Lawsuit Over Sonoma County Drone Use Raises Privacy Questions; Humboldt Officials Say Their Approach Respects Residents’ Rights

This drone-captured image shows an outdoor bathtub on private property in Sonoma County. The homeowner, a plaintiff in the ACLU’s lawsuit, only learned of the drone’s presence after it may have recorded her post-bath. This led to concerns about surveillance of intimate spaces. [All images from the ACLU lawsuit]

Matt Cagle, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU, said, “We’ve seen other code enforcement departments develop drone programs, such as Humboldt, Mendocino, and Yolo counties, although we do not know of any programs where code enforcement officers fly as frequently, invasively, or with as few protective safeguards over residential properties as in Sonoma.”

He added, “In Sonoma, we are requesting that the court require a warrant before a drone flight over someone’s home.” The quality of the photos is such that a great deal of detail can be seen.

According to the ACLU, Sonoma County code enforcement agents have used drones equipped with high-powered cameras and zoom lenses to monitor and record people’s homes, fenced yards, swimming pools, hot tubs, and even through curtainless windows or under awnings—often without notice, and without a warrant.

Taken from a drone at low altitude, this image captures the inside of a private residence through sliding glass doors—highlighting how the County’s drone program can peer into people’s homes without their knowledge or consent.

In one case outlined in the complaint, a woman named Nichola Schmitz, who is Deaf and lives on a rural farm with her mother and sister, only became aware of a hovering drone when someone else pointed it out. She ran to her room and shut the windows, afraid it might have already captured footage of her naked or in a towel after a bath. The drone had flown over her outdoor bathing area earlier that day.

This aerial image taken by a drone reveals multiple fenced-in backyards, some with pools and private play areas. The lawsuit argues that these routine flights over residential neighborhoods violate residents’ expectations of privacy.

The lawsuit alleges that county officials were aware of these privacy concerns and still rejected a policy proposal that would have added limits or required warrants. As a result, the drone program has been used not just to identify unpermitted cannabis grows in remote areas, but to investigate a wide range of code violations—leading in some cases to tens of thousands of dollars in fines and property liens.

Zoomed-in drone photo of a person on private property in a rural area of Sonoma County. The lawsuit claims that these kinds of close-range, warrantless drone observations have become standard practice for code enforcement—without safeguards.

Here in Humboldt County, Planning and Building Director John Ford says his department does not fly drones at all. “Planning and Building does not have a drone program and does not use drones,” he wrote in response to our questions.

Instead, the county uses five satellite images each year, captured at a distance that Ford says protects residents’ privacy. “The resolution of the images we receive are not granular enough to show people,” he explained. “You can look at the images on the GIS in the Planning and Building Website.” (See mobile version here and desktop here.)

The satellite imagery is used for code enforcement, permit review, environmental impact monitoring, and identifying unpermitted cannabis cultivation. Ford noted that if a potential grow site is flagged, the property owner is notified.

“This is a tool the County of Humboldt uses that enhances the County work without being intrusive into people’s property,” he said.

The Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office does operate drones, but Lt. Conan Moore said they’re reserved for very specific missions.

“Our drone program is used for Search and Rescue missions, High risk search warrants, [and] surveillance operations for Drug Task Force for Undercover Officer buys,” Moore wrote. “We don’t use drones for Code enforcement and Cannabis as we still use helicopters for this information.”

Moore said the drones have helped deputies locate missing people and supported high-risk operations like the arrest of two double-homicide suspects in the Eel River Valley.

“The drone program is a great asset to the Sheriff’s Office and has been mainly used for Search and Rescue operations and has been effective in locating missing subjects,” he said.

The department does have privacy rules in place. Moore pointed to Policy 606.3, which states: “Absent a warrant or exigent circumstances, operators and observers shall not intentionally record or transmit images of any location where a person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy.” Examples given include “residence, yard, enclosure.”

Moore added that no complaints have been filed about their drone operations to date. “We have received complaints about drones but they have all been determined to be PG&E drones and not associated with HCSO,” he said.

As the legal case in Sonoma moves forward, it may help clarify where drone flights cross the legal line—and what kind of oversight and safeguards counties need. Humboldt officials say they’ve already built in limits: using still satellite images in Planning and deploying drones only in emergency or high-risk situations. The ACLU’s case against Sonoma County may clarify how Humboldt’s use of imagery fits within privacy laws.