Law Enforcement Contacted Me Regarding My Drone

[anotherlab]

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.

I'm referring to sections 2 d 2 and 2 d 3;

(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.

The OP did not have a lawful activity that required him to trespass. In other words, he was not hired to survey the property next door. If he had been flying for a real estate company to film a building next door, the crossing over to the Tesla property would have been allowed (assuming no other violations).

As mentioned before, I'm not a lawyer, but the language is very clear with this statute. (And the real lawyer also said so ).

 

[Anorak]

You should look into your flight log and find that particular flight

 

[anotherlab]

You should look into your flight log and find that particular flight

If the OP has spoken to legal counsel, they have probably told him to avoid doing anything like that. If you saw the video before it was taken down, it looked like he was flying in the Tesla parking lot and roughly at the same height as the room of the factory.

 

[Dave Pitman]

I'm referring to sections 2 d 2 and 2 d 3;

(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.

The OP did not have a lawful activity that required him to trespass. In other words, he was not hired to survey the property next door. If he had been flying for a real estate company to film a building next door, the crossing over to the Tesla property would have been allowed (assuming no other violations).

As mentioned before, I'm not a lawyer, but the language is very clear with this statute. (And the real lawyer also said so ).

Ok, you are referring again to the OP's flight of which I have no knowledge. I am not arguing that. And you are probably correct that if he had no legitimate other purpose for the flight, then he was in the wrong.

My comments and questions are not meant to be argumentative and I hope I'm not coming across that way. However, I've gone through way too much effort to be legitimate starting with the 333 process to not try and continually educate myself with what is going on in the US with regard to sUAS legislation. While I have no plans to operate in Nevada, I am naturally curious about their laws regarding sUAS. Reading that statute, I am convinced minus any other statutes or circumstances that if I wanted to operate in Nevada, I could do so without much problem.

 

[anotherlab]

Ok, you are referring again to the OP's flight of which I have no knowledge. I am not arguing that. And you are probably correct that if he had no legitimate other purpose for the flight, then he was in the wrong.

However, my comments and questions are not meant to be argumentative and I hope I'm not coming across that way. However, I've gone through way too much effort to be legitimate starting with the 333 process to not try and continually educate myself with what is going on in the US with regard to sUAS legislation. While I have no plans to operate in Nevada, I am naturally curious about their laws regarding sUAS. Reading that statute, I am convinced minus any other statutes or circumstances that if I wanted to operate in Nevada, I could do so without much problem.

I didn't think you were being argumentative and my responses are not intended to be either. It does illustrate the problem where the restrictions that apply to drones are local and vary depending where you are. In Nevada, you are legally entitled to a warning if the property owner says that you are trespassing. In Kentucky, William Meredith was acquitted of shooting down the drone belonging to David Boggs, when Boggs few his drone over Meredith's property.

 

[Walnawk]

I didn't think you were being argumentative and my responses are not intended to be either. It does illustrate the problem where the restrictions that apply to drones are local and vary depending where you are. In Nevada, you are legally entitled to a warning if the property owner says that you are trespassing. In Kentucky, William Meredith was acquitted of shooting down the drone belonging to David Boggs, when Boggs few his drone over Meredith's property.

Anotherlab, you are more in touch with the law than I am . Case well cited - Meredith case.

 

[Dave Pitman]

Anotherlab, you are more in touch with the law than I am . Case well cited - Meredith case.

The judge dismissed the case even though the flight logs and the defendant's own daughters image contradicted Meredith's testimony. Apparently the drone didn't even fall on his property when he shot it down.

I believe the case is currently on appeal to the US district Court in Kentucky. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

Boggs v. Merideth

 

[anotherlab]

The judge dismissed the case even though the flight logs and the defendant's own daughters image contradicted Meredith's testimony. Apparently the drone didn't even fall on his property when he shot it down.

I believe the case is currently on appeal to the US district Court in Kentucky. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

Boggs v. Merideth

The case has been filed, but I don't think that it has been argued before the court. Which means there isn't a initial judgement to appeal. Meredith was found not guilty of state criminal charges. It was after the acquittal of the criminal charges, that Boggs filed the complaint in the federal court for a declaratory judgement and for damages for his Phantom 3. The actual complaint is an interesting read. They are trying to set a legal precedent for what is a reasonable right of privacy so that drones can be safely flown.

More specifically, plaintiff’s right to relief as well as the defendant’s defenses, will necessarily require resolution of a substantial question of federal law, to wit, the boundaries of the airspace surrounding real property, the reasonable expectation of privacy as viewed from the air, and the right to damage or destroy an aircraft in-flight, in relation to the exclusive federal regulation and protection of air safety, air navigation, and control over the national airspace.​

 

[AdvRider]

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 !

