Erkme, it's time for you to get off your butt, quit watching and reading everything about drones, and go fly!
Flying Over Private Property is Illegal?
- Thread starter quietleader
- Start date
Erkme, it's time for you to get off your butt, quit watching and reading everything about drones, and go fly!
People need to read and understand the _entire_ statue. The statue does not specifically apply to civil or criminal, it (and all statues) apply to both. First and foremost, it _is_ used in criminal cases. If you break a statute, law enforcement can issue a citation or even arrest someone (hence, criminal). The person who suffered damages is also welcome to file a civil case against someone citing a statute being violated and showing damages.
However, if someone were to look over this statue that would see that it's much more then an issue of intent:
(e) “Surveillance” means:
1. With respect to an owner, tenant, occupant, invitee, or licensee of privately owned real property, the observation of such persons with sufficient visual clarity to be able to obtain information about their identity, habits, conduct, movements, or whereabouts; or
2. With respect to privately owned real property, the observation of such property’s physical improvements with sufficient visual clarity to be able to determine unique identifying features or its occupancy by one or more persons.
It's not just showing "intent", it's also being able to show that the person flying the drone is focusing on that person or property. That is why "surveillance" is mentioned. Keep in mind, it's _not_ the photo or video that matters (as this is protected under the US Constitution), it's the intent of the person taking the photo or video. Now, think about showing "intent". How would someone prove to another person that a person was intending to follow a person's movements. A simple fly by, containing photos or video from several other things, would not be enough.
A jury also gets to see the entire statute and have it explained to them. Anyone reading the entire statute would see that it's aimed at following a certain person or their vehicle. Such, as law enforcement following someone.
This is a _good_ law for every day people in order to protect them from law enforcement using drones to follow you around and gather information without a warrant. People should want _more_ states to have this same statute.
I find it interesting that @N017RW liked that last iLawyer interpretation. So why is it that he 'abhors iLawyers' posting on the web, but happens to like this one? Could it be that he only abhors iLawyers that don't match his particular understanding. There are words to describe such positions.
It is amazing how two different people can read the exact same wording and come away with two different meanings. I suppose that's why juries in two simliar cases falling under the same statute will find two different ways. If the Florida law is really as black and white as our friend from Utah would suggest, then why even bother with litigating charges?
For yet a third interpretation, read this article written (this is for you @N017RW) an actual practicing Florida attorney...
http://www.propertycasualty360.com/2015/06/10/time-to-lawyer-up-what-floridas-new-drone-law-mean
**** , I screwed , because I just videoed 155 houses the other day , flying over my hood . I believe the intent of the law is for peeping Toms ( which it was referred to when some talked about it ) & I'm sure it needs to be pretty flagrant infraction to cause a trial . Like me flying 200' over my hood , hard to see anything , surely not someone undressing .
I will keep flying over beaches & woods & my neighborhood & won't give one rats A-- about this law .
I will keep flying over beaches & woods & my neighborhood & won't give one rats A-- about this law .
If this is aimed at peeping toms then there are already laws that cover that. This is aimed at evil drones, and any time a bad law goes on the book kittens cry.
Reactionary laws help no one (well, except the politicians that can tell people they are "doing something" about those <file in the blank>)
Reactionary laws help no one (well, except the politicians that can tell people they are "doing something" about those <file in the blank>)
Unless a peeping tom has a 50' ladder in his back pocket , can't see them getting a look see in a five story bedroom window .If you get the meaning . Most peeping Tome stay on the ground , with Drones , its a new world .
I actually couldn't say what most peeping toms do. I have no statistics for it, and I doubt you do either.
Wonder if someone has ever used the 5 story building next door to peep? Or sitting on a hill close by.
Make it illegal to do the act and quit blaming the tools.
After reading this and the story from the UK with the guy having his computer seized, it does make you think about some of the crappy footage that you don't use but still save. Maybe not a bad Idea to delete it, I learnt about BleachBit during our wonderful election cycle
N017RW
Premium Pilot
Part of the fear that drones create is the anonymity.
Who is watching and where are they?
The majority of past or typical peeps, I would wager, do so in person. That's why they get caught. Sure, you'd have to believe that some do it from nearby with optics but are not detected.
Drones can be.
Who is watching and where are they?
The majority of past or typical peeps, I would wager, do so in person. That's why they get caught. Sure, you'd have to believe that some do it from nearby with optics but are not detected.
Drones can be.
The updated FL Statute linked to on the attorneys website is interesting. It adds the following language:
"For purposes of this section, a person is presumed to have a reasonable expectation of privacy on his or her privately owned real property if he or she is not observable by persons located at ground level in a place where they have a legal right to be, regardless of whether he or she is observable from the air with the use of a drone."
