Law Enforcement Contacted Me Regarding My Drone

[NetDep]

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.

That is an excellent well reasoned post that really addresses the issues - especially the most important of notice. I assume, as you do, that consistent with the Statute cited the owner was putting the pilot "on notice" that he would seek prosecution for a subsequent offense. I have a question beyond that and any here - lawyers and those that play them on internet forums - can address. Why in the heck is a law enforcement official inquiring as to a CIVIL OFFENSE. In the opening sentence of the Statute it is clearly stated, "...makes it a civil offense..." The OP said he received a call from someone who identified himself as a Nevada law enforcement officer -what proof did he have he was actually talking to who he thought he was. I would be VERY hesitant to take someone's word they were a law enforcement officer over the phone. Ask for a call back and verify this through a phonebook or get the name of the Officer and call the non-emergency number of the Agency and ask to be connected. I call foul on this one and for two reasons, 1) It is a civil offense and no business of law enforcement (they investigate CRIMES) and 2) I would doubt that the OP really talked to a law enforcement officer without further information. IF the OP did violate the statute and IF he has been put on notice and IF he violates the statute again and is called into court (CIVIL) court by the "injured party" I would be very surprised. This is another case of a State passing a stupid law in response to public pressure over fear and ignorance - two things in ample supply. Thank God it's not a criminal offense as it is some places. Best of luck and FLY ON!!!!

 

[anotherlab]

...Why in the heck is a law enforcement official inquiring as to a CIVIL OFFENSE. In the opening sentence of the Statute it is clearly stated, "...makes it a civil offense..." The OP said he received a call from someone who identified himself as a Nevada law enforcement officer -what proof did he have he was actually talking to who he thought he was...

The way the law is worded is that property owner needs to notify the sUAV operator that flying over their property at an altitude less than 250 ft is prohibited. The property owner (Tesla) may have requested that the police identify or contact the sUAV operator. This would be a means for Tesla to both legally document that they had notified the operator that the operator did not have permission to trespass (based on NSL); and to also intimidate the sUAV operator. Legally, he should be on safe ground. However, Tesla has a lot more money than he does and they could cost him a lot in legal fees.

As for proof, the OP (Matty) did not provide the details. For all we know, the officer properly identified himself over the phone. Since Matty has not posted anything since starting this thread and took down the video, he's either following the advice of legal counsel or has been intimidated by Tesla. Since his actions would be considered more commercial than hobbyist, I would guess that he's following legal advice. He appears to have a 107 license and aerial videography business. This does not help his business. If you were a company looking to hire some for aerial photos or videos, would you hire the person who follows the local regulations or someone who has had to take down their videos because they broke the rules?

Another way to look at this: If you have private property and it's clearly posted for no trespassing, what do you do if you think you have proof that specific person has been trespassing? Do you take matters into your own hands or do you contact law enforcement? I'm not talking about drones, just trespassing in general.

 

[HueyPilot]

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.

Thanks for this, I plan on doing some flying in NV.....Good info to know !

 

[AdvRider]

Asimov's laws were written for sentient, fictional devices. DJI's drones are neither.

Good point

 

[bluntnose]

I just took another look at 493.103; so if you've got your 107 cert and you're a business registered in Nevada you're home free, at least as far as this statute is concerned.

 

[Captain Gary]

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.

The FAA does control our airspace, they will tell you that you still need to check the local laws in your area. Here in New York, the laws vary by area, some towns here on Long Island are NO DRONE ZONES.

 

[Captain Gary]

I just took another look at 493.103; so if you've got your 107 cert and you're a business registered in Nevada you're home free, at least as far as this statute is concerned.

Even with a 107 certificate, for a commercial operation he would need written permission from the property owner to fly over his property. I'm pretty sure he would need to supply a certificate of insurance as well as his Part 107 license and the registration for the drone. That's what you need in N.Y. Nevada law my have different requirements

 

[Walnawk]

I am a lawyer but not specifically doing Aviation law and I am not soliciting business here. Just want to help.

I can tell you that any space directly above private property within reasonable vertical distance will be PROPERTY or CRIMINAL LAW which encompass the TRESPASS issue right here. The Nevada statute is very clear about the 250ft air space above private property which is very reasonable vertical distance above any private property. FAA doesn't need to be involved. The local law enforcement have jurisdiction on this one. Tesla might not be looking for damages, my theory is that they are looking to set an example of a case to deter future drone flying/filming above their facility.

All in all, in the world of litigation, trespass can be resolved with no penalties to minimum penalties. Please talk to a local lawyer who knows PROPERTY AND CRIMINAL Law very well to get you out of this pickle.

 

[Helihover]

I am a lawyer but not specifically doing Aviation law and I am not soliciting business here. Just want to help.