It's certainly commercial operators who have the very most to lose....their livelihood. As a hobbyist I can move on to a "State Approved Hobby" like stamp collecting or perhaps something more exciting.... like building a ship in a bottle or something really dangerous like bicycling.

After looking at what I have to lose legally, phobic neighbors, and the fact that the DJI platform will simply land on it's own in the scariest of places, like the middle of a freeway, it definately gives one pause. It was enough to cancel my Mavic order.

 

[Dave Pitman]

The case has been filed, but I don't think that it has been argued before the court. Which means there isn't a initial judgement to appeal. Meredith was found not guilty of state criminal charges. It was after the acquittal of the criminal charges, that Boggs filed the complaint in the federal court for a declaratory judgement and for damages for his Phantom 3. The actual complaint is an interesting read. They are trying to set a legal precedent for what is a reasonable right of privacy so that drones can be safely flown.

More specifically, plaintiff’s right to relief as well as the defendant’s defenses, will necessarily require resolution of a substantial question of federal law, to wit, the boundaries of the airspace surrounding real property, the reasonable expectation of privacy as viewed from the air, and the right to damage or destroy an aircraft in-flight, in relation to the exclusive federal regulation and protection of air safety, air navigation, and control over the national airspace.​

Yes, I read that earlier. I agree that the suit aims to pry a legal precedent out of federal court. It has to come sometime. If not this case, then another.

 

[MrTommy]

For those wondering what the initial video looked like, I did a search for Tesla drone video on YouTube and found a "crap load" of videos, with one taken from a fixed wing airplane that took off from Lake Tahoe. But apparently the one in question was shot from a lesser altitude that the ones I just found.

 

[anotherlab]

For those wondering what the initial video looked like, I did a search for Tesla drone video on YouTube and found a "crap load" of videos, with one taken from a fixed wing airplane that took off from Lake Tahoe. But apparently the one in question was shot from a lesser altitude that the ones I just found.

It was similar to other videos that he has posted. Like this one of the new Apple headquarters from last week. You only have to watch it for a few seconds to see how low he was flying. It was the same type of flying in the Tesla video.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Dredd]

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.

Dude, take a deep breath.. I've not seen the footage nor do I live in Nevada, but when you take risks, one must be prepared to face the consequences. If caught acknowledge you're wrong and apologize. As a drone pilot, you're going to get a lot of this, regardless of guilty or not. Sadly if every law was obeyed, there'd be no pushing of envelopes for greater creativity, just use common sense and think of us all : ) Have fun

 

[bluntnose]

The guy's a good flier, smooth and good coverage. A little more digging in Nevada's drone trespass cause of action points out the necessity that the guy's business must be registered (with the Secretary of State) to take advantage of the business exception to the trespass. But the real heads up is the part of the statute which covers how the property owner can put the flier on notice that a second flight will get you sued. This is part of NRS 493.103, explaining you get to sue if:

(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.

NRS 207.200, in turn, lists the various ways of informing the flier that he can't fly over, and includes this surprising way:

(c) Fencing the area;

I didn't see the video, but I'd bet the Tesla property is fenced. So . . . if you fly over again at under 250 feet your defense to the suit has to be in the language about reasonableness. Might be a slippery slope.

To me the takeaway for Nevada fliers is this: Form your business and register it with the Sec of State (pretty painless to do), fly at 260 feet whenever you can, watch for "notices" of "you're not welcome", including fences and other things (including signs painted in fluorescent orange (?!!), sell a video to somebody, anybody, and keep a record of it, and fly reasonably (i.e. no fair dive bombing the family pet, cattle, etc.) A pain? Yes. But doable. Obviously, none of this is intended to be legal advice. As always, you fly at your own risk.

I realize we've hashed this thing to death, but the effort to find some takeaway knowledge for all of us is worth the hashing. Better now, than paying your lawyer later to do the research and save your bacon from a civil judgement and possible criminal action.

Oh yeah, I will state once more that we are in desperate need of a national drone flier association. I know that the AMA is an umbrella for us, but I don't know that they would come to the defense of a hapless dronie entangled in lawsuits or regulatory actions, or that they would be active at the state legislature level, so as to prevent the passage of laws which harass legitimate drone flying.

 

[kennedye]

Oh yeah, I will state once more that we are in desperate need of a national drone flier association. I know that the AMA is an umbrella for us, but I don't know that they would come to the defense of a hapless dronie entangled in lawsuits or regulatory actions, or that they would be active at the state legislature level, so as to prevent the passage of laws which harass legitimate drone flying.

Yeah, and I don't think AOPA is going to welcome us with open arms either...

 

[Dave Pitman]

Yeah, and I don't think AOPA is going to welcome us with open arms either...

Funny, I was thinking of AOPA's pilot protection program as well. And I wouldn't discount AOPAs desire to grow their membership significantly !