Asimov's laws were written for sentient, fictional devices. DJI's drones are neither.
Law Enforcement Contacted Me Regarding My Drone
- Thread starter Matty1551
- Start date
I think that 80 foot minimum came about by some farmer and his chickens in dealing with aircraft flying over his farm, maybe on finals or takeoffs. I think the case brought up 83 or 84 foot they agreed on, but it was his battle with the FAA and not set in stone anywhere.
I do wish the FAA would come up with some fixed flight zone to simplify the UAS airspace mess that cities are getting into the airspace battle as well. Maybe 40-400 feet or something over other structures, other than takeoff or landings, own property, or practice fields. Public, and city governments too, think they own the airspace over their property as it is hence the "Shoot it down" or "Call the cops" mentality exists when spotted. Has to be low enough for maybe realtors and roof inspectors, etc.
I do wish the FAA would come up with some fixed flight zone to simplify the UAS airspace mess that cities are getting into the airspace battle as well. Maybe 40-400 feet or something over other structures, other than takeoff or landings, own property, or practice fields. Public, and city governments too, think they own the airspace over their property as it is hence the "Shoot it down" or "Call the cops" mentality exists when spotted. Has to be low enough for maybe realtors and roof inspectors, etc.
Some form of a minimum allowable height over private property needs to be set at the federal level. The FAA regulates air traffic over airspace, but it is not responsible for trespassing or privacy laws. People have a reasonable expectation of privacy on the parts of their property that can not be seen from public areas, and that is being held up in "man vs drone" court cases. Without a reasonable minimum allowable height, we have no protection if someone takes down our drones when we cross their property at 200 ft. You can make the argument that since the FAA regulates aircraft from the ground up that you should be allowed to fly, but do you want to spend your time and money fighting that in court? And at the same time, a home owner shouldn't have to worry about the neighbor's kid repeatedly flying over his house at 50 ft while he's having backyard pool party.
You could probably summarize all drone flying rules, laws, and regulations; with a simple "Don't be a jerk". But since that means two things to two different people, we need to actually define what that means.
You could probably summarize all drone flying rules, laws, and regulations; with a simple "Don't be a jerk". But since that means two things to two different people, we need to actually define what that means.
Apparently, the name calling statement has been deleted, I didn't see it. But did see the reply to it.
With as many drones that are being purchased and put into the air, laws concerning them are frequently changing. Every drone flyer (hobbyist or commercially) is responsible to know what they are at any given time. This requires reading and searching on a regular basis. This is especially true if you plan to be in another state you have not flown in, as drone laws vary from state to state. It, is those who don't take the time to read and know the laws and just anxious to fly that are causing these laws to be added and changed regularly, a catch twenty-two so to speak. I encourage everyone to fly responsibly and respectfully. When it comes to gray areas, ask yourself, if someone was flying their drone over my daughter, would I want them to be flying this low.
A little humor there, but I hope you understand the point.
With as many drones that are being purchased and put into the air, laws concerning them are frequently changing. Every drone flyer (hobbyist or commercially) is responsible to know what they are at any given time. This requires reading and searching on a regular basis. This is especially true if you plan to be in another state you have not flown in, as drone laws vary from state to state. It, is those who don't take the time to read and know the laws and just anxious to fly that are causing these laws to be added and changed regularly, a catch twenty-two so to speak. I encourage everyone to fly responsibly and respectfully. When it comes to gray areas, ask yourself, if someone was flying their drone over my daughter, would I want them to be flying this low.
A little humor there, but I hope you understand the point.
Exactly true. If the defendant, or some willing legal team ( like the guy on here promoting his business ) were to sue Nevada on the basis that they don't have standing to regulate the NAS, that would be a noteworthy. Many states and municipalities are lining up to define a patchwork quilt of airspace regulation. Exactly what the FAA admonishes against (see publication below). In Nevada, and probably everywhere else, there are laws against (real) trespass and violation of privacy, harassment, nuisance behavior, etc. sUAS does not require a whole new set of laws to keep the citizenry safe, even if some of them think so.
