Increasingly, tools like Google Earth, which can show property changes over time, can serve as powerful evidence in adverse possession and other real estate cases. Recently, the Land Court issued a ruling on using satellite images as evidence, allowing a motion to strike for failure to properly authenticate two Google Earth photos. Ford v. Eckler (Order on Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike) 33 LCR 364 (2025).
Here, the defendant sought to use two satellite photographs from 2004 and 2007 to defend against their neighbors’ adverse possession claim. The photographs were attached to an affidavit of the defendant’s husband, which was filed in support of the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. When the plaintiffs moved to strike the photographs, the defendant filed a further affidavit of the satellite mapping service, arguing that this affidavit served to authenticate the photographs.
The Land Court noted three ways in which the satellite images could have been authenticated, but were not: (1) testimony of a witness who has personal knowledge of the photographs contents, (2) testimony of a witness providing “confirming circumstances” that the evidence was created by a particular person, or (3) testimony of an expert of a person familiar with the system that created the digital evidence. Yet, neither of defendant’s affidavits purported personal knowledge, nor did they provide “confirming circumstances” or purport to describe the methodology of the photos’ creation by an expert who is familiar with the system. The judge noted that without more, there was no way to tell if the images had been generated or manipulated.
This ruling adds to the small but growing number of decisions providing instructions on how to properly authenticate images from Google Earth and other satellite images. Such images are useful to show a property’s changed condition over time, including features such as boundaries, landscaping, and other visual context. As the use of artificial intelligence increases, so will the court’s skepticism about “unofficial” sources like Google Earth. The Land Court’s ruling in Ford v. Eckler provides a hint that, while not impossible to use Google Earth and other satellite images as evidence, it will likely apply the rules of evidence with increasing strictness.
Key words: real estate, evidence, adverse possession, Google Earth, Land Court