Oklahoma set to claim airspace under 200 feet.

[GMack]

Oklahoma has a bill in legislature to make drones flying under 200 feet trespassing. Plan is to enact it November 1, 2017.

SB 630:
The following acts shall constitute a trespass upon the surface of the property directly below for purposes of interpreting applicable Oklahoma statutes and ordinances and adjudicating property rights and claims:

1. Operation of a robotic vehicle at an altitude less than two hundred (200) feet above ground level including on the surface of the ground; or
2. Operation of a robotic vehicle at a distance of less than fifty (50) feet from any structure that is taller than one hundred fifty (150) feet above ground level.

http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/c...S/Senate/SB630 (3-21-17) (SIMPSON) FS FA2.PDF

As with the Nevada and Tesla 200 foot trespassing matter, no doubt the FAA will step aside here too. With 44 Yea votes to zero in the Senate, I suspect it will come to be.

Vote: Senate Votes

FAA seems to be losing the "We control the airspace" with some states.

 

[N017RW]

Don't see how this vacates any FAA authority or 'control'.
Please explain what has been 'taken away' from the FAA.

 

[GMack]

Don't see how this vacates any FAA authority or 'control'.
Please explain what has been 'taken away' from the FAA.

The adage of the "FAA controls the airspace from the top of a blade of grass up." Oklahoma proposes to control the airspace under 200 feet regardless of what the FAA says.

 

[N017RW]

No. They merely say get too close and you're trespassing.

I'm not a lawyer, maybe you are???Seems the FAA still has control.

Do you know some States require aircraft registration in addition to the Federal one? This does not lessen the FAA's requirement.

Should the/a State look to loosen FAA regs then that would be different IMO.

 

[microlinux]

It seems like it would be hard to satisfy a burden of proof on something like this.

 

[Sagebrush]

It seems like it would be hard to satisfy a burden of proof on something like this.

I think they would have to seize the memory card and obtain the flight data.

I smell a court battle on this sometime down the road, probably based on the federal supremacy clause.

SB

 

[KongWerks]

That would also seem to include remote control cars. What is a "robotic" vehicle? Self driving cars as well?

 

[Sagebrush]

That would also seem to include remote control cars. What is a "robotic" vehicle? Self driving cars as well?

Here's the definition in the bill:
1. "Robotic vehicle" means any unmanned or uninhabited vehicle that is capable of either powered locomotion on the ground or powered flight in the air, or both, and that does not carry a human operator on or in the vehicle.

Maybe I need to fly my robot today.

SB

 

[yawnalot29]

It seems to me they are defining the scope of "trespassing" and not usurping the FAA authority nor federal authority.

It gives the homeowner/property owner a tool to press charge I guess if you do not obtain permission. It's not trespassing if you obtain permission, right?

 

[Sagebrush]

It gives the homeowner/property owner a tool to press charge I guess if you do not obtain permission. It's not trespassing if you obtain permission, right?

I agree. And I've written a few trespass tickets. But the big element is proving the height of the overflight and that would take metadata from the video, if taken. Or a video of somebody swinging a rake at it.

SB

 

[yawnalot29]

I agree. And I've written a few trespass tickets. But the big element is proving the height of the overflight and that would take metadata from the video, if taken. Or a video of somebody swinging a rake at it.

SB

So basically not enforceable unless they have a "rangefinder" type of instrument (think golf course) or maybe have the court issue a subpoena?

The easiest thing is if you are flying that low over someone's property, chances are you want to take some video there. Just ask for permission. I am guessing you can't "trespass" on public property so under 200 ft over public land/street should be OK?

 

[Sagebrush]

So basically not enforceable unless they have a "rangefinder" type of instrument (think golf course) or maybe have the court issue a subpoena?

The easiest thing is if you are flying that low over someone's property, chances are you want to take some video there. Just ask for permission. I am guessing you can't "trespass" on public property so under 200 ft over public land/street should be OK?

I don't think a rangefinder would be admissible in court. Scientific instruments need to be proven reliable along with the operator to allow them in. An Intoxilyzer for taking blood alcohol has to be calibrated on a specific schedule and logged. The operator has to be certified. Otherwise the DUI walks.

Perhaps a photograph of the drone next to a power pole or something like that. A witness giving his opinion on elevation isn't going to be admissible unless he/she could qualify as an expert and I don't know who could pull that off.

The officer would have to seize the machine and have a forensic lab analyze the metadata. And then who's going to be able to qualify as an expert witness to testify to the elevational accuracy of a Phantom? Not me.

It's a can of worms from a prosecutor's view.

SB

 

[N017RW]

I agree. And I've written a few trespass tickets. But the big element is proving the height of the overflight and that would take metadata from the video, if taken. Or a video of somebody swinging a rake at it.

SB

My understanding is that laws are meant to deter but the courts dispense justice???

Deterrence has its merits.

 

[tcope]

Don't see how this vacates any FAA authority or 'control'.
Please explain what has been 'taken away' from the FAA.

Part B is fine in that it simply applies an already existing law to drones. It already applied to drones, this law just serves to specifically point that out.

The problem is Part C:

"C. The following acts shall constitute a trespass upon the surface of the property directly below for purposes of interpreting applicable Oklahoma statutes and ordinances and adjudicating property rights and claims:

1. Operation of a robotic vehicle at an altitude less than two hundred (200) feet above ground level including on the surface of the ground;..."

