Drone Surveillance Nets $300,000 Fine For California Homeowner Who Says He “Wasn’t Even Home”

A California homeowner faces a staggering $300,000 fine after a city drone recorded illegal fireworks at his property on July 4th—even though he insists he wasn’t there. The case, part of a nearly $1 million drone enforcement crackdown in Stanton, raises troubling questions about warrantless aerial surveillance, constitutional protections against excessive fines, and whether property owners should be held financially liable for activity they didn’t commit.

The Orange County city deployed drones over residential neighborhoods during Independence Day celebrations, resulting in citations against 18 homeowners totaling $929,000. All 18 are now fighting the fines, setting up what could become a landmark test of how far cities can push drone-based code enforcement.

Record-Breaking Fireworks Fine Based on Drone Footage

The homeowner who received the largest penalty—later identified as Fernandez in CBS Los Angeles reporting—was hit with charges of $1,000 per firework explosion. City officials claim drones recorded approximately 300 illegal fireworks at his property during the July 4th holiday.

“I wasn’t even home,” Fernandez told FOX 11 Los Angeles. “I was in my backyard, I was watching my sports. I say I don’t have nothing to do with it.” The homeowner disputes the city’s evidence, claiming the drone video “doesn’t prove anything.”

Stanton Mayor David Shawver defended the aggressive enforcement approach, noting the city provided advance warning.

“One thousand dollars for each explosion,” Shawver explained. “In that particular area, you’d be tripping over the signs that say you’re going to be fined for an illegal activity.”

Property Owners Liable Regardless of Who Lit the Fireworks

What makes this case particularly controversial is Stanton’s April 2025 “social host ordinance,” which holds property owners legally responsible for illegal fireworks activity on their property—regardless of whether they set off the fireworks, witnessed them, or were even present.

“What we did is we made the property owner responsible for illegal activity on their property,” Mayor Shawver told FOX 11.

This liability structure creates a potential nightmare scenario for landlords, property owners with tenants, or homeowners who were simply away during the holiday. According to reporting from local news outlets, property owners are responsible for the citations whether or not they were on the property when the alleged violations occurred.

The majority of Stanton’s citations fall in the tens of thousands of dollars range, but three exceed $100,000, with Fernandez’s $300,000 fine topping the list.

City Suggests Loans and Payment Plans For Six-Figure Fines

When asked how homeowners might pay these massive penalties, Mayor Shawver offered an extraordinary suggestion:

“You can take out a loan, right? You can borrow the money against something that you might own. I think probably one of the simplest ways would be to come in with a payment plan, which the city has done in the past, to where they make it affordable over a period of time so that the person can pay it.”

Stanton contracts with Turbo Data Systems to process the citations, with certified administrative hearing officers conducting appeal hearings. Multiple hearings have already begun, with more scheduled through October.

The financial stakes extend beyond individual homeowners. Stanton retains 35% of fine proceeds, with 65% going to the State Fire Marshal—creating a direct monetary incentive for the city to maximize enforcement actions rather than pursue traditional policing methods like sending officers to properties to stop violations in progress.

California’s Aggressive Fireworks Enforcement Expansion

Stanton’s drone program represents the most aggressive municipal fireworks enforcement effort in California, but it’s not alone. DroneXL previously reported that Riverside police issued over 60 citations for illegal fireworks on July 4th, more than doubling the previous year’s total, using five drones for aerial monitoring. Riverside fined violators up to $1,500 per violation.

In Sacramento, the Fire Department deployed drones from July 2-5, with an escalating fine structure: $1,000 for the first violation, $2,500 for the second, and $5,000 per explosion thereafter. Under Sacramento’s system, Fernandez’s alleged 300 explosions would have resulted in fines exceeding $1.5 million.

The enforcement disparity across California cities is striking. While Stanton issued $929,000 in fines to 18 homeowners, neighboring Brea issued just one $500 citation despite running its own drone program. Anaheim received roughly 400 fireworks-related calls but issued zero citations on July 4th, even though illegal fireworks fines there begin at $1,000 for first offenses.

