In April, 2020, the Baltimore City Policy Department entered into a contract with an organization called “Persistent Surveillance Systems,” or “PSS,” for the purpose of conducting an “Aerial Investigation Research” (“AIR”) pilot program in Baltimore. During the AIR six-month pilot program, PSS plans to fly aircraft over Baltimore for approximately twelve hours a day, every day. Once per second, the planes will collect images of approximately ninety percent of the city at a time. This surveillance system will record virtually all of the outdoor movements of all of Baltimore’s 600,000 residents.  (Can you say, “Big Brother?”)  Not surprisingly, plaintiffs (led by the ACLU) filed a lawsuit in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 2201, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that this AIR pilot program violates their constitutional rights under the First and Fourth Amendments. Specifically, they claim that the constant surveillance infringes upon their reasonable expectation of privacy, resulting in indiscriminate searches, and that the data analysis attendant to the program violates the Fourth Amendment. The plaintiffs also tossed in a First Amendment argument just for kicks, claiming that the program violates their right to freedom of association. The federal trial court judge ruled in favor of the defendant police department (456 F. Supp. 3rd 699) and plaintiffs appealed. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal, in a split 2-to-1 decision, upheld the trial court’s ruling, holding that Baltimore’s aerial surveillance plane program passes constitutional muster.  The Court held that this aerial surveillance program does in fact help police combat crime and does not violate the residents’ right to privacy.  Per the Court: “In addition to not infringing (on) a reasonable expectation of privacy, the AIR program seeks to meet a serious law enforcement need without unduly burdening constitutional rights.”  (Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle v. Baltimore Police Department (4th Cir. Nov. 5, 2020) 979 F.3rd 219.) Interesting decision, and one we are likely to hear about again.  But maybe the good citizens of crime-ridden Baltimore, in this anti-law enforcement—“defund the police”—era, are just getting tired of being victimized.  Makes me wonder, as California’s crime rates skyrocket with the election of more and more “progressive” state and local officials, whether California’s citizens will ever reach a similar conclusion.