly relied on the unmanned aircraft during disasters and for environmental monitoring and responding to emergency calls. More recently, some agencies in California and in other states have explored using drones to investigate code enforcement violations. In 2024, nearly half of Sonoma County's drone flights involved non-cannabis violations, including construction without a permit, junkyard conditions and zoning violations, according to data included in the complaint. "The use of drones over someone's private space raises a question of what is considered private," said Ari Ezra Waldman, a professor of law at UC Irvine. Waldman said if law enforcement on the ground wants to see on the other side of a tall fence or trees into someone's property they have to get the person's consent or they need probable cause for a warrant. "Why shouldn't that apply above ground too?" he said. California doesn't have a law that regulates the use of drones by code enforcement agents. In 2015, lawmakers in the state Assembly approved a measure that would have restricted the use of drones over private property without the owner's permission. Then-Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed the bill saying at the time that it could expose hobbyists or commercial users to "burdensome litigation." The ACLU argues that the county's use of drones as an investigative tool violates the California Constitution which provides people the right to privacy and against unreasonable searches and seizures. "I think that our expectations of privacy are based on social norms and people don't normally expect that someone is going to have a super high powered, detailed ability to capture extraordinary detail with a camera that's just buzzing over their property," Waldman said. "We shouldn't have to walk around life expecting that just because this technology exists that we have no privacy from anything anymore, from any direction." The lawsuit also alleges that the county's drone policy has loosened in the past several years. In 2019, the policy required inspectors to receive a complaint about a property before deploying a drone. Now, officials have no such requirement, allowing them instead to launch "discretionary proactive investigations," the complaint states. Residents named in the lawsuit say that the drones hovering above their homes have resulted in ongoing privacy concerns and a loss of enjoyment of their property. One plaintiff, Benjamin Verdusco, decided to sell his home after he learned that the county had been taking pictures of his backyard with a drone in 2021, according to the complaint. Read more: Police drones could soon crisscross the skies. Cities need to be ready, ACLU warns Another plaintiff, Nichola Schmitz, who is deaf, wasn't able to hear the buzz of the drone hovering above her property on Oct.10, 2023. When a worker on her property pointed it out she "became confused and worried," the complaint states. She rushed to her bedroom and closed the curtains, concerned about how long the drone had been there and whether it had seen her naked on her property earlier that day. She alleges the drone made two big loops around her property and, shortly after, a red tag appeared on her gate alleging two violations of the county code — one for illegal grading and another for having on her property an unpermitted dwelling, a small cabin that her father had built on the land in 1981. She spent $25,000 for a contractor to fix the alleged grading issue but still faces $10,000 in fines. ACLU attorneys allege the evidence obtained by the drone was done so unlawfully because officials did not have a search warrant. "This horrible experience has shattered my sense of privacy and security," Schmitz said in a statement. "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." A third plaintiff, Suzanne Brock, confronted county officials after she learned that they had taken detailed aerial photos of her outdoor bathtub and shower that she and her daughter used daily. She expressed concern to inspectors that they might have seen her naked in the bathtub. Code Enforcement Inspector Ryan Sharp told her that "when we see something like that, we turn around," according to the complaint. When Brock asked if county officials see people during the flights, Sharp told her yes, according to the complaint, but added that "we don't put that in the camera footage." Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
12 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Government drones used in ‘runaway spying operation' to peek into backyards in Sonoma County, lawsuit says
Three residents filed a lawsuit this week against Sonoma County seeking to block code enforcement from using drones to take aerial images of their homes in what the American Civil Liberties Union is calling a 'runaway spying operation.' The lawsuit, filed by the ACLU Wednesday on behalf of the three residents, alleges that the county began using drones with high-powered cameras and zoom lenses in 2019 to track illegal cannabis cultivation, but in the years since, officials have used the devices more than 700 times to find other code violations on private property without first seeking a warrant. '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 have spied on, the community, and the media,' Matt Cagle, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU Foundation of Northern California, said in a statement. A spokesperson for Sonoma County said the county is reviewing the complaint and takes 'the allegations very seriously.' The lawsuit comes amid a national debate over the use of drones by government agencies who have increasingly relied on the unmanned aircraft during disasters and for environmental monitoring and responding to emergency calls. More recently, some agencies in California and in other states have explored using drones to investigate code enforcement violations. In 2024, nearly half of Sonoma County's drone flights involved non-cannabis violations, including construction without a permit, junkyard conditions and zoning violations, according to data included in the complaint. 'The use of drones over someone's private space raises a question of what is considered private,' said Ari Ezra Waldman, a professor of law at UC Irvine. Waldman said if law enforcement on the ground wants to see on the other side of a tall fence or trees into someone's property they have to get the person's consent or they need probable cause for a warrant. 'Why shouldn't that apply above ground too?' he said. California doesn't have a law that regulates the use of drones by code enforcement agents. In 2015, lawmakers in the state Assembly approved a measure that would have restricted the use of drones over private property without the owner's permission. Then-Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed the bill saying at the time that it could expose hobbyists or commercial users to 'burdensome litigation.' The ACLU argues that the county's use of drones as an investigative tool violates the California Constitution which provides people the right to privacy and against unreasonable searches and seizures. 'I think that our expectations of privacy are based on social norms and people don't normally expect that someone is going to have a super high powered, detailed ability to capture extraordinary detail with a camera that's just buzzing over their property,' Waldman said. 'We shouldn't have to walk around life expecting that just because this technology exists that we have no privacy from anything anymore, from any direction.' The lawsuit also alleges that the county's drone policy has loosened in the past several years. In 2019, the policy required inspectors to receive a complaint about a property before deploying a drone. Now, officials have no such requirement, allowing them instead to launch 'discretionary proactive investigations,' the complaint states. Residents named in the lawsuit say that the drones hovering above their homes have resulted in ongoing privacy concerns and a loss of enjoyment of their property. One plaintiff, Benjamin Verdusco, decided to sell his home after he learned that the county had been taking pictures of his backyard with a drone in 2021, according to the complaint. Another plaintiff, Nichola Schmitz, who is deaf, wasn't able to hear the buzz of the drone hovering above her property on Oct.10, 2023. When a worker on her property pointed it out she 'became confused and worried,' the complaint states. She rushed to her bedroom and closed the curtains, concerned about how long the drone had been there and whether it had seen her naked on her property earlier that day. She alleges the drone made two big loops around her property and, shortly after, a red tag appeared on her gate alleging two violations of the county code — one for illegal grading and another for having on her property an unpermitted dwelling, a small cabin that her father had built on the land in 1981. She spent $25,000 for a contractor to fix the alleged grading issue but still faces $10,000 in fines. ACLU attorneys allege the evidence obtained by the drone was done so unlawfully because officials did not have a search warrant. 'This horrible experience has shattered my sense of privacy and security,' Schmitz said in a statement. '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.' A third plaintiff, Suzanne Brock, confronted county officials after she learned that they had taken detailed aerial photos of her outdoor bathtub and shower that she and her daughter used daily. She expressed concern to inspectors that they might have seen her naked in the bathtub. Code Enforcement Inspector Ryan Sharp told her that 'when we see something like that, we turn around,' according to the complaint. When Brock asked if county officials see people during the flights, Sharp told her yes, according to the complaint, but added that 'we don't put that in the camera footage.'