Washington State, where I live and operate, has a bill in committee to try and do the same thing as Nevada. I am lobying against it and I encourage any other Washington guys out there to pay attention too.
https://www.faa.gov/uas/resources/uas_regulations_policy/media/UAS_Fact_Sheet_Final.pdf
That document should be the first thing to be shown when a new law is proposed where a local government entity requires UAS registration and fees. However, if you read down to the line
Laws traditionally related to state and local police power – including land use, zoning, privacy, trespass, and law enforcement operations – generally are not subject to federal regulation.
That's where the gray area is. Until the FAA or other federal agency defines a minimum height over private property, then state and local governments can, and will, define it as Nevada did.
I doubt that a "hard attitude" will ever be set by the FAA, but who knows. I agree the line you included will look like an opening to zealous legislators to enact whatever they want in the name of "privacy" or "trespass". The problem is it takes only a minute to show some example imagery taken from full scale aircraft or even non-public domain satellite imagery for that matter to demonstrate that the imagery captured from a sUAS is trivial and clearly inferior to what can be legally obtained now within current law.
An experienced photographer/videographer with a zoom lens equipped DSLR in a helicopter is going to get more invasive imagery than a fixed lens Phantom. That's why in 1994, Bill Gates chartered every single chartable helicopter in Hawaii when he got married. That grounded the paparazzis.
Yeah, that's my point !! Look, if someone is hovering around someone else's property and making a nuisance of themselves, there are likely already rules on the books that can be used against that operator. That scenario is entirely different than a multirotor incidentally passing over other's property during a mission. No different than the Cessna a few hundred feet higher. The only difference is that the property owner has been programmed that the sUAS is evil and the Cessna is not. I fly both, BTW.
Except those rules are vague and open to interpretation, with the end result of local governments passing their own restrictions and going too far. The home owner can not tell the difference between a drone passing over their property to get somewhere else and someone passing over their property and recording them. We know the difference and how little detail can be made out, but I don't want to be the one that has to fight it in court.
I understand what you are saying, and agree. But, in reality, it doesn't make any difference if the sUAS is recording what it is flying over or not. There is case law determining that a private property owner only "owns" the airspace above their property in so much as the space they can use (paraphrased). That leaves us with what is "reasonable expectation of privacy". Again, case law has determined that private citizens do NOT have a reasonable expectation of privacy if in their own backyard but visible from above.
We can all give our opinion of what we think, but case law is what drives legal decisions unless something rises to the scope of overriding past decisions. I'm not saying that this won't occur. I'm just pointing out that even a state can't just willy-nilly write their own book that is in direct contradiction of case law without expecting to be called on it at some point.
If you've ever been to a legislature meeting or committee meeting, you will understand that they are just people and will often time go against their own lawyer's advise when drafting laws because it "feels" right. When subsequent laws are challenged by capable legal teams, they generally crumble, just like their own legal counsel advised back in the discussion/comment phase of the bill.
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2017
- Messages
- 60
- Reaction score
- 17
- Age
- 48
These parts are interesting. If these are truly exceptions to their laws, I wonder if the Part 107 certification fits into part d (1) up there.
I agree with the principals of what you are saying, but the California v. Ciraolo case that you cited was a test of the 4th Amendment in regards to unreasonable searches and seizures by law enforcement. The ruling on the expectation of privacy was defined by "the actual risk to privacy from commercial or pleasure aircraft is virtually nonexistent". There is difference between an airplane flying at cruising altitude and a drone at 200 feet AGL. It may be a perceived difference, but that is what is driving the sUAS restriction laws that are being implemented at the state and local levels.
That case is just one of many examples. Here is another : Dow Chemical Company v. United States
There are more. I'm not an attorney, but there is quite a bit of case law dealing with this that a state or municipality would need to override to justify their "new" prohibition if challenged.
Essentially, if it is out in the open, there is NO expectation of privacy. Pretty simple really.
