Harassed by the Fuzz!

[CarlJ]

I was filming a sign in the little town nearest my house, I had stopped in the shop and asked the owner before I began filming, she said it was fine. I started to pack my stuff in the car and that's when the police pulled up. There was an older officer and a much younger one. The older police officer approached me and asked "have you been using a drone around here?", I said you know I have, it's in the back of my car (you could see it). The older cop did most of the talking and explained that "a woman" had complained that I was chasing her with my done. I told the cop that wasn't true, I was filming the sign I was standing next too.

About that time some strange creature came screaming out of the Burger King across the street. She started yelling at me that I was a pervert and that I was trying to record her without her permission. I said that's crazy, I didn't film you, and my quad never left the parking lot I'm in. She seemed drunk, and she didn't have a tooth in her head, so I asked the cop who he was going to believe, me standing there minding my own business, or the drunken toothless wonder over there? That pissed the cop off, and he told me it was uncalled for. I said it was okay for her to call me a pervert, but I'm not allowed to point out the teeth missing from her face? He told me to drop it.

Right then a Sheriff's deputy came over and informed the police that he had been there the entire time, and that I never once moved the drone from that location, and that I wasn't chasing anyone. I asked if the cop was going to arrest the woman for driving while intoxicated, and for making false statements to the police. He replied that he wasn't there to arrest anyone, but you sure could have fooled me!

During all this the younger cop asked "How much does it cost? How long can you fly?" All the usual stuff...

The older cop finally admitted that he was mistaken, but he believed the woman because of other reports of my drone being in a local park. I told him that was true because they were constructing a skate park, and I had been filming their progress. He asked if I had written permission, I said I had verbal permission. The police then informed me that from now on I was required to get written permission for any subject I was filming, be that a building or person. If I was stopped again and did not have the required forms signed and dated they would confiscate my quad.

Just thought you guys should know.

Also I live in Indiana, and according to my attorney (oh hell yes I called him!) the cop was correct about written permission.

 

[skysteve]

A lot of hastle but a good result nontheless

I said it was okay for her to call me a pervert, but I'm not allowed to point out the teeth missing from her face? He told me to drop it.

Loved that line. Good point well made

 

[Old Gazer]

That's really a bunch of crap. Just harassment. If I were to take my small handheld camcorder to the park, I would need written permission to use it? What's the difference, 6ft or 100 ft? Nothing. I absolutely hate being told what I can and cannot do. Where's the harm? Who are you bothering? The drunk across the street? Free country my ***.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Garysam]

1. Okay if I was in that same town took out my 35mm camera and or smart phone and took a picture of a building are they saying I would have to get written permission from building occupants/owner.

2. I'm taking picture of my wife in same town are they saying I would have to have written permission from her to take her picture and permission from the building owner because building was in the background.

3. Something not right here or I do not understand

 

[sergekouper]

You definitely need some laws. In the UK it's much clearer, the rules are:
no less than 50 meters from people you don't control,
no less than 50 meters of structures, buildings and vehicles.
no less than 150 m from crowds
No fly zones are enforced
You have to have the permission to take off from a property
400 feet high max.
500 meters radius max
If you fly professionally, you must be Licensed and insured (There's a certification based on an exam, theorical and practical, needed to operate commercialy an UAV)
Upon getting this certification, the CAA (FAA for the US) gives you permission to fly your drone (and this one only BTW). It is an official document that you'd better carry with you.
From there, unless you fly recklessly, Ugly Betty can complain as much as she wants, she will be the one in trouble!
I know it's still vague in the US , but I'm pretty sure things will change soon.

 

[CarlJ]

I asked the cops if they had been stopping people with cell phones because they also have cameras, but they just kept referring me to the Indiana State Law.

 

[CarlJ]

1. Okay if I was in that same town took out my 35mm camera and or smart phone and took a picture of a building are they saying I would have to get written permission from building occupants/owner.

2. I'm taking picture of my wife in same town are they saying I would have to have written permission from her to take her picture and permission from the building owner because building was in the background.