Yahoo
18 hours ago
- Yahoo
Police Blew Up This Innocent Woman's House and Left Her With the Bill. A Judge Says She's Owed $60,000.
Years after a SWAT team in Texas destroyed an innocent woman's home while trying to apprehend a fugitive, the local government will have to pay her $60,000 in damages plus interest, a federal judge ruled Thursday. That decision may sound like common sense. But the ending was far from guaranteed in a legal odyssey that saw Vicki Baker of McKinney, Texas, left with a dilapidated house—and the bill for the damages—even though she was never suspected of wrongdoing. "I've lost everything," she told Reason in 2021. "I've lost my chance to sell my house. I've lost my chance to retire without fear of how I'm going to make my regular bills." In July 2020, law enforcement detonated about 30 tear gas grenades inside Baker's home, blew off the garage entryway with explosives, and careened a BearCat armored vehicle through her backyard fence. They smashed the windows and drove through her front door. (Baker's daughter, Deanna Cook, had given them a garage door opener and the code to enter the home.) Police were in search of Wesley Little, who was on the run after kidnapping a teenage girl. Upon arriving at Baker's home, Little—who had formerly worked for Baker as a handyman—encountered Cook, who called law enforcement. Little released the girl unharmed but refused to exit himself, prompting the SWAT team to destroy the home. He was ultimately found dead from suicide. "The tear gas was everywhere," Baker, who is now in her 80s, said. "It was on the walls. It was on the floors. It was on the furniture. It was everywhere." Her daughter's dog was rendered deaf and blind. Baker told Reason she has "a very high regard for the police," and she did not challenge that they acted in the best interest of the community that day. But not long after they ravaged her home, things began to fall apart even more, metaphorically speaking. Her home insurance would not cover the damages, citing a clause that protects them from having to reimburse people for damages caused by the government. But the government would not help either, telling Baker she did not meet its definition of a victim. That general excuse often works—as this is not the first such story. The Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment promises the government cannot take private property without "just compensation." But some governments have managed to evade that pledge by claiming there is an exception to that rule if the property was destroyed via police power. Judge Amos Mazzant of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in 2021 ruled Baker could sue, ultimately calling that interpretation of the law "untenable." In June 2022, a jury awarded her $59,656.59 in damages. Yet that victory would be short-lived. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit reversed that judgment in 2023, ruling she was foreclosed from relief under federal law because police acted out of "necessity during an active emergency." The Supreme Court declined to hear the case last year. So Baker pivoted back to the Texas Constitution. Attorneys for McKinney argued that Baker's state law claim died with her federal one, an argument Mazzant rejected in his opinion published Thursday. "The [5th Circuit] specifically noted in its Summary Judgment Order that 'the Texas Constitution's Takings Clause differs from the Takings Clause set forth in the United States Constitution,'" writes Mazzant. "It is entirely possible for a defendant to violate the Texas Takings Clause—a clause more protective than its federal analog—without violating the Fifth Amendment." "Regarding future victims, this should help in Texas," says Jeffrey Redfern, an attorney at the Institute for Justice, who represented Baker. "As far as we can tell, municipalities in Texas have just been ignoring this binding decision from the Texas Supreme Court about SWAT damage, but hopefully some publicity around the result will spur change." At the federal level, however, the issue remains an open question. "Whether any such exception exists (and how the Takings Clause applies when the government destroys property pursuant to its police power)," Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a statement after the Supreme Court denied Baker's case, "is an important and complex question that would benefit from further percolation in the lower courts prior to this Court's intervention." While some municipalities opt to pay innocent property owners in such cases, many treat victims like McKinney treated Baker. It doesn't have to be that way. "Paying these kinds of claims is not going to bankrupt cities," says Redfern. "Raids like this aren't an everyday occurrence in most jurisdictions, and the damage is usually in the five figures. Ruinous for many property owners, but an easy check to cut for municipalities." The post Police Blew Up This Innocent Woman's House and Left Her With the Bill. A Judge Says She's Owed $60,000. appeared first on
