Law Enforcement Contacted Me Regarding My Drone

Joined
Mar 4, 2016
Messages
36
Reaction score
6
Age
31
I received a call from a Nevada law enforcement officer regarding a drone flight I made over a private property.

He said that the business/property owner forwarded my footage to him and he came to the conclusion that I flew under 250ft directly over private property which is considered trespassing under Nevada law.

My question is this. Doesn't the FAA regulate the skies? Or am I possibly in some hot water here with the local authorities?

Any input will be greatly appreciated.
 

LuvMyTJ

Admin
Staff Member
Premium Pilot
Joined
Feb 9, 2014
Messages
9,274
Reaction score
5,553
Location
Live! From New York!
In that link in Sinisalos post was this...

If you have been charged with a drone-related crime in Nevada, we invite you to contact our Las Vegas and Reno criminal attorneys for a free consultation.

We know that most people who fly drones in the wrong place in Nevada aren't terrorists – they simply made an honest mistake. If you have been accused of a drone offense by the FAA, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police or another law enforcement agency, we fill to get your charges dismissed or reduced.

Fill out the form on this page or call us at 702-DEFENSE (702-333-3673) to schedule your free consultation. One of our caring drone defense lawyers will get back to you promptly to help you start planning the best defense to your Nevada drone charges.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ianzone
Joined
Jun 11, 2016
Messages
3,508
Reaction score
1,981
Location
Northwest USA
Do you have telemetry? Healthy drones account? That would prove your altitudes. As far as ATTITUDES, that's another matter.
 
Joined
Apr 26, 2014
Messages
2,529
Reaction score
659
Location
Raymore Missouri
Nevada Law NRS 493.103 "Tresspass by Drone"
Where Can I Fly a Drone in Nevada?<br/>Las Vegas Criminal Defense Lawyers Explain
Basically it is not a crime in Nevada but it is a civil matter. It only can be a successful lawsuit if you have flown over the property at least once recently and the owner has given you notice that they did not authorize the flight.
I received a call from a Nevada law enforcement officer regarding a drone flight I made over a private property.

He said that the business/property owner forwarded my footage to him and he came to the conclusion that I flew under 250ft directly over private property which is considered trespassing under Nevada law.

My question is this. Doesn't the FAA regulate the skies? Or am I possibly in some hot water here with the local authorities?

Any input will be greatly appreciated.
how did they get the footage in the first place?
 

LuvMyTJ

Admin
Staff Member
Premium Pilot
Joined
Feb 9, 2014
Messages
9,274
Reaction score
5,553
Location
Live! From New York!
*I assume it is this video :eek: but it may not be, just speculation on my part...

If so, it appears there are sections where you were less than 250' .
Your films are definitely something that will get attention. Judging by the web link posted, they appear to give you a one time exception. I would be extra careful to watch the altitude and stay above 250' and have your logs saved for proof. You don't want to become their poster boy by making an example out of you if they choose to.

 
Joined
Dec 25, 2016
Messages
93
Reaction score
16
Age
52
I'm in law enforcement and I have to say if I revived this complaint (believe me I get far worse) I would likely laugh. Unless of course the drone was focusing on surveillance vs just flying over that property. I would also like to know how they got the footage? YouTube, Facebook?

Sent from my SM-G935V using PhantomPilots mobile app
 
Joined
Dec 25, 2016
Messages
93
Reaction score
16
Age
52
Yea.. I didn't see previous post. Yep I can see where Tesla might be concerned if they was your video. Unfortanately for you again, if that's your video they employee a lot of people and pay a lot of taxes.. So not your average Joe property owner. I'm not saying it's right, but it's the way it is.

Sent from my SM-G935V using PhantomPilots mobile app
 
Joined
Jan 2, 2016
Messages
29
Reaction score
9
Age
42
Man, I think you meant no harm, but is it a private property? If yes, they've the right to at least file a complaint. It doesn't mean you'll be sued, but as a warn. We drone flyers should always think about what we're doing, as it might mean an issue to others.
Suggestion: why don't you get in touch with them and offer your aerial services?!

