this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2025
113 points (97.5% liked)

News

30798 readers
3294 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
JonsJava@lemmy.world
rjc@lemmy.world
Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
gedaliyah@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
jeffw@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
admiralpatrick@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
113
Huge fines coming for Californians caught by drone with illegal fireworks (www.sfgate.com)
submitted 1 day ago by ptz@dubvee.org to c/news@lemmy.world
35 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

California residents who lit illegal fireworks over the July 4 holiday may be in for a nasty surprise in the mail thanks to covert fire department operations.

A number of California cities, including Sacramento, have begun using drones to locate people shooting off illegal fireworks. From Wednesday to Saturday night, the Sacramento Fire Department’s special fireworks task force patrolled the streets with unmarked cars and drones, focusing on neighborhoods where they’ve had prior complaints. Task force officers and the drones took photos of the illegal activity, and within 30 days the property owner where the fireworks were used could receive a fine in the mail.

all 36 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ptz@dubvee.org 31 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I miss the days when the obnoxious fireworks were illegal in my state :sigh:

This year, Sacramento upped the fine to $1,000 for the first firework, $2,500 for the second and $5,000 per firework after that. If you lit a firework on city property, such as a park or a school, the fine goes up to $10,000 each. There’s no limit to how many fines you can be issued.

“If we see multiple fireworks being used at a single property, we can stack the violations based upon how many fireworks they're using,” SFD Fire Marshal Jason Lee told KCRA. “So, it could be thousands of dollars per location.”

Hell yeah. Keep me awake till 3 am with your constant "boom boom boom", that's gonna cost ya. The only thing that would make this story better is if after a certain threshold, they bring in armed Predator drones.

If I'm coming off a bit cranky, it's because I've barely slept in 4 days.

[–] bassomitron@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Have you called the police? They fucking suck, but even in legal states they still have city ordinances that don't allow lighting off fireworks all night long. I know in the last city I lived in that allowed them, you had to stop by 2230 and they typically enforced it on every day that wasn't the 4th of July. The city went on to eventually ban fireworks year-round except for NYE and a 2-week window around the 4th.

My point is, if your city doesn't have these types of ordinances, you should rally local support to get them implemented. I guarantee you there are tons of people who feel the same as you about assholes lighting off big booms at 1am.

[–] ptz@dubvee.org 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Unincorporated suburb, so no ordinance other than just being shitty, inconsiderate neighbors.

Best (only?) case would be a county ordinance.

[–] bassomitron@lemmy.world -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Ahh, damn... Yeah, that sucks. Do you guys have HOAs, at least? I know they get a bad wrap, but properly run HOAs can be a large boon for unincorporated neighborhoods.

[–] ptz@dubvee.org 3 points 1 day ago

Nope, and that was one of the selling points when I bought the place years ago lol.

Plus, the HOA zone would have to be massive since sound travels far and wide when those things fire off.

[–] Texas_Hangover@sh.itjust.works 0 points 13 hours ago

Pussies. Texas recently increased our legal firework selling holidays to 11 or some shit lol. We still have to go to Oklahoma or Missouri to get the best shit tho. Or roll our own.

[–] KingGimpicus@sh.itjust.works -1 points 16 hours ago

Oh look, a couple NIMBYs. How shameful

[–] betterdeadthanreddit@lemmy.world 27 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Next year's move is to mount the illegal fireworks to your own drone and hunt theirs out of the sky.

[–] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 19 points 1 day ago

This new series of Battlebots sounds pretty entertaining.

[–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 25 points 1 day ago (2 children)

This is nice in theory since everybody hates those assholes at 1am lighting off fireworks still. But, using a drone to find people in the dark, identify them, and fine them, there is so much worse shit this will be used for. And we won't be happy when the fascists come knocking bcz of this technology. We reap what we sow i guess.

[–] nickhammes@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Facial recognition technology being used for surveillance is awful, I agree, but I don't think that's what's happening here? It seems like they're just pointing a camera at fireworks, and identifying the property they came from.

Cops with camera drones are also a problem, but it's not like they'd need anything special you can't already get off the shelf to do this.

[–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

How do you think they identify people in the dark, maybe street addresses? Either way, its not good news.

[–] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago

Cross reference it with where the drone is and where it's looking. You don't need to know who is physically setting off fireworks to know who is living on the property. Hell you could achieve the same effect with a big stick and a camera.

[–] cyberpunk007@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago

Just what I was thinking. Some 1984 shit right here.

[–] SlartyBartFast@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 day ago

But why did drone have illegal fireworks

[–] Zorsith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 1 day ago

There was a drone (prop plane type, not quadcopter) flying over neighborhoods for a while on the 4th, wouldn't surprise me if it was from the city to catch people. This being in Ohio.

Like, i get it; first few 4th of julys after I turned 18 i bought fireworks too, and it was fun. At a certain point the novelty wore off and it was stupid and dangerous, and i was literally blowing hundreds of dollars for no real reason.

[–] Wahots@pawb.social 7 points 21 hours ago

Nobody shot off fireworks here because of the grave situation in our country. Just an eerie hush over the city. We've lived here for 60 years and never seen anything like 2025.

[–] foggy@lemmy.world -2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

How about huge dunes for tax dollars going to violations of the constituents 4th amendment rights?

[–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 16 points 1 day ago (3 children)

If you’re setting off fireworks, you have no expectation of privacy.

It’s shouting “look at me!” for miles around.

[–] mienshao@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago

Seriously. I hate when people who have no idea how the law works start throwing around the Constitution. Like how is it “unreasonable search and seizure” for the government to use cameras to see who’s setting off literal sky-high explosives in their backyard? That definitely falls under the realm of ‘reasonable’ govt actions lol

[–] socphoenix@midwest.social 9 points 1 day ago

Plus it’s outside where there already is t an expectation of privacy? It’s always been legal in the US to take photos from the street/sky for evidence

[–] foggy@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

An expectation of privacy has literally nothing to do with the 4th amendment.

[–] SheeEttin@lemmy.zip -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Which fourth amendment are you reading? Because the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution is pretty clearly about privacy.

[–] foggy@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] SheeEttin@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

privacy

the state of being apart from other people or concealed from their view; solitude; seclusion.

the state of being free from unwanted or undue intrusion or disturbance in one's private life or affairs; freedom to be let alone.

freedom from damaging publicity, public scrutiny, secret surveillance, or unauthorized disclosure of one’s personal data or information, as by a government, corporation, or individual.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/privacy

Seems pretty clear cut to me. If you disagree, I'm anxious to hear your explanation.

[–] foggy@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago

I'm not going to waste my time. The context was public expectation of privacy. It is different. Learn to read.

[–] SheeEttin@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Which part of "persons, houses, papers, and effects", any even any kind of private property, is the air above your house?