Federal Lawsuit Challenges the Constitutionality of Criminalizing Citizen Drone Recording While Law Enforcement Operates Their Own

With the assistance of the law firm of Outside Legal Counsel PLC, Bay County citizen journalist Ray Rocha filed a federal civil-rights lawsuit  challenging the future enforcement of Michigan’s Unmanned Aircraft Systems Act against citizens who use drones to record and livestream police activity from lawful locations.

The lawsuit presents a straightforward constitutional question. The government may fly a drone to watch the public, but may it make recording the government a crime merely because police notice—or dislike—the presence of a civilian drone?

Rocha operates Baycountylive, a Facebook-based news platform, where he regularly reports on breaking news, fires, traffic incidents, community events, and law-enforcement activity throughout Bay County.

On November 10, 2024, law enforcement officials were searching for suspects near West Arnold and South Warner Streets in Bay City. Bay County Deputy Chris Berg deployed the Sheriff’s Office’s government drone. Rocha launched his own camera-equipped drone from the Kolb Elementary School area and livestreamed the police operation.

According to the newly filed complaint, the drones remained substantially separated. Berg’s own report acknowledged that “the civilian drone was not that close to the department drone.”

The deputy reported no collision, near collision, loss of control, emergency maneuver, physical contact, injury, property damage, or entry into federally restricted airspace. Instead, he discontinued the government-drone operation based upon a hypothetical concern that its automated return-to-home flightpath could potentially encounter Rocha’s drone.

Law enforcement then broadcast a demand that all civilian drones near the incident be landed—without announcing any prohibited altitude, separation distance, geographic boundary, or other objective safety standard.

Rocha was later prosecuted under MCL 259.321, which criminalizes intentionally operating a drone “in a manner that interferes with” the official duties of certain public-safety personnel. The statute does not define “interferes” or identify when otherwise lawful observation and recording become criminal. A jury convicted Rocha in May 2026.

“Police safety is legitimate, and no one has a constitutional right to collide with, obstruct, or endanger a police aircraft,” said attorney Philip L. Ellison of Outside Legal Counsel PLC. “But ‘interference’ must have an objective meaning. The government cannot transform lawful observation into a crime merely because an officer notices the camera, finds it distracting, or elects to stop the government’s own operation.”

The complaint alleges that the government’s interpretation permits an officer’s subjective reaction to determine whether protected newsgathering is criminal. Under that interpretation, an officer could create “interference” simply by diverting attention toward a citizen’s camera and then declaring that the resulting distraction interfered with official duties.

“That is a circular and dangerous rule,” Ellison said. “The First Amendment protects more than the final newspaper article or Facebook post. It also protects the creation of photographs and recordings necessary to inform the public about what its government is doing.”

The lawsuit asserts two claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. First is a First Amendment challenge to the prospective enforcement of MCL 259.321 against non-obstructive aerial recording and livestreaming of police activity. Second is a Fourteenth Amendment due-process claim alleging that the undefined term “interferes” fails to provide fair notice and delegates unbounded, after-the-fact enforcement discretion to individual officers.

Rocha seeks a declaration that the statute may not be enforced against his future recording unless his operation objectively and materially obstructs, delays, endangers, or physically disrupts an identified police duty. He also seeks an injunction prohibiting future enforcement against lawful recording unless the drone creates an imminent collision hazard or directly and materially impedes a specific official act.

The defendants are Deputy Chris Berg (the lead drone deputy) and Bay County Sheriff Troy Cunningham.

The case is Rocha v. Berg et al., filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. It has been assigned Judge Linda V. Parker.