Last edited:
I'm not sure whether this was ever clarified or not, but was this guy a 107 holder? Either way, this is yet another example of someone operating where they shouldn't be using the "I didn't know" card as their excuse once they were identified. The issue here is clear - Tesla doesn't want people flying low over their plant. How do we know how many different people have flown their drone over the site? It could be a daily occurrence. Ask yourself honestly as that property owner... wouldn't that start to piss you off or create safety risks? We do not know the whole story so speculation is irrelevant. There is a law on the books that was violated. Whether we agree with it or not, we do not know all of the information as to why that law exists.
The OP clearly did this to promote himself and posted this on social media, which in-turn identified himself to authorities while basking in the beauty of his stunt. There's problems with every aspect of this story and IMHO, should be yet another example of what not to do to cast negative light on the drone industry.
The OP clearly did this to promote himself and posted this on social media, which in-turn identified himself to authorities while basking in the beauty of his stunt. There's problems with every aspect of this story and IMHO, should be yet another example of what not to do to cast negative light on the drone industry.
I actually did not get to see the OP's video. It was removed by the time I got here. I want to make clear that my comments in here are meant to reflect general responsible use of sUAS and not this particular user's actions.
You've provided excellent insight Dave. I was not able to see the OP's video either. I'm merely commenting on the facts that have been produced throughout this thread.
Here's a link to a very comprehensive recapitulation of the legal implications in drone operations:
Drones and the Law: The Sky's Not the Limit
I'm late to this discussion. A couple of points in response to earlier posts:
Because our hapless OP was contacted by the police, the statutes involved must necessarily have been criminal, meaning NRS 200.603 (peeping Tom) or NRS 200.604 (private area image publisher). I've included both statutes below (minus some unnecessary portions in the 2nd one).
200.603 is limited to peeping toms who enter the land. Does flying a drone over the land mean entering upon the premises? If not then the dronie is not violating this statute. If yes, then don't pack a gun that day, it'll get you a felony worth 1-6 years in prison. The misdemeanor is only used if the peeper has neither gun nor camera (drone). If you're not armed and flying a drone means both entering the land and using a camera, then you're looking at a GM (gross misdemeanor) worth a year in the county jail.
200.604 will only apply if you knowingly and intentionally shoot (with your camera drone) someone's privates where the victim could reasonably expect to be accorded privacy. Presumably you're safe from this law as long as you didn't set out to capture your neighbor's privates, and/or your neighbor was somewhere where he or she couldn't reasonably expect to be protected as a private location. For example, what if you shoot your neighbor with your camera drone while he/she sunbathes in the buff on the back patio, which is covered with some vine looking things which are fairly transparent from the altitude your drone is sitting at? Me neither, not a clue. I do know that this statute has led to search warrants for the home of real peepers (no drone involved).
My 2 cents worth: These 2 statutes don't seem aimed at your average dronie, as long as he/she is "just passing through." NRS 200.604 has been on the books since 2007, 10 years old. 200.603 since 2005, 12 years old. I doubt they had drones in mind. Nevada's DOT website refers drone operators to some safety guidelines. Here's the one about property: "Check and follow all local laws and ordinances before flying over private property." This gives the average drone operator the impression that the only ground-government regulations he/she needs to comply with emanate from county and city ordinances, not these state statutes.
For my money the most likely source of grief for a simple flyover will come from civil litigation from a private citizen. Your average homeowner won't likely pay for it, but some entrepreneur with a lot of dough and a paranoia about spying on proprietary secrets will, someone like, oh, say, TESLA. It is no wonder that when our hapless OP flew over he got a call from cooperating Nevada LEOs. Nevada handed out millions in benefits to get TESLA here, and I imagine would be all too happy to make sure that all of Elon's privacy rights are vigorously protected. I presume your Youtube video was removed after conferring with your attorney. Anyway, most likely it'll blow over and we'll all be the better educated for it. Thanks for sharing.
NRS 200.603 Peering, peeping or spying through window, door or other opening of dwelling of another; penalties.
