DJI Phantom pilot busted for taking photos of VA Medical Center

I can't speak for him but I get the impression that he simply did not see any issue with this. He knows the person at the newspaper who wanted the photos. They used Cougar's drone to just get a few photos (he took 8 shots). He then took a few photos with his camera. Keep in mind that this is a "small town" where everyone (at least that I've met there) practices good southern hospitality.

He did show them the 8 photos that he took, to show that that they were just of the outside of the building but this is the _reason_ they charge him with taking the photos. They knew full well what the photos showed.

Legally he had no obligation to do anything unless they detaining him with suspicion of a crime. He certainly had no obligation to show them the data on the memory card or give it to them but he did anyway. He cooperated completely with them. He told me that it was a little intimidating, having 5 armed guards asking questions.

While it's nice to ask for permission, it's legally not required. If you then don't want to take photos, that is understandable. The issue I have is that we should let people to take away Constitutional rights. In this case they violated several of Cougar's guaranteed Constitutional rights. Once we allow this to happen it becomes much easier to continue to do.

I'm _not_ saying we should all be jerks about it. There is a difference between standing up for your rights and being a jerk. In this case there is nothing to show that Mr. Cougar was not very considerate and assisted law enforcement. What it got him was an illegal charge and an illegal confiscation of his property. What it got all drone fliers was another chip away from our rights to obtain photos with our drones. Right now it's "illegal" not to fly in many places. Entire cities and counties are simple banning drones. Soon we may not be able to "legally" fly at all.

And at the end of the day, he wouldn't have a story to share here had he alerted the hospital prior to filming.

Our constitutional right to fly where ever we **** please was trumped by the hospitalized Colonel's
constitutional right to privacy, perhaps?

Hmm, I work within the boundaries of HIPAA laws daily and the thought that they result from living in a "police state" has never crossed my mind.
 
Why do people freak out about drones so much? It's a wide angle lens incapable of zooming. You'd have to be flying about 10 ft away from a window to see anyway.
 
Our constitutional right to fly where ever we **** please was trumped by the hospitalized Colonel's
constitutional right to privacy, perhaps?

Hmm, I work within the boundaries of HIPAA laws daily and the thought that they result from living in a "police state" has never crossed my mind.

HIPAA has nothing to do with this. He did not take a photo of anyone in the building. Your attempting to prove your point with something that is 100% false. Cougar violated no one's rights in _any way_. You can make stuff up to suggest that he did but this is simply not the truth.

If he asked and they said no he would not be obligated to "walk away". If he did walk away then he'd be contributing to us losing our Constitutional rights. Sometimes you need to stand up for your rights otherwise you will loose them. But again, he cooperated with the authorities 100%. What this got him was a violation of his civil rights.
 
HIPAA has nothing to do with this. He did not take a photo of anyone in the building. Your attempting to prove your point with something that is 100% false. Cougar violated no one's rights in _any way_. You can make stuff up to suggest that he did but this is simply not the truth.

If he asked and they said no he would not be obligated to "walk away". If he did walk away then he'd be contributing to us losing our Constitutional rights. Sometimes you need to stand up for your rights otherwise you will loose them. But again, he cooperated with the authorities 100%. What this got him was a violation of his civil rights.

I feel very sorry for your new found friend.
However I don't see anyone's civil rights nor constitutional rights being violated here.
Can you please enumerate the violatons you are convinced happened???

Again, bottom line, your Mr. Cougar should have extended that wonderful southern hospitality and alerted the hospital to what he was about to do at the bequest of the newspaper.

I'm sorry if your ignorance of HIPAA laws causes you to accuse me of making stuff up to prove my point. I really don't need to fabricate facts to accomplish that goal.
Let me repeat, I do not think Mr. Cougar violated HIPAA laws, however the hospital may feel that he did and that was why he was arrested and his card confiscated. If you google the topic, you will see several people across the country have been arrested or had their digital files deleted for photographing OUTSIDE of Veterans Affiairs offices as well as VA Medical Centers.
 
Last edited:
I believe Mr. Cougar will be fine:

"...Mickey Osterreicher, General Counsel for the National Press Photographers Association, says not only did Veterans Administration police had no right to confiscate his memory card, but they are misapplying the federal code regarding unauthorized photography."

