How can I improve on my argument and my sentence structure below. I want to go into further detail with the persuasive arguments but I don't know how I can further improve/go in depth with it.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Slye Karguy runs a small salvage yard on a private piece of property of 2.5 acres surrounded by fences and trees. He was convicted under Wisconsin State law for charges of theft, trafficking in stolen property, fraud, and alteration of vehicle identifications numbers.

On the day of Karguy's arrest, the state and local authorities set up drone surveillance from about 100 feet in the air to investigate Karguy after they received anonymous phone calls that he was operating several automotive chop shops. The drone cameras captured evidence of dismantled vehicles, automotive parts, and license plates. Karguy was immediately taken into police custody and charged based on the footage.

At trial, residents in the community said the drones created unnecessary panic which caused multiple phone calls to the police, property damage, and at least one assault. The trial court considered all testimonies, exhibits, and arguments and found Slye Karguy guilty.

ARGUMENT

A SEARCH AND SEIZURE CANNOT BE PERFORMED WITHOUT A VALID SEARCH WARRANT AND MUST BE ISSUED UPON PROBABLE CAUSE.

175.55. Use of drones restricted Wis. Stat. Ann. 175.55

(1) In this section:

(a) "Drone" has the meaning given in s. 114.105 (1) (a).6

(b) "Wisconsin law enforcement agency" has the meaning given in s. 165.77 (1) (c) and includes the department of justice and a tribal law enforcement agency.

(2)No Wisconsin law enforcement agency may use a drone to gather evidence or other information in a criminal investigation from or at a place or location where an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy without first obtaining a search warrant under s. 968.12. This subsection does not apply to the use of a drone in a public place or to assist in an active search and rescue operation, to locate an escaped prisoner, to surveil a place or location for the purpose of executing an arrest warrant, or if a law enforcement officer has reasonable suspicion to believe that the use of a drone is necessary to prevent imminent danger to an individual or to prevent imminent destruction of evidence.

Wisconsin State Const. Art. I, 11: 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 warrant 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.

Pursuant to Wisconsin State Const. Art. I, 11 , Mr. Karguy had the right to privacy in his place of residence. He was secure in his own home and his personal privacy was violated by the unlawful search. The police had no right to spy on Mr. Karguy without his permission and did not have a valid search warrant issued upon probable cause when they seized him and his property at the time of the illegal search.

In 175.55 Subsection (2) states there must be a valid search warrant when a government entity conducts aerial surveillance with aid of a drone in search for evidence. The exceptions to this are use of a drone in public are "to aid in a search and rescue operation, to locate an escaped prisoner, to surveil a place or location for the purpose of executing an arrest warrant, or if a law enforcement officer has reasonable suspicion to believe that the use of a drone is necessary to prevent imminent danger to an individual or to prevent imminent destruction of evidence." Cite statute section here after quoting.

However, when a government entity is conducting a criminal investigation or for law enforcement purposes, a valid search warrant must be issued. Permission must be obtained by all those who will be imaged including the owner of the property that is imaged. Several of the residents in the area complained that the drones caused a disturbance and panic. Apparently, none of the people or Mr. Karguy were aware that they were being imaged, which goes to show the surveillance sweep was illegally performed. There was no immediate condition or pressing matter for the government to execute the search. They were simply reacting to anonymous phone calls that mentioned suspicious activity at Mr. Karguy's residence. The circumstances were not exigent and no felony activity was suspected.

In Barnes v. State (1964), 25 Wis.2d 116, 130 N.W.2d 264, police stopped the defendant because his brake light was not working properly. The officers had no warrant for defendant's arrest and no search warrant. They approached the automobile and advised him of the violation. They also "informed the defendant that the "violation" justified a search of his person and car" Citation here with pinpoint cite. The search of the car found no incriminating evidence but when his person was searched with aid of a flashlight, particles of marajiuana were found on the inside of his overcoat. Before trial he moved to suppress the evidence on the claim that it was obtained by a wrongful search; the Milwaukee Circuit Court denied the motion and found him guilty and Barnes appealed. The Court of Appeals held that it was unnecessary and unreasonable to search Barnes' pockets with a flashlight for remnants of marijuana following his arrest for a traffic violation. This case further established that evidence secured as a result of search and seizure that violates constitutional rights is inadmissible against a defendant charged with crime under W.S.A.Const. art. 1, 11, as well as a rummaging search for incriminating evidence. From the above case, the local authorities, by conducting surveillance on Mr. Slye Karguy's property, were in breach of the Fourth Amendment. The local authorities did not have a warrant to of search, and as such, as held in State v Barnes, the evidence collected is inadmissible.