3. Something not right here or I do not understand

Only if the picture were taken from a quad, then you would need your wife to give written permission...according to them.

 

[donniew]

How do y'all keep up with all these new laws from municipalities to states ?

 

[Garysam]

Carl, what is the name of this town in Indiana I love a good fight I'm retired have some time on my hands lol I would take lots of pictures with 35mm camera iPhone and the quad, I doubt that they even have laws on their books regarding this how you described it. I would especially take pictures of state owned buildings those *** buildings are publicly owned. But I would definitely challenge them.

 

[CarlJ]

I live very near Peru Indiana. The law the officers were referring to is Indiana HB 1009, but I think their interpretation is flawed.

 

[mikey]

Garysam,

I'm way up in Canada so of no assistance, but I like your thoughts, us 'drone' fliers need to stick together.

 

[darwin-t]

There was a PROPOSED law to regulate photography from remote control aircraft, but it didn't pass. I'll look it up. I live in Indiana, too. I remember writing to my local representative about it.

 

[Doono]

Also I live in Indiana, and according to my attorney (oh hell yes I called him!) the cop was correct about written permission.

CarlJ

So rather than us guessing the law as it applies, your attorney seems quite sure, what law/legislation/town ordnance is he referring to that stops you from filming without written permission?

Edit: HB 1009 refers to school marshals, love to hear what your attorney says.

 

[Old Gazer]

This could be any town USA. I try to avoid the bs by flying in areas away from people, but it's almost impossible to avoid everyone. I'm just waiting for my first run in with the law.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

[darwin-t]

Here is the law mentioned

http://iga.in.gov/legislative/2014/bills/house/1009/#

Surveillance and privacy. Requires a law enforcement officer to obtain a search warrant in order to use an unmanned aerial vehicle, with certain exceptions. Exempts electronic or video toll collection activities and facilities from certain restrictions relating to video and electronic surveillance and data collection. Provides that a law enforcement officer may not compel a person to provide a passkey, password, or keycode to any electronic communication service, electronic device, or electronic storage, or any form of stored electronic user data without a valid search warrant issued by a judge. Prohibits a law enforcement officer or law enforcement agency from using a real time tracking instrument that is capable of obtaining geolocation information concerning a cellular device or a device connected to a cellular network unless certain conditions are met. Provides that, except for a law enforcement officer or governmental entity who has obtained a search warrant, a person who knowingly or intentionally places a camera or electronic surveillance equipment that records images or data of any kind while unattended on the private property of another person without the consent of the owner or tenant of the private property commits a Class A misdemeanor. Establishes a procedure to use electronic mail to apply for a warrant. Provides immunity from civil and criminal liability for certain entities that provide information pursuant to certain court orders. Provides certain procedures for the issuance of search warrants concerning electronic communication service or remote computing service that affect the law concerning a journalist's privilege against disclosure of an information source. Urges the legislative council to assign to a study committee during the 2014 legislative interim the topic of digital privacy, including: (1) issues related to searches of electronic devices, compelling the disclosure of electronic user data, the collection and use of geolocation information, and the collection and use of biometric information by government agencies; and (2) any other issue concerning digital privacy and related subjects.

I would ask the police department for the actual law that they are referring to. The only part of this that does not refer to police departments or government entity is this:

Provides that, except for a law enforcement officer or governmental entity who has obtained a search warrant, a person who knowingly or intentionally places a camera or electronic surveillance equipment that records images or data of any kind while unattended on the private property of another person without the consent of the owner or tenant of the private property commits a Class A misdemeanor.

 

[darwin-t]

This may be he one I was thinking of - it did not pass.

http://iga.in.gov/legislative/2014/bills/senate/336/

DIGEST

Unmanned aerial systems. Requires the division of preparedness and training within the Indiana department of homeland security to develop and administer a program to license persons who operate unmanned aerial systems. Provides that a person who operates an unmanned aerial system without a license commits a Class C infraction.

