A California county has agreed to effectively end a controversial warrantless drone surveillance operation that was launched to monitor unpermitted cannabis grows but secretly morphed into a wider search for innocuous building code violations.
In Sonoma County, located about an hour north of San Francisco, the initiative ultimately saddle homeowners with substantial penalties for routine—and frequently disputed—code infractions, which residents described as punitive and aggressively pursued.
Over several years, dozens of residents faced rapidly escalating fines, sometimes climbing into the six-figure range, and some saw their properties foreclosed and their lives upended. The county accrued at least $3 million in civil cannabis fines in cases tied to warrantless drone surveillance.
In June 2025, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Northern California and law firm O’Melveny & Myers brought a lawsuit on behalf of three affected residents, accusing Sonoma County of an illegal “runaway spying operation” and violating the state constitution.
In a settlement announced on Wednesday, Sonoma pledged that future drone overflights or monitoring of a residence would occur only with a warrant, save for a few narrow exceptions such as emergencies.
Often, Sonoma’s drone program failed to uncover any unpermitted cannabis grows. Instead, drone imagery became a potent tool for ordinary code enforcement—identifying unpermitted decks, trailers, fences, grading work, outbuildings, and abandoned vehicles. By 2023, about seven out of ten drone sorties intended to track cannabis violations did not reveal any cannabis issue. County records showed the collection of 5,600 photographs from roughly 700 flights since 2019.
The original funding application stated that drones would target “remote cultivation sites,” but officials later authorized “discretionary proactive investigations.”
“They effectively halted the growth of the cannabis industry in the county,” remarked Nick Hidalgo, a senior attorney with the ACLU of Northern California. “It dropped off dramatically. There was no other justification for these flights, so they broadened their aims to encompass these other purposes.”
Hidalgo said the settlement safeguards residents’ privacy after what he described as an “unlawful” campaign that county officials tried to keep hidden from residents and the press. He noted that code enforcement officers piloted drones “of their own accord without cause, seeking out code violations.”
The county agreed to pay $50,000 to each plaintiff, including Nichola Schmitz, who is deaf and learned only from a neighbor in 2023 that a warrantless drone flight over her rural farm had captured evidence of alleged code violations.
“No one should have to fear opening their blinds or stepping into their own yard because a government drone might be watching,” Schmitz said in a press release issued by the ACLU of Northern California. She had been fined thousands of dollars by the county, which also placed a lien on her property, causing significant personal stress.
Residents who lost their homes after the county used evidence obtained through warrantless drone flights hope the settlement could fortify their own legal challenges.
“I think this is going to open them up to other lawsuits,” said Keni Meyer, a dog trainer who lost her home near Sebastopol after the county claimed a slew of minor code violations. “I’ve got a court date on October 27, and I could potentially get my house back. We’re going to keep fighting for it.”
For more than a year, she has been living in a trailer park following a chaotic forced eviction in June 2025 from her foreclosed home after amassing fines exceeding $375,000. “I never would have imagined in Sonoma County that this could have happened,” she added. “It would have been the last county in the world that I expected people to be so cruel and so cold.”
The three cases pursued by the ACLU were only the “tip of the iceberg,” Meyer said, with one elderly resident in Cazadero recently losing his home. “There are many more intricate cases involving far more vulnerable individuals.”
Residents described drones lingering over pools, hot tubs, children’s play areas, and backyard gatherings. Some complained that drones could peer through windows or capture people while naked. The county had already paused its warrantless drone campaign last year, according to the ACLU of Northern California, amid discussions over the lawsuit.
“There’s something even creepier about surveilling children as they enjoy time by the pool in their own home,” Hidalgo remarked. “That kind of intrusion into personal autonomy is deeply chilling when the government can watch you at any moment.”
Now, beyond requiring a warrant in most scenarios, the county must notify residents if their home has been surveyed by a drone. Sonoma also agreed to stop amassing images of private residences and to delete drone footage 30 days after collection unless it serves an ongoing investigation. To bolster compliance, the county must provide drone flight logs to the ACLU of Northern California every six months for two years.
“Forty years ago, the California Supreme Court barred the government from conducting aerial surveillance of people’s homes and the surrounding areas without a warrant,” the ACLU of Northern California noted in its press release. “Today’s settlement reinforces that constitutional safeguard, which is more crucial than ever as high-powered drones make it far easier for agencies to pry into private lives.”
Sonoma County Board of Supervisors Chair Rebecca Hermosillo told The Press Democrat: “We need guardrails for this. It was rolled out somewhat under the radar, so it’s essential that we establish a drone policy…. I understand the intent, but we shouldn’t use it, in effect, to spy on our constituents.”
Three county officials—Tennis Wick, director of Permit Sonoma; Tyra Harrington, code enforcement manager at Permit Sonoma; and Todd Hoffman, a senior code enforcement inspector at Permit Sonoma—who oversaw the drone program have already departed from their positions amid scrutiny and litigation over the past two years. In August 2025, Sonoma County’s legal counsel, Robert Pittman, also announced his retirement.
Permit Sonoma had been funded by collected fees and fines until July, but after reforms it now operates largely on general county funds, with a reduced emphasis on penalties and a greater focus on helping residents achieve compliance.
“The county disagrees with the ACLU’s characterization of the case,” a Sonoma County spokesperson stated. “The county remains opposed to the plaintiffs’ claims, and the settlement explicitly states that it is not an admission of fact, liability, or responsibility. The settlement preserves Permit Sonoma’s ability to use drones, while establishing standards for drone use around private homes and nearby areas. Those standards will be incorporated into a revised policy through a public process before the board of supervisors.”
