A zoning dispute between a couple and their township in rural northern Michigan might seem like an unlikely topic to make it to the Michigan Supreme Court and appear in national news. But Long Lake Township v. Maxon presents one of the most important constitutional topics that’s come up in recent years, including novel questions about technology, government surveillance, and property rights.

Todd and Heather Maxon live on five acres in Long Lake Township, near Traverse City. Township officials cited the couple in 2007 for alleged zoning code violations due to Todd’s storage of immobilized vehicles on the property. Todd retired from a career in telecommunications and now spends time as a shadetree mechanic, tinkering with and fixing up used vehicles.

He disputes the township’s characterization of his property as a junkyard because the vehicles he keeps cannot be seen from the street and his work does not bother his neighbors. The Maxons fought the citation but settled with the township in 2008. The township agreed to bring no further action against them so long as they didn’t increase the number of cars on the property.

The case would be a standard zoning dispute were it not for the extraordinary measures the township took to monitor the Maxons’ compliance with the settlement. Long Lake Township officials hired a drone operator to fly at low altitudes over Todd and Heather’s home to get photographic evidence of their compliance. It surveyed the property like this several times between 2010 and 2018.

In 2018, armed with drone photos as evidence, the township brought another civil action against Todd and Heather, claiming they violated the 10-year-old settlement. The Maxons believe the photos were gathered illegally and have sought to get them dismissed as evidence.

Critically, the township never sought a warrant before sending in the drones. Surveying a property with drones without a warrant elevates this case to one with major constitutional implications. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects people from “unreasonable searches.”

The Michigan Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments on the case in October, will consider two key topics. First, does warrantless drone surveillance at low altitudes by the government constitute an unreasonable search of private property? If it’s not an unreasonable search, that would seem to open the door to constant “drone patrols” above neighborhoods, hunting for zoning or other infractions.

Second, if it is an unreasonable search, will the court deny the government the use of illegally acquired evidence in civil cases such as zoning enforcement? In criminal cases, evidence acquired illegally by the government is typically deemed inadmissible in court.

The Michigan Court of Appeals ruled in the Maxons’ case that even if the drone photos were illegally obtained, the township could still use them as evidence. Currently, it is unclear whether the state constitution requires the suppression of illegally acquired evidence in civil investigations, such as local zoning codes, the same way it applies to criminal cases.

Requiring a warrant signed by a judge provides a crucial check on the government's ability to violate privacy rights and helps prevent abusive searches. These protections are important in civil cases, not just criminal ones. While it’s unclear how the Michigan Supreme Court will rule, suppressing illegally acquired evidence in civil investigations makes good policy sense. If such evidence is not suppressed, government officials — police, regulators, inspectors — could, in theory, enter someone’s property, home, or business, without a warrant, and search for potential civil infractions. Any evidence discovered could then be used against the property owner in court.

The Maxons’ case is the first one of its kind to rise to a state Supreme Court. Other states are likely to look to the Michigan ruling when similar questions come before their courts. At least 1,400 police departments nationwide use drones for surveillance, patrols, and investigations. If warrantless drone surveillance is deemed a form of reasonable search, there’s little standing in the way of routine, invasive drone patrols in any American neighborhood. And if the court allows illegally obtained evidence to be used in civil cases, municipal governments could launch legal fishing expeditions against any private citizen. These are major affronts to long-held expectations and traditions Americans have about privacy rights.

Many eyes will be on the Michigan Supreme Court in the coming months. But one thing is clear: Judges and lawmakers should not sacrifice privacy and property rights in the name of government efficiency.

Brent Skorup is an attorney and a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. Jarrett Skorup is the vice president for marketing and communications at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a free-market think tank in Michigan. The Mackinac Center has joined the American Civil Liberties Union and its local chapter in submitting a brief in support of the Maxons’ legal arguments.