I can tell you that any space directly above private property within reasonable vertical distance will be PROPERTY or CRIMINAL LAW which encompass the TRESPASS issue right here. The Nevada statute is very clear about the 250ft air space above private property which is very reasonable vertical distance above any private property. FAA doesn't need to be involved. The local law enforcement have jurisdiction on this one. Tesla might not be looking for damages, my theory is that they are looking to set an example of a case to deter future drone flying/filming above their facility.

All in all, in the world of litigation, trespass can be resolved with no penalties to minimum penalties. Please talk to a local lawyer who knows PROPERTY AND CRIMINAL Law very well to get you out of this pickle.

So according to this post, local law enforcement has jurisdiction of the skies up to 250ft......

I can't wait till these items get resolved in court, because that's obviously what this is gonna take. Then we can stop with all this nonsense.

 

[Walnawk]

You are correct. It is written under Nevada law (please see below) specifically about that 250 ft which is very reasonable. Nevada is very strict. Cases has been resolved in court already, precedence has been set; I am afraid the odds are against you. If the Plaintiff cannot sue you on Trespass, there are at least few other ways for them to bring a case against you. To cut a long story short, work with the authority to resolve the issue. Or hire a LOCAL reputable attorney who specializes in Criminal & Property Law to explain and walk you through the process in settling the case.

NRS 493.103  " 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..."

 

[Dave Pitman]

I am a lawyer but not specifically doing Aviation law and I am not soliciting business here. Just want to help.

I can tell you that any space directly above private property within reasonable vertical distance will be PROPERTY or CRIMINAL LAW which encompass the TRESPASS issue right here. The Nevada statute is very clear about the 250ft air space above private property which is very reasonable vertical distance above any private property. FAA doesn't need to be involved. The local law enforcement have jurisdiction on this one. Tesla might not be looking for damages, my theory is that they are looking to set an example of a case to deter future drone flying/filming above their facility.

All in all, in the world of litigation, trespass can be resolved with no penalties to minimum penalties. Please talk to a local lawyer who knows PROPERTY AND CRIMINAL Law very well to get you out of this pickle.

Thanks for commenting.

I have no idea about the OP, nor does Nevada State law effect my operation.

Reading the statute, it would appear that the overflight would have to be at least the 2nd time. And the property owner would have had to notifiy the operator prior to the subsequent flight (NRS 493.103 paragraph 1 )

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.

And, it seems to spell out that if the operator is a genuine Nevada business and FAA certified, then they also are within their rights to overfly private property below 250. (NRS 493 103 2 d)

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.

 

[Walnawk]

That is an excellent well reasoned post that really addresses the issues - especially the most important of notice. I assume, as you do, that consistent with the Statute cited the owner was putting the pilot "on notice" that he would seek prosecution for a subsequent offense. I have a question beyond that and any here - lawyers and those that play them on internet forums - can address. Why in the heck is a law enforcement official inquiring as to a CIVIL OFFENSE. In the opening sentence of the Statute it is clearly stated, "...makes it a civil offense..." The OP said he received a call from someone who identified himself as a Nevada law enforcement officer -what proof did he have he was actually talking to who he thought he was. I would be VERY hesitant to take someone's word they were a law enforcement officer over the phone. Ask for a call back and verify this through a phonebook or get the name of the Officer and call the non-emergency number of the Agency and ask to be connected. I call foul on this one and for two reasons, 1) It is a civil offense and no business of law enforcement (they investigate CRIMES) and 2) I would doubt that the OP really talked to a law enforcement officer without further information. IF the OP did violate the statute and IF he has been put on notice and IF he violates the statute again and is called into court (CIVIL) court by the "injured party" I would be very surprised. This is another case of a State passing a stupid law in response to public pressure over fear and ignorance - two things in ample supply. Thank God it's not a criminal offense as it is some places. Best of luck and FLY ON!!!!

Law enforcement is often involve in civil offenses. Think about neighborhood disputes that involves loud noises when one neighbor will call the police to complain about loud noises/parties; as a result, police will show up to enforce quiet hours within city ordinances. It is a Civil offense, and the police can be requested to enforce city ordinances.

 

[Walnawk]

Thanks for commenting.

I have no idea about the OP, nor does Nevada State law effect my operation.

Reading the statute, it would appear that the overflight would have to be at least the 2nd time. And the property owner would have had to notifiy the operator prior to the subsequent flight (NRS 493.103 paragraph 1 )

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.

And, it seems to spell out that if the operator is a genuine Nevada business and FAA certified, then they also are within their rights to overfly private property below 250. (NRS 493 103 2 d)

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.

Thanks for commenting.

I have no idea about the OP, nor does Nevada State law effect my operation.

Reading the statute, it would appear that the overflight would have to be at least the 2nd time. And the property owner would have had to notifiy the operator prior to the subsequent flight (NRS 493.103 paragraph 1 )

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.