1. A person shall not knowingly enter upon the property or premises of another or upon the property or premises owned by him or her and leased or rented to another with the intent to surreptitiously conceal himself or herself on the property or premises and peer, peep or spy through a window, door or other opening of a building or structure that is used as a dwelling on the property or premises.
2. A person who violates subsection 1 is guilty of:
(a) If the person is in possession of a deadly weapon at the time of the violation, a category B felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 6 years, and may be further punished by a fine of not more than $5,000.
(b) If the person is not in possession of a deadly weapon at the time of the violation, but is in possession of a photographic or digital camera, video camera or other device capable of recording images or sound at the time of the violation, a gross misdemeanor.
(c) If the person is not in possession of a deadly weapon or a photographic or digital camera, video camera or other device capable of recording images or sound at the time of the violation, a misdemeanor.
3. This section does not apply to:
(a) A law enforcement officer conducting a criminal investigation or surveillance;
(b) A building inspector, building official or other similar authority employed by a governmental body while performing his or her duties; or
(c) An employee of a public utility while performing his or her duties.
NRS 200.604 Capturing image of private area of another person; distributing, disclosing, displaying, transmitting or publishing image of private area of another person; penalties; exceptions; confidentiality of image.
1. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 4, a person shall not knowingly and intentionally capture an image of the private area of another person:
(a) Without the consent of the other person; and
(b) Under circumstances in which the other person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
2. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 4, a person shall not distribute, disclose, display, transmit or publish an image that the person knows or has reason to know was made in violation of subsection 1.
3. A person who violates this section:
(a) For a first offense, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
(b) For a second or subsequent offense, is guilty of a category E felony and shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130. (= 1 to 4 years prison)
4. This section does not prohibit any lawful law enforcement or correctional activity, including, without limitation, capturing, distributing, disclosing, displaying, transmitting or publishing an image for the purpose of investigating or prosecuting a violation of this section.
(5,6,7 deleted)
8. As used in this section:
(a) "Broadcast" means to transmit electronically an image with the intent that the image be viewed by any other person.
(b) "Capture," with respect to an image, means to videotape, photograph, film, record by any means or broadcast.
(c) "Female breast" means any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola.
(d) "Private area" means the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks or female breast of a person.
(e) "Under circumstances in which the other person has a reasonable expectation of privacy" means:
(1) Circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that he or she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that an image of his or her private area would be captured; or
(2) Circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that his or her private area would not be visible to the public, regardless of whether the person is in a public or private place.
Because our hapless OP was contacted by the police, the statutes involved must necessarily have been criminal, meaning NRS 200.603 (peeping Tom) or NRS 200.604 (private area image publisher). I've included both statutes below (minus some unnecessary portions in the 2nd one).
200.603 is limited to peeping toms who enter the land. Does flying a drone over the land mean entering upon the premises? If not then the dronie is not violating this statute. If yes, then don't pack a gun that day, it'll get you a felony worth 1-6 years in prison. The misdemeanor is only used if the peeper has neither gun nor camera (drone). If you're not armed and flying a drone means both entering the land and using a camera, then you're looking at a GM (gross misdemeanor) worth a year in the county jail.
200.604 will only apply if you knowingly and intentionally shoot (with your camera drone) someone's privates where the victim could reasonably expect to be accorded privacy. Presumably you're safe from this law as long as you didn't set out to capture your neighbor's privates, and/or your neighbor was somewhere where he or she couldn't reasonably expect to be protected as a private location. For example, what if you shoot your neighbor with your camera drone while he/she sunbathes in the buff on the back patio, which is covered with some vine looking things which are fairly transparent from the altitude your drone is sitting at? Me neither, not a clue. I do know that this statute has led to search warrants for the home of real peepers (no drone involved).