I can seeing this part of the statute having some legal issues. But it's also an issue I've brought up before (not in this context). Normally a person could not do something like look over a fence if they were on that person's property. However, if a person were to be able to do something like stand on a hill which was public and see into someone's backyard, the person in the backyard would not have an expectation of privacy. As such, I'd say that a person could then also fly a drone over their property and "look" into that person's backyard as well. This is because the property owner could not claim that they had an expectation of privacy as it did not exist. In that the drone operator used a different means to see into the backyard should not matter. But you could go into more detail... what about seeing into someone's backyard with binoculars... does this negate their privacy (I don't know). I still have some reservations on a drone creating a new way for someone to see onto someone's property.
The other problem is that the people making these laws are many times clueless about the actual issue and/or simply write bad laws. Their rich buddy tells them drones are an issue and they then have their intern write up the law. Very little actual thought it out into it.
"For purposes of this section, a person is presumed to have a reasonable expectation of privacy on his or her privately owned real property if he or she is not observable by persons located at ground level in a place where they have a legal right to be, regardless of whether he or she is observable from the air with the use of a drone."
I can seeing this part of the statute having some legal issues. But it's also an issue I've brought up before (not in this context). Normally a person could not do something like look over a fence if they were on that person's property. However, if a person were to be able to do something like stand on a hill which was public and see into someone's backyard, the person in the backyard would not have an expectation of privacy. As such, I'd say that a person could then also fly a drone over their property and "look" into that person's backyard as well. This is because the property owner could not claim that they had an expectation of privacy as it did not exist. In that the drone operator used a different means to see into the backyard should not matter. But you could go into more detail... what about seeing into someone's backyard with binoculars... does this negate their privacy (I don't know). I still have some reservations on a drone creating a new way for someone to see onto someone's property.
The other problem is that the people making these laws are many times clueless about the actual issue and/or simply write bad laws. Their rich buddy tells them drones are an issue and they then have their intern write up the law. Very little actual thought it out into it.
I'm glad (and encouraged) that you took the time to read his interpretation. It is clearly not cut and dry. Where I think the law would not pass judicial review is the fact that it is technology specific. That is, capturing images from an unmanned aerial platform is a violation, but a go pro on a pole of equal height is fine. All other privacy regulations are technology neutral - and for good reason. If the goal is privacy, then the expectation ought to apply regardless of what tool is used to violate it.
My main point is that there is too much gray in this statute, and if the ultimate decision on whether there is a violation is going to come down to a jury of 12 of your peers, you better believe the majority (if not all) of them will be so hysterically anti-drone, that you can't possibly expect logic and sanity to prevail.
And even if it does, you will likely be bankrupted by the process.
There is a lot of knee jerk reaction to a lot of things by law makers , this is probably one of them , but Drones are the new world & there are people using them for less then respectable things & this is an example of the bad , effecting the good law abiding Drone users .
As said if your not looking at someone dressing or the like for your own pleasure , then I wouldn't worry about it .
It is not a kneejerk reaction. It is understanding that law makers try and make things more illegal. Spying on your neighbors is already illegal, but do it with a drone and it double illegal.
They do this because "drone" is a hot word right now, and getting into another law means they are solving a problem, making progress, taking care of their constituents. In reality they are just writing bad laws that can have unintended consequences.
A politician's first job is to get elected, the second job is to stay in office. Most don't seem to really understand what they are making laws about, they just want a sound bite or a press release to say they are getting things done.
I thought you meant the people who were against this law since you seemed to support it.
On the law maker's side, not a knee jerk reaction, just business as usual. Kinda like "find me something, anything, I can make a law about, there is another election coming"
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2017
- Messages
- 610
- Reaction score
- 303
- Age
- 63
I respectfully disagree, and find this a bit heavy on the conspiracy-theorist side of judging fellow citizens.
I think a more accurate analysis puts the blame more on the public than legislators. People are freaking out about drones showing up hovering around their homes. The stories are legion. Legislators are simply responding to this, and like most things, they are not experts. Further, they're trying to balance their constituents demands for privacy against a seemingly trivial priority, people playing with toy aircraft.
I chose this rhetoric deliberately, because it is how the non-drone-flying, completely uninterested in these annoying toys public sees this. That's about 99% of the population, and 100% of the people these legislators are hearing from.
It is not an invalid perspective. While we, drone enthusiasts, have a different perspective, theirs is every bit as valid and important as ours.
Similar threads
