Other documents suggest the drone was below 400 feet of altitude, to comply with FAA regulations. That makes the surveillance fall outside some established case law that law enforcement can surveil from "publicly navigable airspace (above 400 feet)" without a warrant.
The 400 feet AGL rule has nothing to do with the FAA's definition of publicly navigable airspace.
FAA considers anything above "blades of grass" to be subject to under their authority. There's some question about what makes a given airspace "publicly navigable", but it's generally understood (at least by hobby drone operators like myself) that if there's nothing overhead and there are no tall structures close by, the FAA considers that airspace publicly navigable.
On the 400' rule: Outside of specially-granted permission and certain other specific situations (e.g., around tall buildings), the FAA requires all unmanned aerial systems ("drones", although that includes things like RC planes) to operate lower than 400' AGL within Class G airspace. The LAANC system is a somewhat automated way to obtain permissions in some controlled airspace.
Since the surveillance in this case appears to be from publicly navigable airspace (according to the FAA's definition), I would expect established case law discussed in the aerial surveillance doctrine Wikipedia page to allow it, regardless of the use of a drone. The use of a private contractor might be of some interest in the case, but I'd wager it's viewed by the court as irrelevant so long as the pilot was complying with the Part 107 rules.
I wasn't rendering that as my opinion, but rather looking at some of the prior cases cited in this case. Here's one example, there are others.
Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989)
"Because there is reason to believe that there is considerable public use of airspace at altitudes of 400 feet and above, and because respondent introduced no evidence to the contrary before the state courts, it must be concluded that his expectation of privacy here was not reasonable. However, public use of altitudes lower than 400 feet -- particularly public observations from helicopters circling over the curtilage of a home -- may be sufficiently rare that police surveillance from such altitudes would violate reasonable expectations of privacy, despite compliance with FAA regulations."
In this particular instance, I would be much more interested if the overflight was legal to maintain compliance in response to the original judicial ruling.
They could order 6 inch resolution satellite photos or even better from companies like Maxar and Airbus, too.
Two sides to this, the operator could have requested clearance of the airspace to fly above 500' OR the township should have hired a fixed wing aircraft to photograph this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_surveillance_doctrine