The Constitutional Court ordered a neighborhood association to cease the use of drones and cameras pointed at the interior of homes, in a decision that adds to a criterion that the court has been developing since 2022
SANTO DOMINGO. – The Constitutional Court (TC), through its Judgment TC/0684/26, of July 27, 2026, ordered the Neighborhood Association of the Estrella Marina Residential Complex, in La Romana, to refrain from installing cameras and using drones that violate the right to privacy and private life of the owners, although it does not rule out the use of security systems in a residential complex.
The case originated from a complaint by a group of residents, who alleged that the board installed a monitoring center with audio and video cameras, as well as drone units, in order to monitor the interior of the homes.
The Constitutional Court also invoked its ruling TC/0225/25 to reinforce the protection of a good name, understood as the reputation or concept that others have of a person, against the detriment that may be suffered by offensive expressions or biased information.
For neighborhood associations, consortiums, and residential management companies, the line drawn by the court is clear: perimeter security and access control, with the approval of the owners, have constitutional backing; monitoring that intrudes on the private lives of residents, whether with cameras pointed at homes or with drones flying over properties, does not.
The Constitutional Court recalled that the power of administrators of residential buildings or housing units to install security cameras in common areas or spaces is admissible, provided that it has the approval of the owners and does not constitute an intrusion into the private sphere of the residents.
This criterion did not originate with the Estrella Marina case, since in its Judgment TC/0094/22, the TC set a precedent in which it analyzed the installation of three security cameras at the entrance of a home within a residential complex and in that ruling, it determined that the cameras aimed at the door of an owner exceeded the objective of providing security and, therefore, affected her privacy and intimacy, by leaving her exposed every time she entered, left or received visitors.
What the TC/0684/26 ruling brings is the extension of that criterion from the scope of a conflict between neighbors to that of a board of directors that manages an entire residential complex.
The court concluded that the use of cameras and drones for surveillance purposes towards residents constitutes an undue interference in the private sphere of the owners, and violates their rights to privacy, honor and good name.
Recommended readings:
