14. Do you see the use of Google and Polaris enhanced satellite images of local properties at resolutions that exceed what the naked eye would see at the legal minimum flight altitude by county governments for land use and development enforcement as violations of the U.S. Constitution’s 4th amendment that prohibits unreasonable searches and the Washington State Constitution’s Article 1, Section 7 which is even more restrictive and states, “No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of Law,” ?

DISTRICT 2

Greg Ayers:

I am not a lawyer, so the constitutional law question is outside my expertise (it appears to be an interesting question, however, since the EPA now has its drones). As a scientist, I have not reviewed the reliability of these tools for enforcement purposes. As a member of our community, I have to question the need or appropriateness of high tech surveillance techniques in our rural community. I believe that we should be able to discuss and resolve our differences as neighbors. I have not had an opportunity to review County policy regarding the use of these techniques for enforcement purposes, but believe that the protection of property rights, including the rights of neighboring owners and the public, is one of the most important governmental functions.

Rick Hughes:

These programs are readily available to the public. I don’t think the county should employ them in a blanket search for violations, but if a violation is reported to the county, the county does have an obligation to investigate. As I understand it, the county would not need a warrant to view property from areas that are publicly available (for example, what can be seen from the road) so the question would be: are Google or Polaris considered “publicly available?” There are some pending lawsuits that have been brought to consider this question, and I support the questioner’s right to bring suit against Google or Polaris if he or she is so inclined.

Again, my opinion is that the county should not use them for blanket searches, and if a violation is reported to the county, even with Google available, a legal on-site search would still be required, therefore the on-site search should be sufficient.

Again, my opinion is that the county should not use them for blanket searches, and if a violation is reported to the county, even with Google available, a legal on-site search would still be required, therefore the on-site search should be sufficient.

Lisa Byers:

No.

DISTRICT 1

Lovel Pratt:

This is a legal question that needs to be answered by the Prosecuting Attorney. I support the use of GIS (Geographic Information System) as a tool for a wide variety of County services and for the Council’s decision-making processes.

Bob Jarman:

I enjoy my privacy. Since the inception of Google maps and Polaris, the right to privacy can be taken away. It has given some groups a tool to spy and opens up the chances for abuse. Technology can be wonderful, but must be used responsibly. Ultimately, this will be up to the courts to decide how best to protect our citizens.

Mark Forleza:

No response