And, it seems to spell out that if the operator is a genuine Nevada business and FAA certified, then they also are within their rights to overfly private property below 250. (NRS 493 103 2 d)

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.

In our case facts are not being disclosed for good reasons as to whether OP has flown once or twice over the property in question. However, facts indicates that OP has flew over the property evidenced by a Youtube video, that along with a complaint and perhaps a few more overlooked facts, would warrant law enforcement's contact with OP. Please keep in mind, this case is not even close to being in court, everything is preliminary. If OP can work his facts in his favor against the plaintiff, the plaintiff won't even have a case.

 

[AdvRider]

I often wondered why DJI spent so much effort to perfect "flying indoors." Now I clearly understand why......for many people, sooner than later, indoors might be the only place you can operate without getting harassed by what my flying friends call the "phobics".........but even then, indoors there is that pesky wife thing to deal with. For the love of Pete whats a guy to do?

 

[Walnawk]

Yes, it can be interpreted this way. In our case here, facts are not being disclosed for good reasons as to whether OP has flown once or twice over the property in question. However, facts indicates that a Youtube video was displayed regarding the Trespass in question, that along with a complaint and perhaps a few more overlooked facts, would warrant law enforcement's contact with OP. Please keep in mind, this case is not even close to being in court, everything is preliminary. If OP can work his facts in his favor against the plaintiff, the plaintiff won't even have a case.

I often wondered why DJI spent so much effort to perfect "flying indoors." Now I clearly understand why......for many people, sooner than later, indoors might be the only place you can operate without getting harassed by what my flying friends call the "phobics".........but even then, indoors there is that pesky wife thing to deal with. For the love of Pete whats a guy to do?

At the end of the day, it is all about people who makes the world go round (or spins around in this case).

 

[anotherlab]

...And, it seems to spell out that if the operator is a genuine Nevada business and FAA certified, then they also are within their rights to overfly private property below 250. (NRS 493 103 2 d)

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.

I'm not a lawyer, but 103 2 d appears to refer to commercial work related to the flight plan of the sUAS. In this case, the OP's sole purpose for flying over the the property was to record that property for his purposes, not the purposes of the property owner. By Nevada law, he's trespassing.

You may not like that law, you may not think that it's valid, but that is the law where that sUAS flew. As Walnawk (an actual lawyer) noted, the Nevada law is reasonable and strict in it's definition. And unless this was a second flight after being notified by the property owner, then nothing is going to happen.

 

[anotherlab]

I often wondered why DJI spent so much effort to perfect "flying indoors." Now I clearly understand why......for many people, sooner than later, indoors might be the only place you can operate without getting harassed by what my flying friends call the "phobics".........but even then, indoors there is that pesky wife thing to deal with. For the love of Pete whats a guy to do?

We are in fear phase of drones. As they become more and more common place, the irrational reactions will become the exception, rather than the norm. We went from "OMG, that phone has a camera" to "Let me Facetime you" in just a few short years.

 

[Dave Pitman]

I often wondered why DJI spent so much effort to perfect "flying indoors." Now I clearly understand why......for many people, sooner than later, indoors might be the only place you can operate without getting harassed by what my flying friends call the "phobics".........but even then, indoors there is that pesky wife thing to deal with. For the love of Pete whats a guy to do?

Sure, understood. Reading that statute, would you agree that it allows an FAA certified operator who has the required state business licencing to, for example, fly a real estate shoot and in the course of that shoot, fly over adjacent properties at lower than 250' agl so long as it did not interfere with anything going on below it? After all. I suspect Nevada is trying to balance protecting the citizenry without destroying legitimate business.

And, yes, we know this is not legal advice !

 

[Dave Pitman]

I'm not a lawyer, but 103 2 d appears to refer to commercial work related to the flight plan of the sUAS. In this case, the OP's sole purpose for flying over the the property was to record that property for his purposes, not the purposes of the property owner. By Nevada law, he's trespassing.

You may not like that law, you may not think that it's valid, but that is the law where that sUAS flew. As Walnawk (an actual lawyer) noted, the Nevada law is reasonable and strict in it's definition. And unless this was a second flight after being notified by the property owner, then nothing is going to happen.

I don't see anything in the statute about working for the property owner as a prerequisite of flying over the property in a legitimate business. Can you point that out?

And again, I'm not debating the intent or actions of the OP. Just discussing commercial drone ops in Nevada.

 

[Walnawk]

I don't see anything in the statute about working for the property owner as a prerequisite of flying over the property in a legitimate business. Can you point that out?

And again, I'm not debating the intent or actions of the OP. Just discussing commercial drone ops in Nevada.

To comply with this Nevada Statute, you need to be in a business AND licensed to fly. Only OP can provide evidence to dispute law enforcement's inquiry.

(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.