Good luck Matt

Enviado de meu Moto MAXX usando Tapatalk
 
Joined
Dec 27, 2016
Messages
111
Reaction score
51
Age
45
If in fact this was the video in question then it really irritates me. If not, then disregard. What ever happened to just having some respect for other people's property? It just seems like common sense that flying a drone that low without permission is going to attract negative attention. The law is one thing but having common sense and respect for others is another thing. All the videos I am seeing lately like this, flying over crowds, smashing into the space needle, etc. make me so mad that people are jeopardizing others future rights to fly. You think the regulations are strict now....just keep doing this kind of stuff.


Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots
 

bow

Joined
Dec 27, 2016
Messages
111
Reaction score
20
Age
43
Nice video though. Should talk to them about doing one for them with permission


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots
 
Joined
Dec 27, 2016
Messages
111
Reaction score
51
Age
45
If flying responsible puts me in the category of "pansies" then at least give me some lipstick, heels, and a purse so I can be the hottest date you ever had :)

It's just a guarantee that doing things that attractive negative attention are gong to make it all harder for us to fly. If your not going to do things according to the law then I guess it's risk versus reward. The risk in this case would not have been worth the reward....like you said it's a building for Gods sake. At least get some footage of something spectacular where the possibility of damaging property is low.

I would never have flown without knowing what I legally could do.


Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots
 
Joined
Jun 11, 2016
Messages
3,508
Reaction score
1,981
Location
Northwest USA
I ALWAYS fly responsibly. Look at the video... are you actually going to agree with the "Do Gooders"?? Lipstick? Give me a break. I don't need lipstick, or any naysayers. I always fly with the whole picture in mind. Common sense is all it takes. What more is needed?
 
Joined
Dec 27, 2016
Messages
111
Reaction score
51
Age
45
I ALWAYS fly responsibly. Look at the video... are you actually going to agree with the "Do Gooders"?? Lipstick? Give me a break. I don't need lipstick, or any naysayers. I always fly with the whole picture in mind. Common sense is all it takes. What more is needed?
Flying over private property for any extended period of time without prior approval does not seem like having the "whole picture in mind" it doesn't matter if it's a building with a parking lot or a saw mill with heavy equipment in operation. I guess I just don't want to attract any more negative attention than the drone community has that's all.


Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots
 

LuvMyTJ

Admin
Staff Member
Premium Pilot
Joined
Feb 9, 2014
Messages
9,274
Reaction score
5,553
Location
Live! From New York!
Man, I think you meant no harm, but is it a private property? If yes, they've the right to at least file a complaint. It doesn't mean you'll be sued, but as a warn. We drone flyers should always think about what we're doing, as it might mean an issue to others.
Suggestion: why don't you get in touch with them and offer your aerial services?!

Good luck Matt

Enviado de meu Moto MAXX usando Tapatalk
I hope Matty responds back to this thread and I hope he understands we are not against him.

While I have no idea if what he did violated any rules or regulations, I will say this. The open air is just that and not owned by anybody. He could of used a full scale heli with a news camera and read the labels on the workers jeans. He could of went to the top of that bluff and used a telephoto lens and a DSLR to do something similar. It's not as if it is a private residence... it is a large cooperate building. All that said, fliers should weigh the potential problems before deciding on making a risky or questionable flight.

As a hobby flier he cannot offer any services to anyone. He would need a Part 107 for that. If he does in fact hold a part 107 he should also know how to plan for a safe flight.
 
Joined
Jan 1, 2017
Messages
842
Reaction score
376
Location
Albany, NY
If flying responsible puts me in the category of "pansies" then at least give me some lipstick, heels, and a purse so I can be the hottest date you ever had :)

It's just a guarantee that doing things that attractive negative attention are gong to make it all harder for us to fly. If your not going to do things according to the law then I guess it's risk versus reward. The risk in this case would not have been worth the reward....like you said it's a building for Gods sake. At least get some footage of something spectacular where the possibility of damaging property is low.

I would never have flown without knowing what I legally could do.


Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots
After I saw the comment about "pansies", I looked into the settings of this website. If you click on a user that is using offensive language, you can click the "ignore" button and you will no longer see their posts. I did that for that user as name calling does not advance the conversation.
 
Joined
Jan 1, 2017
Messages
842
Reaction score
376
Location
Albany, NY
I hope Matty responds back to this thread and I hope he understands we are not against him.

