Remember that the court found in favor of Causby in that case... the US Government lost. (Although the full decision did give contravene the previous common law principle and give the government authority over "navigable" airspace.) The government as a whole was not in the trial. They were the ones who owed and operated the planes being flown over Causby's property. This is the only reason why they were in the case. It had noting to do with the FAA, FAA's authority or regulations. It was a _civil_ matter so Causby's complaint was that the military caused him damages. The Supreme Court in it's ruling for Causby made case law about someone's use of their land and how using public airspace above that land _can_ interfere with the use of the land.
You mentioned earlier that no one owns the airspace over their property, they only have an easement. Again, I think you misread. Based on the above quote, the opposite is the case. The property owner in Causby was determined to have owned the space above his property. It was the government that had taken that easement and thus owed compensation to Causby.
This is incorrect. Here is an outline of the case:
Held:
1. A servitude has been imposed upon the land for which respondents are entitled to compensation under the Fifth Amendment. Pp.
328 U. S. 260-267.
(a) The common law doctrine that ownership of land extends to the periphery of the universe has no place in the modern world. Pp. 328 U. S. 260-261.
(b) The air above the minimum safe altitude of flight prescribed by the Civil Aeronautics Authority
is a public highway and part of the public domain, as declared by Congress in the Air Commerce Act of 1926, as amended by the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938. Pp.
328 U. S. 260-261,
328 U. S. 266.
(c)
Flights below that altitude are not within the navigable air space which Congress placed within the public domain, even though they are within the path of glide approved by the Civil Aeronautics Authority. Pp. 328 U. S. 263-264.
(d) Flights of aircraft over private land which are so low and frequent as to be a direct and immediate interference with the enjoyment and use of the land are
as much an
appropriation of the use of the land as a more conventional
entry upon it. Pp.
328 U. S. 261-262,
328 U. S. 264-267.
In Causby the property owner was ruled not to own the airspace but that he was entitled to an easement within that public airspace as to use his land as it was intended. The plane owners encroached upon that easement and caused damages.
It seems that you may be looking at D from your prior post when you say,
"It also states that a trespass in that airspace is the same at trespass on the ground". It does not say that it's _trespassing_... it states that it's an _appropriation_ (use). These are not the same things.
"C" appears to be what a lot of lawmakers can't seem to understand. This is why we see many local governments make their own laws up to 400'. This is probably where the "chief" is also confused. It does _not_ state that the FAA is not in charge of airspace below 400'.
If, however, you build a high "privacy" fence or take other actions to shield your yard from public view, you would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. It wouldn't matter if someone climbed a tree, put a camera on a long stick to reach over your fence, or flew a UAV over your property... it is an invasion of privacy.
Now we get into more of a legal decision and the context comes more into play. Lets say I have a tree house on some land next to yours and I climb that tree to enjoy my tree house. Can you sue me for looking over your fence? Are you saying _I_ can't enjoy my property (my tree) just because you put up a fence? Can I climb a tree just to stare at you in a bathing suit in your backyard? Probably two difference answers. My point is that the context needs to be considered. But the new/undetermined area is that the drone is in public airspace but it also does provide a vantage point not otherwise available. I'm all for people being able to fly over other people's property if, for example, they are just casually flying. But I'm 100% against someone hovering right over someone's backyard. This leaves a _lot_ of situations in between. It's a tough call. However, I _don't_ agree with local law enforcement trying to govern public airspace. We still need to follow the laws and respect _everyone's_ rights.
Another point which people often misunderstand... While you can take photo in a pubic place, how you use that photo can be limited. Public place or not, everyone still owns their own "likeness." You cannot use a photo of someone for commercial purposes without their permission. What constitutes "commercial" can be debated these days as technology has outpaced the law. If your YouTube video is monetized, it _may_ be considered commercial. You may need an attorney on retainer to find out for sure.
I'd say close, but not spot on. The argument in commercial use is that the photo taker earned money from the use of someone's likeness. So the person's likeness that was used can claim they are entitled to some of that income since it was based on their own self. That is, they have certain rights to their likeness. However, this "right" does not extend to the exact frame of the 1st Amendment. Right to be paid for the use of one's likeness does not interfere with someone's 1st Amendment right to obtain that photo. Another example is that a person can sue for damages over a photo. But this does not negate the 1st Amendment completely. I mention this as its actually _better_ for a person taking a photo to say that they _are_ going to dissimulate the photo. This puts it more in the realm of news which what the Supreme Court has mentioned as specifically protected. If you keep it to yourself it's less "expression" (aka freedom of speech).
Another thing to keep in mind... if the police officer reasonably believes his actions are legal you can be charged with obstruction or resisting. Even if the original charge is dismissed or shown to be unenforceable, the obstruction/resisting charge could still be upheld.
If as court rules that it's not a legal order, you can't be charged with obstruction. It's certainly a role of the dice though. Also, this is only if you don't stop. Personally, I'd take the ticket, stop and then fight it in court to get the case law established.
Thanks very much for the post. I really enjoy your interest in the matter.