Allie Schiele · March 2023
91 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. Arguendo 14
In 2020, the Baltimore Police Department (“BPD”) resurrected its dragnet aerial surveillance initiative—the Aerial Investigation Research (“AIR”) program. Using a plane outfitted with high-definition cameras, BPD was able to observe the daily movements of hundreds of thousands of Baltimore residents. Sophisticated technology such as the AIR program poses significant conflict with Fourth Amendment rights guaranteeing protection against unreasonable searches. Although the Supreme Court already ruled on the constitutionality of aerial surveillance in the 1980s, the advanced capabilities of new aerial surveillance render these decisions inapplicable in modern society. Instead, the framework presented by the Supreme Court’s decision in Carpenter v. United States provides a more workable test for considering cases of mass aerial surveillance. This Note argues that Carpenter’s privacy-protective approach to new technologies provides a better lens for analyzing modern mass aerial surveillance. This Note uses the AIR program and the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle v. Baltimore Police Department as an emblematic example of how Carpenter should be applied to future instances of mass aerial surveillance.