Mr. Osterreicher has written the following, which Jay Cougar will take to court with him on Friday:

"As with all cases the fact pattern is very important, such as where Mr. Cougar was located, which according to what you related to me – he was both on and off VA property.
I do not believe that the VA police had a right to seize his memory cards or his drone. Once again seizure of someone else’s property by the government violates that person’s rights under the Fourth (search and seizure) and Fourteenth (due process) Amendments, not to mention his First Amendment rights as a form of prior restraint. Generally speaking, without an arrest, seizure of a camera, cellphone or recording media by law enforcement is only permissible under exigent circumstances. Those are: (1) There must be probable cause that a serious crime was committed and (2) that the officer had a good faith belief that evidence of said crime was recorded on the device and (3) without such seizure said evidence would be lost or destroyed. All three prongs must be satisfied, which in this case I believe they were not, as a “violation” for “unauthorized photography” is not a serious crime (see below). Even with seizure, and absent voluntary consent by the person who recorded the images, the law enforcement agency must still obtain a warrant before they view or copy those files.
The FAA has stated that drones may not be used for commercial purposes. They just recently issued a memo regarding Media Use of UAS (see:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/264441605/FAA-Memo-on-Media-Use-of-FAA#scribd). But once again according to the facts as related by Mr. Cougar, his use of the drone would not be permitted under that memo. This has nothing to do with restricted airspace, and regardless, the VA police have no jurisdictional power under FAA rules other than to report the incident to that agency. If Mr. Cougar was violating FAA rules (for the first time) he would have most probably only received a cease and desist letter from the FAA.
As for unauthorized photography, pursuant to
38 CFR 1.218, “Security and law enforcement at VA facilities,” paragraph (a) section (10)“Photographs for news, advertising, or commercial purposes” states,“Photographs for advertising or commercial purposes may be taken only with the written consent of the head of the facility or designee. Photographs for news purposes may be taken at entrances, lobbies, foyers, or in other places designated by the head of the facility or designee” (emphasis added). Paragraph (b) “Schedule of offenses and penalties,” states, “Conduct in violation of the rules and regulations set forth in paragraph (a) of this section subjects an offender to arrest and removal from the premises. Whomever shall be found guilty of violating these rules and regulations while on any property under the charge and control of VA is subject to a fine as stated in the schedule set forth herein or, if appropriate, the payment of fixed sum in lieu of appearance (forfeiture of collateral) as may be provided for in rules of the United States District Court. Violations included in the schedule of offenses and penalties may also subject an offender to a term of imprisonment of not more than six months, as may be determined appropriate by a magistrate or judge of the United States District Court.” The fine set forth under Section (23) for “Unauthorized photography on premises,” is set at $50. Nowhere in that regulation does it authorize a multiplier factor of the $50 fine for each image recorded, so at most the fine would be $50 if Mr. Cougar either pleads or is found guilty of the violation.
Given that Mr. Cougar asserts he was taking exterior photos of the hospital for a newspaper that section of the regulation pertaining to news photography does not require permission and therefore the government may not be able to prove he violated the elements under that section. Additionally, if he was indeed not on VA property at the time of his arrest but rather on a public street or sidewalk this regulation would be inapplicable."
http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2...aphy-for-taking-aerial-photos-of-va-hospital/



Again, Jay Cougar should have approached the VA, told them the newspaper was doing an article on the solar panels on their roof, and he would be shooting some aerial photos of the panels for the article, and this entire brouhaha would have been avoided. But the fact that he didn't does not mean what he did was illegal.
 
I feel very sorry for your new found friend.
However I don't see anyone's civil rights nor constitutional rights being violated here.
Can you please enumerate the violatons you are convinced happened???

If you read the article linked to in the initial post, they are spelled out by an attorney.

Again, bottom line, your Mr. Cougar should have extended that wonderful southern hospitality and alerted the hospital to what he was about to do at the bequest of the newspaper.
Are you saying that he was required by law to do this or he just "should have"? Are you also stating that if he had and was denied that he was then required to give up his Constitutional rights and not take photos? or are you just giving a scenario (him just not taking photos) that would have avoided this situation?