My 2 cents worth: These 2 statutes don't seem aimed at your average dronie, as long as he/she is "just passing through." NRS 200.604 has been on the books since 2007, 10 years old. 200.603 since 2005, 12 years old. I doubt they had drones in mind. Nevada's DOT website refers drone operators to some safety guidelines. Here's the one about property: "Check and follow all local laws and ordinances before flying over private property." This gives the average drone operator the impression that the only ground-government regulations he/she needs to comply with emanate from county and city ordinances, not these state statutes.
For my money the most likely source of grief for a simple flyover will come from civil litigation from a private citizen. Your average homeowner won't likely pay for it, but some entrepreneur with a lot of dough and a paranoia about spying on proprietary secrets will, someone like, oh, say, TESLA. It is no wonder that when our hapless OP flew over he got a call from cooperating Nevada LEOs. Nevada handed out millions in benefits to get TESLA here, and I imagine would be all too happy to make sure that all of Elon's privacy rights are vigorously protected. I presume your Youtube video was removed after conferring with your attorney. Anyway, most likely it'll blow over and we'll all be the better educated for it. Thanks for sharing.
NRS 200.603 Peering, peeping or spying through window, door or other opening of dwelling of another; penalties.
1. A person shall not knowingly enter upon the property or premises of another or upon the property or premises owned by him or her and leased or rented to another with the intent to surreptitiously conceal himself or herself on the property or premises and peer, peep or spy through a window, door or other opening of a building or structure that is used as a dwelling on the property or premises.
2. A person who violates subsection 1 is guilty of:
(a) If the person is in possession of a deadly weapon at the time of the violation, a category B felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 6 years, and may be further punished by a fine of not more than $5,000.
(b) If the person is not in possession of a deadly weapon at the time of the violation, but is in possession of a photographic or digital camera, video camera or other device capable of recording images or sound at the time of the violation, a gross misdemeanor.
(c) If the person is not in possession of a deadly weapon or a photographic or digital camera, video camera or other device capable of recording images or sound at the time of the violation, a misdemeanor.
3. This section does not apply to:
(a) A law enforcement officer conducting a criminal investigation or surveillance;
(b) A building inspector, building official or other similar authority employed by a governmental body while performing his or her duties; or
(c) An employee of a public utility while performing his or her duties.
NRS 200.604 Capturing image of private area of another person; distributing, disclosing, displaying, transmitting or publishing image of private area of another person; penalties; exceptions; confidentiality of image.
1. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 4, a person shall not knowingly and intentionally capture an image of the private area of another person:
(a) Without the consent of the other person; and
(b) Under circumstances in which the other person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
2. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 4, a person shall not distribute, disclose, display, transmit or publish an image that the person knows or has reason to know was made in violation of subsection 1.
3. A person who violates this section:
(a) For a first offense, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
(b) For a second or subsequent offense, is guilty of a category E felony and shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130. (= 1 to 4 years prison)
4. This section does not prohibit any lawful law enforcement or correctional activity, including, without limitation, capturing, distributing, disclosing, displaying, transmitting or publishing an image for the purpose of investigating or prosecuting a violation of this section.
(5,6,7 deleted)
8. As used in this section:
(a) "Broadcast" means to transmit electronically an image with the intent that the image be viewed by any other person.
(b) "Capture," with respect to an image, means to videotape, photograph, film, record by any means or broadcast.
(c) "Female breast" means any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola.
(d) "Private area" means the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks or female breast of a person.
(e) "Under circumstances in which the other person has a reasonable expectation of privacy" means:
(1) Circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that he or she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that an image of his or her private area would be captured; or
(2) Circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that his or her private area would not be visible to the public, regardless of whether the person is in a public or private place.
Everyone always says "check your local laws and regulations etc." I have tried to find any such place online that explains that where I live. There's a complete ban over the university property, and I get that you have to comply with all FAA stuff. I think it would be beneficial for me to have those local rules available to review.
Side thought.....What if property owners cried so loud that they became responsible for property tax on their personal airspace. Terrible side thought, I know.
Side thought.....What if property owners cried so loud that they became responsible for property tax on their personal airspace. Terrible side thought, I know.
Similar threads
