LANSING, Mich. (Michigan News Source) – In the age of advancing technology, legal battles often arise at the intersection of privacy rights and governmental regulation. One such case, Long Lake Township v. Maxon, recently decided by the Michigan Supreme Court, grappled with the use of drones for property surveillance and its implications for constitutional protections against unreasonable searches.

In-depth examination and ruling on the exclusionary rule.

This landmark Michigan case not only clarified the application of the exclusionary rule but also underscored the delicate balance between individual privacy and municipal enforcement.

MORE NEWS: Thanksgiving Feast in Detroit Taming Bears, 23-20

The exclusionary rule is a legal principle in the United States that prohibits evidence obtained in violation of a person’s constitutional rights from being used in court proceedings. It primarily applies to evidence obtained through illegal searches and seizures conducted by law enforcement officers in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Case began almost 20 years ago.

The dispute between Todd and Heather Maxon and the township actually began almost 20 years ago in 2008. It revolves around Todd’s habit of purchasing cars, restoring or salvaging them, and occasionally selling them. He contends it’s merely a hobby, not a business.

However, Long Lake Township disagrees, alleging that he’s running an unlawful junkyard and breaching residential zoning regulations. In 2008, after a court battle, Maxon was permitted to retain his vehicles on his premises but agreed not to expand his collection as part of a settlement.

Newer claims continued legal battle after settlement.

However, in 2017 neighbors claimed the couple was once again storing too many vehicles and other items on their property.

Facing difficulties in monitoring the property from the street Long Lake Township, in 2017 and 2018, sent a drone over their property to see if the Maxon’s were in compliance of the earlier agreement or if they were in violation of the zoning ordinances again.

Township sued after they sent drone over property to collect evidence in zoning dispute.

In 2018, the Maxon’s initiated legal action in Grand Traverse County Circuit Court against the township because they had sent a drone over their property without the Maxons’ consent or a warrant. The Maxons, asserting their Fourth Amendment rights, moved to suppress the drone- obtained evidence, arguing that it constituted an illegal search.

MORE NEWS: Democratic Exodus? Michigan’s Arab Vote Sends a Loud Message

The long legal journey of Long Lake Township v. Maxon traversed multiple judicial stages, each grappling with the fundamental question: should evidence obtained through unconstitutional means be admissible in civil proceedings seeking injunctive relief?

Court of Appeals changes sides after receiving more limiting directive.

The Court of Appeals (COA) initially ruled in favor of the Maxons, emphasizing the intrusion into their reasonable expectation of privacy and the absence of a warrant. But when asked by the Michigan Supreme Court to reconsider the case and to look at the exclusionary rule, the COA ruled last September that the exclusionary rule didn’t apply to the case, noting that it’s usually limited to criminal cases in order to deter police misconduct, not civil ones like a zoning dispute.

Michigan Supreme Court sides with township.

Then, last week, the Michigan Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision authored by Justice Zahra, provided a nuanced analysis that ultimately affirmed the Court of Appeals’ judgment regarding the exclusionary rule.

Justice Zahra explained that while the exclusionary rule traditionally applies in criminal proceedings, its extension to civil enforcement actions necessitates careful consideration of costs and benefits.

Citing different examples, the Court distinguished Long Lake Township v. Maxon from previous cases where the exclusionary rule was applied, notably civil asset-forfeiture cases and instances involving the warrantless extraction of blood.

Balancing the protection of constitutional liberties and preventing government overreach.

The Court’s decision hinged on the weighing of competing interests: on one hand, safeguarding constitutional rights and deterring governmental overreach, and on the other, facilitating effective municipal enforcement to uphold community standards.

Recognizing the unique nature of nuisance and zoning ordinances seeking future injunctive relief, the Court concluded that the exclusionary rule’s application would unduly impede Long Lake Township’s ability to enforce its regulations without balanced deterrence benefits.

With its decision, the Michigan Supreme Court decided not to apply the exclusionary rule to civil cases involving local ordinance enforcement, highlighting the need to find a balance between protecting individual rights and serving the greater good of society.

The court’s opinion written by Justice Zahra said, “Because we hold that the exclusionary rule does not apply to this civil proceeding to enforce zoning and nuisance ordinances, we decline to address whether the use of an aerial drone under the circumstances presented here is an unreasonable search in violation of the United States or Michigan Constitutions.”

Court allows township to use drone video and photos in zoning controversy.

The opinion said that without photos and video the township “would have difficulty ensuring that the Maxons bring their property into conformity with its local zoning and nuisance ordinances.”

The opinion went on to say that “we decline to extend application of the exclusionary rule to civil enforcement proceedings that effectuate local zoning and nuisance ordinances and seek only prospective, injunctive relief. We affirm the Court of Appeals and remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings.”

This decision sets an important precedent for the judiciary’s ongoing involvement in defining the limits of governmental power in a landscape shaped by rapid technological advancements.