PORTLAND, Oregon – In a landmark ruling underscoring the evolving intersection of technology and constitutional privacy rights, the Oregon Court of Appeals has declared that state police erred by using warrantless aerial surveillance in a 2021 investigation targeting illegal marijuana operations.
The eight-page decision, issued on July 4, 2025, provides critical clarity on law enforcement’s use of advanced surveillance tools and reaffirms the necessity of obtaining warrants for what the court termed “technologically-enhanced surveillance.”
The Case Against Sengdara Nakhiengchahn
The ruling stems from a June 2021 multi-county investigation involving the Polk County Sheriff’s Office and the Oregon State Police (OSP). The operation focused on suspected illegal marijuana cultivation activities.
Central to the case was the testimony of Oregon State Police Sergeant Tyler Bechtel. Operating a surveillance plane at an altitude of nearly 5,000 feet, Sergeant Bechtel observed a property that he described as a “massive agricultural operation” and “likely a marijuana grow.”
This observation, made without a warrant, contributed to the subsequent investigation and charges against Sengdara Nakhiengchahn, a 54-year-old individual linked to the property.
In August 2021, Nakhiengchahn was formally charged with two felonies: unlawful manufacturing of marijuana and unlawful possession of marijuana. Facing these charges, the defendant later entered a conditional guilty plea, under which the possession charge was dropped.
Court Finds Warrantless Surveillance an Error
The Oregon Court of Appeals reviewed the methods used in the investigation and concluded that the aerial surveillance, utilizing technology to enhance observations from a significant altitude, required a warrant. The court’s ruling meticulously analyzed the nature of the surveillance and its impact on privacy expectations under the Oregon Constitution.
The decision did not dispute Sergeant Bechtel’s observations themselves but focused on the method by which they were obtained. By characterizing the surveillance as “technologically-enhanced,” the court distinguished it from simple visual observations from public airspace, implying that the tools used provided a level of detail or invasiveness equivalent to a search requiring prior judicial authorization.
This ruling sets a precedent for how police agencies across Oregon must approach investigations that rely on similar forms of aerial or technological surveillance, particularly when aimed at detecting activities occurring within private property.
Protecting Constitutional Rights in the Digital Age
The Oregon Court of Appeals’ decision is seen by civil liberties advocates as a crucial safeguard against potential overreach by law enforcement equipped with increasingly sophisticated technology. As surveillance capabilities become more powerful and pervasive, courts are being asked to define the boundaries of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and corresponding provisions in state constitutions, such as the Oregon Constitution, which protect against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Kelly Simon, legal director for the ACLU of Oregon, highlighted the significance of the ruling in a statement. Simon emphasized that the decision is vital for upholding warrant requirements under the Oregon Constitution, particularly as police technology continues its rapid advancement. The ACLU has consistently argued that technological advancements should not erode fundamental privacy rights and that judicial oversight, via the warrant process, is essential to balance effective law enforcement with individual liberties.
Implications for Law Enforcement
The ruling provides police agencies in Oregon with the court’s clearest guidance to date regarding the use of aerial surveillance and other forms of technological monitoring. It strongly suggests that investigations relying on observations made with technology that enhances viewing capabilities, especially of private property, must be supported by a judicially approved warrant demonstrating probable cause.
Failure to obtain a warrant for such surveillance, as found in the 2021 case, could lead to evidence gathered via those means being excluded in court under the exclusionary rule, potentially jeopardizing prosecutions.
The Oregon State Police and other agencies utilizing aerial or technologically-enhanced surveillance methods are now expected to review their protocols to ensure compliance with the Court of Appeals’ directive. The ruling reinforces the principle that while technology can be a powerful tool for law enforcement, its use must adhere to the constitutional protections afforded to individuals.
In conclusion, the July 4, 2025, ruling by the Oregon Court of Appeals marks a significant moment in defining the parameters of police surveillance in the state, clearly indicating that the use of technologically-enhanced aerial methods requires a warrant to avoid infringing upon constitutional rights.
