Ryan Calo writes:
Earlier this month, U.S. News & World Report ran the following headline: “Court Upholds Domestic Drone Use In Arrest Of American Citizen.” The article goes on to explain that a man was arrested in North Dakota with air support from a Predator B drone on loan from the Department of Homeland Security. His attorney filed a motion to dismiss on the basis that local police had not secured a warrant to use a drone in his arrest. The court, understandably, denied the motion. As I and others have observed, the Fourth Amendment does not restrict the use of drones to assess whether a perpetrator is dangerous. It would only be implicated if, for instance, one person were followed around for a long time, or the entire population were placed under constant aerial surveillance. And even then the outcome of a challenge is uncertain.
Read more on Stanford CIS.