Wildfire Risk Justifies Enforcement, But Questions Remain

California cities cite serious public safety concerns to justify aggressive fireworks enforcement. The state has experienced devastating wildfires in recent years, with illegal fireworks posing significant ignition risks during dry summer months.

Tragically, an 8-year-old girl died from injuries sustained during an illegal fireworks display in nearby Buena Park this past July. A 46-year-old man was arrested after police said he misfired fireworks toward the home where the girl was located, causing other illegal fireworks to ignite and strike her. Following the death, Buena Park announced plans to launch its own drone-based fireworks surveillance program.

These real dangers lend weight to cities’ enforcement priorities. However, the scale of Stanton’s fines and the property owner liability approach have drawn criticism from legal observers.

The Orange County Register editorial board questioned whether the approach is constitutional, noting that the 2019 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Timbs v. Indiana held that the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause applies to state and local governments. That case involved civil forfeiture of a $42,000 vehicle for drug violations carrying a maximum $10,000 fine—a ratio the Court found excessive.

Future of Drone Enforcement Program

Despite the controversy, Stanton officials call the program a success and expect to continue it. Mayor Shawver told reporters that cities throughout California have contacted his office to learn more about the drone program.

However, city officials say the drones will not be deployed for New Year’s Eve monitoring, another traditional fireworks holiday. Stanton maintains its drones are used exclusively for the fireworks surveillance program and not for broader law enforcement activities.

Cities from up and down California have reportedly reached out to Stanton for details about replicating the program, suggesting drone-based code enforcement could expand significantly if the current legal challenges fail.

DroneXL’s Take

This case crystallizes the tension we’ve been tracking all year between effective drone applications and constitutional boundaries. While we strongly support beneficial uses of drone technology—from emergency first responder programs to search and rescue operations—Stanton’s approach crosses into territory that should concern every drone advocate and property owner.

The numbers tell a damning story. As we reported in July, Riverside used drones to double their fireworks citations while keeping fines at $1,500 per violation. Sacramento’s escalating fine structure created deterrence without imposing financial ruin. But Stanton’s flat $1,000-per-explosion model, combined with strict property owner liability, creates a system where a homeowner can face life-altering fines for activity they potentially didn’t commit, witness, or authorize.

The 35% revenue retention is the red flag here. When we covered Chula Vista’s $500,000 legal penalty for transparency violations in their drone program, we noted how financial incentives can warp appropriate oversight. Stanton’s structure gives the city direct monetary motivation to maximize fines rather than pursue traditional enforcement—like sending officers to stop violations in progress.

This matters beyond California. As we documented in October, approximately 1,500 U.S. law enforcement agencies now operate drone programs—a 150% increase since 2018. How these programs navigate constitutional boundaries will define whether drones become trusted public safety tools or symbols of government overreach.

The California ACLU lawsuit against Sonoma County’s drone program invokes the 1985 People v. Cook ruling that prohibited warrantless aerial surveillance of private homes. Stanton’s program—flying over residential backyards without warrants to gather evidence for massive fines—walks directly into that constitutional minefield.

We’ve also seen how community opposition can derail beneficial drone programs. Just last week, we covered how Eureka Police withdrew their drone research proposal after organized community backlash, even though their documented use cases included water tower negotiations, missing children searches, and officer safety during tactical operations. Stanton’s approach risks poisoning public perception of drone technology statewide, making it harder for agencies with legitimate, proportionate uses to gain community support.

The wildfire risk is real—we’re not dismissing that. But there’s a universe of difference between using drones to identify active violations for immediate police response versus conducting warrantless surveillance to impose financially catastrophic penalties on property owners who may have been miles away. The fact that cities can accomplish similar deterrence at a fraction of the cost suggests Stanton’s model is about revenue generation, not public safety.

The legal challenges ahead will be fascinating. Can a $300,000 fine for fireworks violations survive Eighth Amendment scrutiny when nearby cities accomplish the same safety goals for $500? Does property owner strict liability violate due process when the owner had no knowledge or control over the activity? And critically for our industry: will courts distinguish between beneficial drone applications and this kind of revenue-driven surveillance?

What do you think? Share your thoughts in the comments below.