I'm sorry if your ignorance of HIPAA laws causes you to accuse me of making stuff up to prove my point. I really don't need to fabricate facts to accomplish that goal.
I've worked as a claims adjuster (both health and property/casualty pretty much all my life (48 now), I'm very familiar with HIPPA laws and how they apply. You did make stuff up. There is no indication that he took a photo of anyone in the building (he denies it and the law enforcement who view the photos gave no indication of this nor did they charge him with that violation). If you have _any_ information or even an indication to show that he took a photo of someone in the building as you claimed, please feel free to post it. I'm not trying to insult you but you did clearly fabricate something he did not do in order to support your point.
 
Taking pictures of federal buildings solely for the purpose of taking pictures of federal building is frowned upon. this is a fine line

is taking pictures of a federal building with an iphone or a point and shoot or a reflex permitted?
 
Again, Jay Cougar should have approached the VA, told them the newspaper was doing an article on the solar panels on their roof, and he would be shooting some aerial photos of the panels for the article, and this entire brouhaha would have been avoided. But the fact that he didn't does not mean what he did was illegal.

I think you are misreading the law. If he were inside the building he could take photos with approval. Outside of the building you don't need this approval.

You seem to think if he asked that they would have said yes. Why do you think they would have said yes if asked when it's been shown that they did not want to allow him to take the photos. This is why they charged him with taking the photos... as they felt it was illegal to do as a matter of being in violation of the law. I think it's clear that they would have said no. At that time do you think he would have been required by law to leave without taking any photos or do you feel that he had every right to obtain photos... as allowed under the 1st Amendment?

Yes, he could have avoid all of this by simply not doing any of it. No dispute about that. We are not discussing this though. We are discussing his _right_ to take photos as was done and the VA's ability to charge him with a crime.

Every day we are seeing law enforcement enforcing fabricated laws and making up illegal laws against flying a drone. We are even about to the point where it's illegal to fly in every publicly owed area. Laws are even passed which don't allow us to fly over private property. It won't matter what the FAA says later, these illegal local laws will be used to threat people with fines and jail time. If we choose at that time to stand up for our rights we will have to prove what we are doing is legal at our own expenses. It used to be that lawmakers did the right thing when making laws. Now many of them are proposing an passing laws they know are illegal an law enforcement is enforcing laws incorrectly all to shut down all drone flying.
 
is taking pictures of a federal building with an iphone or a point and shoot or a reflex permitted?

Yup! Have millions of people taking photos of the Whitehouse? Are all of these people in prison or paying fines? Nope... not as long as they take the photo in public. Millions of pictures of people walking in and out of the Whitehouse as well. All perfectly legal. Heck, Suffolk County does not have a problem with taking photos with a phone or camera (as they know it's 100% legal). There is no law against this and they are not proposing a law like this. This law _targets_ drones only. They claim people should not fear having their photo taken but they don't propose a law to ban photos taken from a camera or phone (perhaps because no one has access to a phone with a camera) only a drone (because everyone and their mother does own one of these and flies them near County buildings).
 
I've worked as a claims adjuster (both health and property/casualty pretty much all my life (48 now), I'm very familiar with HIPPA laws and how they apply. You did make stuff up. There is no indication that he took a photo of anyone in the building (he denies it and the law enforcement who view the photos gave no indication of this nor did they charge him with that violation). If you have _any_ information or even an indication to show that he took a photo of someone in the building as you claimed, please feel free to post it. I'm not trying to insult you but you did clearly fabricate something he did not do in order to support your point.

You're pretty reactive for a claims adjuster. Haven't worked for a hospital though eh? Anyway....

Can you point me to where I said he must of taken photos of a patient?
You can't, becuase I've never said that.

In fact read my original post where I state that once they review the card and realize HIPAA was not violated they should drop the charges and return his property.

I used HIPAA to explain WHY the VA may have reacted the way they did.
Please don't accuse me of fabricating facts again.
Sayin' I claimed he photograhed patients is a fabricatoin.

Calm down.
 