While I have no idea if what he did violated any rules or regulations, I will say this. The open air is just that and not owned by anybody. He could of used a full scale heli with a news camera and read the labels on the workers jeans. He could of went to the top of that bluff and used a telephoto lens and a DSLR to do something similar. It's not as if it is a private residence... it is a large cooperate building. All that said, fliers should weigh the potential problems before deciding on making a risky or questionable flight.

As a hobby flier he cannot offer any services to anyone. He would need a Part 107 for that. If he does in fact hold a part 107 he should also know how to plan for a safe flight.
According to Nevada law, he runs this risk of having violated NRS 493.103, which clearly states:

NRS 493.103  Unmanned aerial vehicles: Action for trespass against owner or operator; exceptions; award of treble damages for injury to person or property; award of attorney’s fees and costs and injunctive relief.
1.  Except as otherwise provided in subsection 2, a person who owns or lawfully occupies real property in this State may bring an action for trespass against the owner or operator of an unmanned aerial vehicle that is flown at a height of less than 250 feet over the property if:
(a) The owner or operator of the unmanned aerial vehicle has flown the unmanned aerial vehicle over the property at a height of less than 250 feet on at least one previous occasion; and
(b) The person who owns or occupies the real property notified the owner or operator of the unmanned aerial vehicle that the person did not authorize the flight of the unmanned aerial vehicle over the property at a height of less than 250 feet. For the purposes of this paragraph, a person may place the owner or operator of an unmanned aerial vehicle on notice in the manner prescribed in subsection 2 of NRS 207.200.
2.  A person may not bring an action pursuant to subsection 1 if:
(a) The unmanned aerial vehicle is lawfully in the flight path for landing at an airport, airfield or runway.
(b) The unmanned aerial vehicle is in the process of taking off or landing.
(c) The unmanned aerial vehicle was under the lawful operation of:
(1) A law enforcement agency in accordance with NRS 493.112.
(2) A public agency in accordance with NRS 493.115.
(d) The unmanned aerial vehicle was under the lawful operation of a business registered in this State or a land surveyor if:
(1) The operator is licensed or otherwise approved to operate the unmanned aerial vehicle by the Federal Aviation Administration;
(2) The unmanned aerial vehicle is being operated within the scope of the lawful activities of the business or surveyor; and
(3) The operation of the unmanned aerial vehicle does not unreasonably interfere with the existing use of the real property.
3.  A plaintiff who prevails in an action for trespass brought pursuant to subsection 1 is entitled to recover treble damages for any injury to the person or the real property as the result of the trespass. In addition to the recovery of damages pursuant to this subsection, a plaintiff may be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees and costs and injunctive relief.

If this is based on the video in this thread, it looks like he was under that 250 ft ceiling. If this was the first time, Tesla is going through law enforcement channels to properly notify the drone operator that they did not authorize the flight. That's detailed in sections 1.a and 1.b. If he flies there again after being notified, that could be considered trespassing as described in NRS. 493.103.

The risk to the drone operator is flying after being told not to by the property owner. I'm not a lawyer, so I have no idea if Tesla could claim damages (building under construction with views of proprietary machinery?), but just getting hit with "reasonable attorney's fees" will be a burden for the average person. Would Tesla actually seek damages? For a one person, seems doubtful (but again, not a lawyer). If enough people go out and do it, then they would have to make an example out of someone just to stop it.

Also note, Nevada does not make a distinction between a private home and a place of business for this trespass law. Doesn't even have to be a building, just property that you own. Also I don't think that the comparison between using a DSLR from a distance off the property and what happened here is not a valid comparison. That's an issue of privacy, which is important but just not applicable to 493.103, which is about trespass.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NetDep
Joined
Dec 27, 2016
Messages
111
Reaction score
51
Age
45
After I saw the comment about "pansies", I looked into the settings of this website. If you click on a user that is using offensive language, you can click the "ignore" button and you will no longer see their posts. I did that for that user as name calling does not advance the conversation.
Thanks for the info. Didnt know that could be done.

Sent from my VS995 using PhantomPilots mobile app
 

New Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
134,153
Messages
1,388,328
Members
97,805
Latest member
Flit