A Calabasas resident has filed a federal lawsuit in the Central District of California alleging that agencies including the Los Angeles Police Department, Los Angeles Fire Department, and Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department have been subjecting him to years of low-altitude, unjustified helicopter surveillance in violation of his constitutional rights.
Scott Wallace claims that for over four years, public safety helicopters have flown over his residence and locations he visited—sometimes more than 60 times in the past two years alone—at altitudes below 500 feet, generating excessive noise, vibration, and emotional distress. According to the complaint, these flyovers occurred in the absence of any active emergency or law enforcement operation.
Wallace further alleges that the helicopters routinely operated without broadcasting required ADS-B (Automatic Dependent Surveillance–Broadcast) data or used anonymized signals to mask the aircrafts’ identities—practices that are prohibited by FAA regulations unless an exemption applies. The suit claims these omissions violate federal aviation rules and serve to conceal the identity of the agencies conducting the surveillance.
The lawsuit asserts six causes of action:
- Violation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for unlawful aerial surveillance,
- Intentional infliction of emotional distress,
- Nuisance,
- Invasion of privacy,
- Negligence, and
- Declaratory and injunctive relief.
Wallace seeks over $100 million in damages, along with a temporary restraining order and permanent injunction to prohibit continued low-altitude helicopter flights over his home absent an actual emergency or law enforcement necessity.
According to the complaint, requests made to LAPD, LAFD, and LACSD for flight records and justifications were repeatedly denied, further fueling the plaintiff’s belief that the flyovers were unauthorized and harassing in nature.
The plaintiff’s legal theory rests not only on Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment grounds but also on state tort claims and aviation safety standards. The suit cites prior decisions including California v. Ciraolo and United States v. Jones to support the contention that warrantless and persistent aerial surveillance violates constitutional protections.
Whether the alleged conduct will be deemed a legitimate government operation or an unconstitutional intrusion remains to be seen. The case raises novel questions about how emerging tracking technology and airspace usage intersect with individual privacy rights—particularly in heavily surveilled urban environments like Los Angeles.
