# Sonoma County settles ACLU lawsuit over drone surveillance use in code enforcement > Source: > Published: 2026-09-03 12:40:13+00:00 **Getting your** [Trinity Audio](//trinityaudio.ai)player ready...The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors has approved a settlement directing a series of regulatory reforms and $50,000 for each of three residents [who sued over](https://www.pressdemocrat.com/2025/06/05/aclu-sues-sonoma-county-over-use-of-drone-surveillance-for-code-enforcement-2/) the county’s use of drone surveillance for code enforcement. The June [2025 legal complaint](https://www.aclunorcal.org/cases/schmitz-v-sonoma/) alleged the county’s drone program – started to crack down on illegal cannabis operations – expanded, without public disclosure, to searches for civil code issues on residential properties in the unincorporated county. “This is a massive victory for the privacy rights of everyone in Sonoma County,” said Nick Hidalgo, a senior attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California. The ACLU Foundation of Northern California and law firm O’Melveny & Myers brought the suit against Sonoma County on behalf of the three local plaintiffs. “No one should be afraid to step into their backyards because a government drone may be watching,” Hidalgo said. The drone use employed by the county’s planning agency, Permit Sonoma, in part to levy large sums in fines and fees, according to the lawsuit filed in Sonoma County Superior Court. The plaintiffs alleged the program raised serious privacy and other civil liberty concerns, violated the California Constitution and amounted to an illegal use of taxpayer money. The county denied the claims as part of the settlement and admitted to no liability or responsibility. Both sides paid their own legal fees. But, the county did agree to new limits on code enforcement’s drone use, including the need for warrants or resident permission for focused overflights. The county must also develop a revised drone use policy subject to public review within a year. Sonoma County Board of Supervisors Chair Rebecca Hermosillo welcomed the changes. “We need guardrails for this. It was implemented a little bit under the radar, so it’s important that we establish a drone policy,” she said. “I encourage the community to come out and share their thoughts for what they want to see included or excluded.” Hermosillo said she understood why code enforcement began using the drones given the far flung, rural nature of the properties being inspected, but didn’t necessarily agree with the way drones had been employed. “I understand the intent but we shouldn’t use it, in essence, to spy on our constituents,” she said. Plaintiffs described facing tens of thousands of dollars in fines for violations caught in drone footage they didn’t know was being recorded. One woman alleged she and her daughter had stopped using their outdoor bathtub and shower, captured in photos by code enforcement officials, which she discovered only a year after the fact. The lawsuit alleged, at the time, that nearly half of code enforcement’s drone flights were unrelated to cannabis, and that the extent of the [program had been concealed from the public](https://www.pressdemocrat.com/2025/06/05/aclu-sues-sonoma-county-over-use-of-drone-surveillance-for-code-enforcement-2/). Between October 2020 and 2024, drone surveillance led to more than $3 million in fines levied by Permit Sonoma’s Code Enforcement division, according to plaintiffs’ calculations. The settlement did not impact the plaintiff’s code enforcement investigations. Going forward, code enforcement must either obtain a warrant or consent from the property owner or resident before flying a drone over a home or the land and outbuildings immediately surrounding it, with some exception for emergency circumstances. Other terms include limiting retention of drone footage to 30 days unless it is part of an ongoing investigation or otherwise required by law and requiring the county to notify owners or residents of private property that they may have been surveilled by drone. The county also agreed to provide the ACLU Foundation of Northern California with drone flight logs every six months for two years. Permit Sonoma expects to bring a drone policy proposal to the Board of Supervisors for approval next year, Scott Orr, the department’s director, confirmed Wednesday. [Orr took over in November 2025](https://www.pressdemocrat.com/2025/11/07/new-permit-sonoma-director-aims-to-rebuild-public-trust-and-speed-up-countys-development-process/), after the department’s longtime director, [Tennis Wick, who was named in the lawsuit, retired](https://www.pressdemocrat.com/2025/07/11/tennis-wick-longtime-sonoma-county-planning-director-announces-retirement-2/). “Through that process we’ll also get public comment, consistent with our effort to increase transparency as discussed earlier this year,” Orr added, referring to public board discussions. In addition to Wick, two code enforcement managers also named in the lawsuit, are no longer with the department. One named supervisor and two inspectors remain with the agency. During budget hearings in the spring, Permit Sonoma [proposed a major overhaul](https://www.pressdemocrat.com/2026/04/27/permit-sonoma-proposes-overhaul-of-its-code-enforcement-division-target-of-aclu-lawsuit-other-longstanding-complaints/) to code enforcement, funding the division’s 12 positions with the county’s general fund, instead of collected fees and fines. The idea behind the shift, which took effect in July, is to allow the division to focus less on penalties more on helping property owners and residents come into compliance, Orr said. The change came out of a recommendation from a Board of Supervisors committee started in January 2025 in response to community complaints about aggressive and punitive enforcement. The settlement will drastically reduce the number of drone flights in the county, increase transparency and provide residents a new opportunity to weigh in on policies that affect their lives, Hidalgo said. Pointing to the rapid expansion of surveillance technology used by governments, he said, “We do think that Sonoma did the right thing here in agreeing to these terms, and we do hope we can use this victory to convince other jurisdictions to stop spying on their residents.” *You can reach Staff Writer Marisa Endicott at 707-521-5470 or marisa.endicott@pressdemocrat.com. On X @marisaendicott and Facebook @InYourCornerTPD.* *You can reach Staff Writer Emma Murphy at 707-521-5228 or emma.murphy@pressdemocrat.com. On Twitter @MurphReports.*