Use of UAS to locate Marijuana Grows California
Hello all,
I'm seeking insight and shared experiences regarding using UAS equipped with thermal camera, to detect marijuana cultivation operations both outdoor and indoor with an emphasis on indoor grows.
The goal is to identify potential cultivation sites in area we have had a high number of Marijuana grows by detecting unusual heat signatures from homes, detached garages, and outbuildings. While we have information other agencies have used UAS for these operations, we're proceeding cautiously and want to ensure all efforts remain within the bounds of FAA regulations and established legal precedent. We do not want to make bad case law.
Key areas I’m hoping to get feedback on:
Legal Considerations / Case Law:
Has anyone encountered or cited case law in California related to the use of thermal imaging from drones to detect indoor marijuana grows?
How has the use of drone thermal data held up in court when used to help establish probable cause?
Search Warrants & Probable Cause:
In your experience, can thermal imagery alone support probable cause for a search warrant? Or do we need to establish routine flights in the designated areas?
Operational Experiences:
If your agency has implemented this approach, what lessons have you learned? Any best practices or challenges you’d be willing to share?
My goal is to determine whether this method is a viable tool to add to our enforcement strategy and how to ensure it’s done legally, ethically, and effectively.
Any guidance, policy references, or shared experiences would be greatly appreciated.
Adding to this thread. I had some of our attorney's provide us with a few cases. Thought they might be helpful.
Exigent Circumstances:
Collins v. Virginia, 584 U.S. 586 (2018)
Lange v. California, 594 U.S. 295 (2021)
Manned Aircraft, UAS, and Image Enhancing Technology Cases:
Kyllo v. U.S., 533 U.S. 27 (2001)
McElvey v. State, 474 P.3d 16 (Ct. App. AK. 2020)
U.S. v Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012)
Dircks v. Barnes, 2023 WL 4761662 (S.D. Ind. 2023)
Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989)
We also have marijuana eradication in our state (KY). Every state is different, but we have trained spotters that are only able to ID marijuana grows with the naked eye. No camera equipment can be used to positively ID the grow. Each state is different, but in our state, most cases where using image enhancing technology (thermal) not readily available to the public is deemed a search. There seems to be some room for change since drones are more prevalent these days.