First Negative Encounter in San Jose

Joined
Aug 6, 2014
Messages
51
Reaction score
10
After almost two years of flying in a particular San Jose city park and hundreds of flights, this morning a ranger stopped by and told me no remote controlled devices are allowed in city parks. I was done flying in the deserted park, thanked him for the information and left.
 
After almost two years of flying in a particular San Jose city park and hundreds of flights, this morning a ranger stopped by and told me no remote controlled devices are allowed in city parks. I was done flying in the deserted park, thanked him for the information and left.
Curious what park is this? Never had any issues with rangers when flying in sj city parks
 

I'd say that code is outdated. That is, it was made before drones were around and really could be argued that it does not apply to drones.

"No person shall operate in any park, any model airplane, boat, car, rocket or other device that is powered by a rocket motor, an internal combustion engine, or other power source, except in an area and at such times as are designated for such use by the director of the department of recreation, parks and community services."

"or other device that is powered by... other power source"

Such as a radio or cell phone?
 
I'd say that code is outdated. That is, it was made before drones were around and really could be argued that it does not apply to drones.

"No person shall operate in any park, any model airplane, boat, car, rocket or other device that is powered by a rocket motor, an internal combustion engine, or other power source, except in an area and at such times as are designated for such use by the director of the department of recreation, parks and community services."

"or other device that is powered by... other power source"

Such as a radio or cell phone?
No it's not. Read it again. Whereas, it specifically states..."or other device... that is powered by other power source. Therefore, the ordinance is deemed current. The OP was right not to argue & left without issue.
 
Last edited:
No it's not. Read it again. Whereas, it specifically states..."or other device... that is powered by other power source. Therefore, the ordinance is deemed current. The OP was right not to argue & left without issue.

What is an "other device... powered by other power source"? This could be a cell phone, flashlight, etc. A person could argue that it never states UAV/Drone and never defines what it applies to so how could they know it applies to drones. The people writing the ordinance can write whatever they want to they are required to be clear on the matter.

In that they wrote, "other device" is laughable.
 
It's poorly written, but I'd bet most judges would rule that any reasonable person would conclude that it does apply to drones, since they are essentially souped-up model airplanes. Not a risk I'd want to take.

On the other hand, many people seem to get away with it on a routine basis... :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoodnNuff
What is an "other device... powered by other power source"? This could be a cell phone, flashlight, etc. A person could argue that it never states UAV/Drone and never defines what it applies to so how could they know it applies to drones. The people writing the ordinance can write whatever they want to they are required to be clear on the matter.

In that they wrote, "other device" is laughable.

The initial opening statement of this ordinance makes it clear that it applies to remote controlled aircraft and not cell phones or flashlights. "Other device/Power source" is an open ended catchall that covers battery powered aircraft. It was intentionally written that way to precluded future designs of aircraft from being loop-holed into legality.

There's nothing here to argue about. Don't like it, work in your local community to have the ordinance rescinded or changed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoodnNuff
What is an "other device... powered by other power source"? This could be a cell phone, flashlight, etc. A person could argue that it never states UAV/Drone and never defines what it applies to so how could they know it applies to drones. The people writing the ordinance can write whatever they want to they are required to be clear on the matter.

In that they wrote, "other device" is laughable.
Please, don't be ridiculous! Any intelligent, responsible person can comprehend what it defines.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoodnNuff
The initial opening statement of this ordinance makes it clear that it applies to remote controlled aircraft and not cell phones or flashlights. "Other device/Power source" is an open ended catchall that covers battery powered aircraft. It was intentionally written that way to precluded future designs of aircraft from being loop-holed into legality.

There's nothing here to argue about. Don't like it, work in your local community to have the ordinance rescinded or changed.

Vagueness doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"A statute is also void for vagueness if a legislature's delegation of authority to judges and/or administrators is so extensive that it would lead to arbitrary prosecutions.'

"Definitions of potentially vague terms, are to be provided"

You don't think "other device" and "other power source" is just slightly vague?

Meaning that law enforcement does not get to make up their own definitions. In leaving the wording so unspecific is a double edged sword.

If you read some of the examples of what the courts have ruled as "vague" I think you will see that a court certainly could rule in that in this situation.

If you want to read further:

http://www.tml.org/legal_pdf/ConstChallenges.pdf
 
Vagueness doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"A statute is also void for vagueness if a legislature's delegation of authority to judges and/or administrators is so extensive that it would lead to arbitrary prosecutions.'

"Definitions of potentially vague terms, are to be provided"

You don't think "other device" and "other power source" is just slightly vague?

Meaning that law enforcement does not get to make up their own definitions. In leaving the wording so unspecific is a double edged sword.

If you read some of the examples of what the courts have ruled as "vague" I think you will see that a court certainly could rule in that in this situation.

If you want to read further:

http://www.tml.org/legal_pdf/ConstChallenges.pdf

I certainly do believe the ordinance is vague, and intentionally so.

However, the courts in a given State are much more likely to rule in favor of the intentionally, liberal left leaning interpretation of a given description. Which is why it's so very important to my family and I to live in a State where individual rights are more important than federally mandated "rights".
 
It's not vague if you consider the title in context with the body of the code.

13.44.160 - Powered models - Operation restrictions
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoodnNuff
i had a similar experience this weekend flying in Alviso slough. When i was returning to my car a park ranger drove up and told me drones are not allowed in any county park. Too bad because this was my first time here and I was hoping to make this my regular flying spot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoodnNuff

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,356
Members
104,934
Latest member
jody.paugh@fullerandsons.