Yup! Have millions of people taking photos of the Whitehouse? Are all of these people in prison or paying fines? Nope... not as long as they take the photo in public. Millions of pictures of people walking in and out of the Whitehouse as well. All perfectly legal. Heck, Suffolk County does not have a problem with taking photos with a phone or camera (as they know it's 100% legal). There is no law against this and they are not proposing a law like this. This law _targets_ drones only. They claim people should not fear having their photo taken but they don't propose a law to ban photos taken from a camera or phone (perhaps because no one has access to a phone with a camera) only a drone (because everyone and their mother does own one of these and flies them near County buildings).

i know its impossible but lets say it is possible to take off a quad in front of the white house, outside of its fence or whatever delimiters the property, elevate it a hundred meters and take some pictures, would it be illegal just because they were shot with a quad?

what about a loooooong selfie stick with an iphone, thats legal?

whats the difference between the quad and a 100 meter selfie stick?

thats why i found absurd and stupid when a police officer tells me im not allow to take pictures with my quad or my dslr.
 
I don't think you could launch a quad from across the street and fly over the White House without having your quad/drone confiscated either, regardless of your launch site.

Keep reading through the article but can't find a single civil rights violation, nor the violation of anyone's constitutional rights....
Oh well.
 
i know its impossible but lets say it is possible to take off a quad in front of the white house, outside of its fence or whatever delimiters the property, elevate it a hundred meters and take some pictures, would it be illegal just because they were shot with a quad?

what about a loooooong selfie stick with an iphone, thats legal?

whats the difference between the quad and a 100 meter selfie stick?

thats why i found absurd and stupid when a police officer tells me im not allow to take pictures with my quad or my dslr.
As goodnstuff mentioned, things change when it's specifically about the Whitehouse, just as it would change if it were an airport. Near the Whitehouse is restricted airspace. However, this does not apply to a VA hospital. You can take a ground photo of the VA just as you can the Whitehouse and the only reason you cannot take an air photo of the Whitehouse is because of the restricted airspace.
 
I don't think you could launch a quad from across the street and fly over the White House without having your quad/drone confiscated either, regardless of your launch site.

Keep reading through the article but can't find a single civil rights violation, nor the violation of anyone's constitutional rights....
Oh well.
The 1st Amendment guarantees freedom of speech. The Supreme Court has ruled that speech is communication. It's been ruled that photography is communication. So by preventing photography, that is otherwise legal, they are in violation of his rights under the Constitution. The article also points out the other Constitutional rights that were violated (4th and 14th if I recall correctly). This is specifically pointed out in the article.
 
The 1st Amendment guarantees freedom of speech. The Supreme Court has ruled that speech is communication. It's been ruled that photography is communication. So by preventing photography, that is otherwise legal, they are in violation of his rights under the Constitution. The article also points out the other Constitutional rights that were violated (4th and 14th if I recall correctly). This is specifically pointed out in the article.

Actually it isn't so simple as a "1st Amendment right."

This is very educational regarding the law:
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/photography-the-first-amendment

But again, there is not mention in the original article about civil rights, constitional rights, neither the 4th nor the 14th "constitutional right."

Try this: Pull up the article, Hit the Control button on your keyboard while hitting the F key (Control + F), a little window will open where you can enter any word or phrase you are looking for in the displayed article and it will search for them. My searchs are producing 0 results on the terms you claim are there.
But reading the article I've linked for you should explain the legal questions you have.
 
Actually it isn't so simple as a "1st Amendment right."

This is very educational regarding the law:
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/photography-the-first-amendment

But again, there is not mention in the original article about civil rights, constitional rights, neither the 4th nor the 14th "constitutional right."

Try this: Pull up the article, Hit the Control button on your keyboard while hitting the F key (Control + F), a little window will open where you can enter any word or phrase you are looking for in the displayed article and it will search for them. My searchs are producing 0 results on the terms you claim are there.
But reading the article I've linked for you should explain the legal questions you have.
I stand corrected. I read a lot of information on this case and it appears that I pulled this from another article.

Interesting read on photography
Many listed cases were against the photographer because they were in violation of other laws. Of particular interest was the information about communicating with the photos. Now if I'm ever asked to be sure to tell them something lie in gathering the media for an information piece. ☺

In this case Cougar told them he was getting the photos for the local newspaper. I see nothing to indicate that It not protected under the 1st Amendment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoodnNuff

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,359
Members
104,936
Latest member
hirehackers