Oregon Court Rebukes Police for Using Warrantless Aerial Surveillance in Marijuana Case

Landmark Ruling Limits Police Use of Advanced Surveillance Technology

In a resounding decision this week, the Oregon Court of Appeals has drawn a firm line in the sand regarding the use of warrantless aerial surveillance in criminal investigations. The three-judge panel’s ruling delivered a strong rebuke to the Oregon State Police and Polk County Sheriff’s Office, criticizing the agencies for engaging in what the court called “technologically-enhanced surveillance” without first obtaining a warrant.

The decision stems from a 2021 investigation into an alleged illegal marijuana grow operation and marks one of the most definitive judicial statements yet about the constitutional limits on police surveillance from the skies.

Aerial Surveillance Led to Marijuana Charges, But Lacked Legal Ground

The case involves 54-year-old Sengdara Nakhiengchahn, who became a collateral subject of a multi-county marijuana enforcement operation. During a surveillance flight nearly 5,000 feet above the ground, Oregon State Police Sergeant Tyler Bechtel noticed what appeared to be greenhouses on Nakhiengchahn’s property and suspected a marijuana cultivation site. Bechtel, operating a high-powered camera attached to the aircraft, captured images that were later used to help obtain a search warrant.

In August 2021, Nakhiengchahn was charged with two felony counts: unlawful possession and unlawful manufacture of marijuana. She ultimately entered a conditional guilty plea, which allowed her to serve probation while maintaining her right to appeal based on the legality of the search.

That appeal led to this week’s decision by the Court of Appeals, which sided with Nakhiengchahn and ruled that the aerial surveillance constituted an unlawful, warrantless search under Oregon’s Constitution.

Oregon Court Calls Surveillance “Technologically Enhanced” and Unconstitutional

Writing for the court, Judge Scott A. Shorr emphasized that the surveillance footage captured more than what would be visible to the naked eye and therefore crossed the line into an unconstitutional search.

The court rejected a lower court ruling from Polk County that allowed the footage to be used as evidence, and sent the case back to the trial court, where Nakhiengchahn may now withdraw her guilty plea.

Surveillance Technology Raises Constitutional Red Flags

At the center of the case is the Wescam MX-10 camera system, a high-resolution, thermal-capable surveillance device manufactured by L3Harris Technologies, a major U.S. defense contractor. Though promoted by law enforcement as a tool for search-and-rescue missions and natural disaster response, the technology is increasingly used for law enforcement surveillance—a trend that alarmed civil liberties organizations.

“This is an important decision to ensure that as police technology advances, we are maintaining the integrity of our warrant requirements under the Oregon Constitution,” said Kelly Simon, legal director of the ACLU of Oregon.

Jeramie D. Scott, senior counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington, D.C., echoed those concerns, saying the ruling sends a necessary message: “The Court of Appeals reached the right decision here… Hopefully in the future, Oregon State Police will seek a warrant first to conduct this type of aerial surveillance.”

Police Actions Spark Broader Debate About Privacy Rights and Law Enforcement Powers

The case has reignited debate around the appropriate use of surveillance technology in the age of drones, thermal imaging, and high-powered optics. Although police have long been permitted to conduct aerial observations, the court’s ruling makes clear that enhanced imaging technology changes the legal calculus.

Oregon law previously allowed aerial inspection of suspected cannabis grows as long as officers were using only the naked eye or basic visual aids. However, Bechtel’s use of the Wescam MX-10 offered a magnified, detailed view of activity inside greenhouses and other private structures—raising serious privacy concerns.

“This case is about protecting the line between observation and intrusion,” said Luke Miller, Nakhiengchahn’s defense attorney. “It’s important for Oregonians to maintain the right to privacy and be free from government intrusion absent legal justification.”

State Police and Justice Department Consider Next Steps

The Oregon State Police declined to comment on the ruling’s implications, stating only that the agency “remains committed to following applicable laws and court directives.” The Oregon Department of Justice said it is reviewing the decision and may consider an appeal.

The implications of the ruling could be significant. Law enforcement agencies in Oregon and across the country have increasingly relied on advanced surveillance tools—often purchased with federal grants or justified under public safety budgets. In fact, Oregon lawmakers recently approved $1.2 million in state funds to acquire another Wescam MX-10 system, emphasizing its role in emergency response.

Still, critics warn that such dual-use technologies—marketed for rescue missions but used in criminal investigations—blur the boundaries between surveillance and public safety.

Legislature’s Attempt to Expand Drone Use Met with Resistance

Just months before this ruling, the Oregon Legislature debated Senate Bill 238, which would have expanded the permissible uses of drones in law enforcement. The bill proposed allowing drone deployment without warrants in cases of 911 calls or “exigent circumstances.”

The ACLU of Oregon fiercely opposed the bill, arguing it would erode constitutional protections and open the door to unchecked police surveillance. The bill ultimately died in committee, signaling lawmakers’ hesitation to give law enforcement greater surveillance powers without strong oversight.

A Narrow But Pivotal Ruling on the Future of Surveillance in Oregon

While the Court of Appeals stopped short of banning aerial surveillance technology altogether, the ruling makes clear that such tools must be used within the bounds of the law. The opinion cautioned that enhanced imaging used to peer into private property cannot justify a search without separate, constitutionally-obtained evidence.

“This opinion does not preclude the ability of police to use technology, under certain circumstances,” the judges wrote, “but it affirms that the use of such technology cannot substitute for probable cause or eliminate the need for a warrant.”

The ruling is expected to shape how law enforcement handles aerial surveillance in future cases and is already being hailed as a significant victory for privacy rights advocates.

As the lines between surveillance and personal privacy continue to blur in the digital age, Oregon’s latest decision sends a strong signal: High-powered technology doesn’t override constitutional rights.