For years, legal commentators have pondered the effect of the Fourth Amendment on drones, but purely as an academic exercise. No court had ever considered drone surveillance under the Fourth Amendment—until now. In Long Lake Township v. Maxon, a northern Michigan township flew a drone over a local resident’s home to gather photographic evidence of an alleged zoning violation. Relying on that evidence, the township sued to enforce its zoning ordinance. The resident moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the drone’s warrantless surveillance violated the Fourth Amendment. The case made it all the way up to the Michigan Supreme Court, which recently declined to address whether the drone surveillance constituted a search. Instead, it held that the exclusionary rule—a remedial device that bars the use of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment from certain proceedings—did not apply. Thus, even if the evidence was collected in violation of the resident’s Fourth Amendment rights, the evidence was deemed admissible in the zoning proceeding. This Comment examines Long Lake Township v. Maxon, arguing that the Michigan Supreme Court erred in both its exclusionary rule analysis and its failure to decide the search issue. It also explores the decision’s nationwide implications.
