A recent legal decision in North Dakota that used evidence against an American citizen using a drone – and gathered without a warrant – raises some interesting arguments about the Fourth Amendment in the 21st century. Rodney Brossart was sentenced to three years in prison in January for a June 2011 incident involving police, a neighbor, and six cows. (In the end, he will serve three months in prison and three months at home.)

At some point, local police borrowed a drone used by the border patrol to take photographic evidence during a confrontation between Brossart, his family members, and a police SWAT team. Brossart’s lawyer wanted the case thrown out because the drone surveillance was conducted without a warrant.

The attorney, Bruce Quick, said in March 2012 that, “it’s bizarre to me they would be using military drones for that purpose. … I don’t think those things are intended to be used for that.”

State prosecutor Douglas Manbeck countered the anti-drone argument, saying there is “no existing case law that bars their use in investigating crimes.”

In July 2012, North Dakota State District Judge Joel Medd allowed the drone evidence to stand, saying, “there was no improper use of an unmanned aerial vehicle.” Brossart and his sons threatened and fought officers at the scene, in an armed standoff that was witnessed by the drone as it was used to show live video to police.  The drone was also used to locate Brossart’s family before the confrontation. […]