S 01/14/2014 First Reading: Referred to Homeland Security, Transportation, and Veterans Affairs

 

[CarlJ]

This may be he one I was thinking of - it did not pass.

http://iga.in.gov/legislative/2014/bills/senate/336/

DIGEST

Unmanned aerial systems. Requires the division of preparedness and training within the Indiana department of homeland security to develop and administer a program to license persons who operate unmanned aerial systems. Provides that a person who operates an unmanned aerial system without a license commits a Class C infraction.

S 01/14/2014 First Reading: Referred to Homeland Security, Transportation, and Veterans Affairs

Sorry guys I had to dump the video on my tablet and run it into my attorney's office. He said the language the police are referring to is:

""Unlawful Photography and Surveillance on Private Property," a Class A misdemeanor. This crime is committed by a person who knowingly and intentionally electronically surveys the private property of another without permission."

And when I look up Indiana HB 1009 I see a law about police using drones...

 

[CarlJ]

Indiana is the first state to enact a UAS law in 2014. HB 1009 creates warrant requirements and exceptions for the police use of unmanned aircraft and real time geo-location tracking devices. It also prohibits law enforcement from compelling individuals to reveal passwords for electronic devices without a warrant. If law enforcement obtains information from an electronic service provider pursuant to a warrant, the provider is immune from criminal or civil liability. The law provides that if police seek a warrant to compel information from media entities and personnel, then those individuals must be notified and given the opportunity to be heard by the court concerning issuance of the warrant. The new law also creates the crime of "Unlawful Photography and Surveillance on Private Property," making it a Class A misdemeanor. This crime is committed by a person who knowingly and intentionally electronically surveys the private property of another without permission. The law also requests that the state's legislative council study digital privacy during the 2014 interim.

 

[macheung]

This may be he one I was thinking of - it did not pass.

http://iga.in.gov/legislative/2014/bills/senate/336/

DIGEST

Unmanned aerial systems. Requires the division of preparedness and training within the Indiana department of homeland security to develop and administer a program to license persons who operate unmanned aerial systems. Provides that a person who operates an unmanned aerial system without a license commits a Class C infraction.

S 01/14/2014 First Reading: Referred to Homeland Security, Transportation, and Veterans Affairs

Sorry guys I had to dump the video on my tablet and run it into my attorney's office. He said the language the police are referring to is:

""Unlawful Photography and Surveillance on Private Property," a Class A misdemeanor. This crime is committed by a person who knowingly and intentionally electronically surveys the private property of another without permission."

And when I look up Indiana HB 1009 I see a law about police using drones...

That law is about filming private property, a community park or street ought to be public.
Also, does one make any distinction between the subject vs other things that gets in the frame? If not, virtually any picture taken outside would have private property in it.

 

[CarlJ]

This may be he one I was thinking of - it did not pass.

http://iga.in.gov/legislative/2014/bills/senate/336/

DIGEST

Unmanned aerial systems. Requires the division of preparedness and training within the Indiana department of homeland security to develop and administer a program to license persons who operate unmanned aerial systems. Provides that a person who operates an unmanned aerial system without a license commits a Class C infraction.

S 01/14/2014 First Reading: Referred to Homeland Security, Transportation, and Veterans Affairs

Sorry guys I had to dump the video on my tablet and run it into my attorney's office. He said the language the police are referring to is:

""Unlawful Photography and Surveillance on Private Property," a Class A misdemeanor. This crime is committed by a person who knowingly and intentionally electronically surveys the private property of another without permission."

And when I look up Indiana HB 1009 I see a law about police using drones...

That law is about filming private property, a community park or street ought to be public.
Also, does one make any distinction between the subject vs other things that gets in the frame? If not, virtually any picture taken outside would have private property in it.

They told me no matter if someone ran into the shot and I wasn't trying to film them, I would still be in violation. I posted something about it on facebook and the phone has been ringing off the hook. I'm pretty sure we'll all be talking to the Mayor about this tomorrow.

Til then please enjoy Exhibit A in the case of The State of Indiana Vs CarlJ

Edit: and yes that's really the sign