Having originally drawn national attention for playing a part in the targeted killings of terrorist suspects abroad, unmanned aerial vehicles– commonly referred to as “drones”-recently became the subject of an even greater debate: law enforcement’s use of the technology to monitor American citizens. Drone surveillance stretches the boundaries of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, forcing courts to consider whether the two traditional tests for finding a Fourth Amendment violation-physical intrusion and reasonable expectation of privacy adequately protect citizens’ constitutional rights.
This Article posits that under the Fourth Amendment’s current doctrinal framework drone surveillance fails to amount to a “search.” As such, traditional Fourth Amendment jurisprudence inadequately protects citizens from unreasonable government intrusion by failing to address two key issues-length of surveillance and sophistication of the technology used by law enforcement. Moreover, this Article explains the two dominant remedial theories in public discussion-the mosaic theory, which if implemented would effectively alter the way courts view law enforcement action for Fourth Amendment purposes, and drone legislation. Ultimately, the Author rejects the mosaic theory as an unworkable framework, arguing that its nebulous standard fails to provide law enforcement officers with a practical, bright-line rule. Instead, the Author argues that citizens’ Fourth Amendment rights would be best protected by legislation that addresses both the acceptable forms of technology to be mounted on drones and the acceptable durational limits that should accompany drone usage by law enforcement.