ACLU sues Sonoma County, alleges illegal drone surveillance program

OAKLAND, Calif. - Sonoma County's Code Enforcement Division was today named in an ACLU lawsuit alleging the department has been using high-powered drones to conduct an illegal, warrantless surveillance program on county residents.

The program, launched six years ago, was intended to address unpermitted cannabis grows in hard-to-access rural areas, but the lawsuit, filed by the ACLU and a partner firm on behalf of three residents say it's become something more insidious.

"We all have the right to go about our lives in privacy in and around our homes without having to worry about a government drone flying overhead and recording us without a warrant or our knowledge," Matt Cagle, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU Foundation of Northern California, said in a press release. " For too long, Sonoma County code enforcement has used high-powered drone to warrantlessly sift through people's private affairs and initiate charges that upend lives and livelihoods. All the while, the County has hidden these unlawful searches from the people they've spied on, the community, and the media."

The suit named the Code Enforcement Division, its parent agency, and county officials who operate the program. The ACLU is seeking to have the County drone program declared unconstitutional and have it ended.

The Sonoma County Code Enforcement Division had not responded to request for comment as of this writing.

The suit

What they're saying:

The suit alleges that Nichola Schmitz, one of the plaintiffs, was subject to illegal surveillance and recording at her rural farm in October 2023.

Schmitz is deaf, and only became aware of the drone a worker pointed it out to her, the suit states. At that point, she ran into her bedroom and closed the blinds. The complaint states she was worried that the drone had spied on her earlier in the day when she was naked or wrapped in a towal after her bath.

"This horrible experience has shattered my sense of privacy and security," Schmitz said in a press release. "I'm afraid to open my blinds or go outside to use my hot tub because who knows when the county's drone could be spying on."

Following the incident, Schmitz was cited for two violations of the county code: one for illegal grading and one for an unpermitted dwelling — a small cabin her now-deceased father had built in 1981.

The complaint states the county refused to answer when Schmitz asked if it was her neighbor who had used the drone. Schmitz worked with the county to rectify the problems, and spent around $25,000 in the process.

A year later the county acknowledged it had used a drone to observe her property, after repeatedly being asked by Schmitz.

"There was a single flyover from the public right of way (not over the property) on October 10, 2023, by Code Enforcement to confirm/deny the allegations of construction without permit for the sheds," the lawsuit states Hareland wrote in an email to Schmitz. "The flyover was conducted according to policy. Any other flyovers were not done by Code Enforcement. No warrant was obtained or required by law."

Other county residents have shared similar stories, including one account from Suzanne Brock, who learned the county had surveilled her outdoor tub and shower after she was cited for alleged unpermitted construction of two barns on her property.

Upon learning that her property had been monitored via drone, the lawsuit states, Brock met with Code Enforcement officers and expressed concern that she might have been filmed naked in her bathtub.

"Defendant Sharp stated that 'when we see something like that, we turn around,'" the lawsuit states. "Brock was stunned and repeated, 'so when you see somebody, you turn it around?' Sharp replied, 'yes... but we don't put that in the camera footage.'"