They are _clearly_ regulating airspace. They are telling a person where they can and cannot put something in the air. That is regulating airspace. US Code does not allow for this and the FAA has cautioned lawmakers against doing this exact thing. What they are stating is that the _drone_ cannot be operated in certain airspace. What may then also be confusing is that they then say the person is trespassing. That part is dumb and moot... as without the ability to regulate where a drone can/cannot be flown in airspace, they can't charge someone with that crime. Look at it this way... a city can no more make a law stating where a place and be operated then they can say where a drone can be flown.

There are other sections that are an issue but for the same reasons.

The bigger issue is Section F:

"K. The owner, tenant, occupant, invitee or licensee of privately owned real property may initiate a civil action for compensatory damages for violations of this section and may seek injunctive relief to prevent future violations of this section against a person, state agency or political subdivision that violates this act. Evidence obtained or collected in violation of Req. No. 1643 Page 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 this act is inadmissible as evidence in a criminal prosecution in any court of law in this state."

The first part is very dangerous as it creates an illegal law and then specifically gives people permission to us it against other people. However, the bigger issue is the last part:

"Evidence obtained or collected in violation of Req. No. 1643 Page 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 this act is inadmissible as evidence in a criminal prosecution in any court of law in this state."

Um... this is why we have court systems and judges. lawmakers cannot state how their law will be used. Seriously, what this does is says any evidence you have under this law cannot be used to show you were flying legally. It specifically is stating certain evidence cannot be presented in court. Things like this simply scare the heck out of me! These people are in the position to make laws!

Edit: Let me give you an example... you are charged with flying in violation of this law. You have logs to show that you were not in violation. However, you can't present that information as it's claimed it was obtained while you were in violation of this law. Now, you can argue that you were not in violation so it can be used. One of two things is going to happen. A judge is going to find you were not in violation do you can use that information. However, you won't need to use it as... you were not in violation. Or the judge is going to rule that you were in violation so you... can't use it? But not only does that violate your Constitutional rights (which the person who created this Bill does not seem to know about) or it's pointless to present as... you are already guilty. See how stupid this is?

One important reason we have judges... it because of _really_ stupid lawmakers.

 

[sar104]

Part B is fine in that it simply applies an already existing law to drones. It already applied to drones, this law just serves to specifically point that out.

The problem is Part C:

"C. The following acts shall constitute a trespass upon the surface of the property directly below for purposes of interpreting applicable Oklahoma statutes and ordinances and adjudicating property rights and claims:

1. Operation of a robotic vehicle at an altitude less than two hundred (200) feet above ground level including on the surface of the ground;..."

They are _clearly_ regulating airspace. They are telling a person where they can and cannot put something in the air. That is regulating airspace. US Code does not allow for this and the FAA has cautioned lawmakers against doing this exact thing. What they are stating is that the _drone_ cannot be operated in certain airspace. What may then also be confusing is that they then say the person is trespassing. That part is dumb and moot... as without the ability to regulate where a drone can/cannot be flown in airspace, they can't charge someone with that crime. Look at it this way... a city can no more make a law stating where a place and be operated then they can say where a drone can be flown.

There are other sections that are an issue but for the same reasons.

The bigger issue is Section F:

"K. The owner, tenant, occupant, invitee or licensee of privately owned real property may initiate a civil action for compensatory damages for violations of this section and may seek injunctive relief to prevent future violations of this section against a person, state agency or political subdivision that violates this act. Evidence obtained or collected in violation of Req. No. 1643 Page 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 this act is inadmissible as evidence in a criminal prosecution in any court of law in this state."

The first part is very dangerous as it creates an illegal law and then specifically gives people permission to us it against other people. However, the bigger issue is the last part:

"Evidence obtained or collected in violation of Req. No. 1643 Page 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 this act is inadmissible as evidence in a criminal prosecution in any court of law in this state."

Um... this is why we have court systems and judges. lawmakers cannot state how their law will be used. Seriously, what this does is says any evidence you have under this law cannot be used to show you were flying legally. It specifically is stating certain evidence cannot be presented in court. Things like this simply scare the heck out of me! These people are in the position to make laws!

Edit: Let me give you an example... you are charged with flying in violation of this law. You have logs to show that you were not in violation. However, you can't present that information as it's claimed it was obtained while you were in violation of this law. Now, you can argue that you were not in violation so it can be used. One of two things is going to happen. A judge is going to find you were not in violation do you can use that information. However, you won't need to use it as... you were not in violation. Or the judge is going to rule that you were in violation so you... can't use it? But not only does that violate your Constitutional rights (which the person who created this Bill does not seem to know about) or it's pointless to present as... you are already guilty. See how stupid this is?

One important reason we have judges... it because of _really_ stupid lawmakers.

I agree that they appear to be trying to regulate airspace, but I'm not sure that it can be dismissed simply by saying that they can't. As has been noted before, there must be some altitude at which the landowner has rights. It may be time to provide a little more clarity on where the transition occurs.

 

[Indiana_pyro]

Well good luck to the property owner and or prosecutor being able to PROVE you were in violation (unless its obvious). Sometimes these laws are made just to make the public, in this case drone haters, to shut their mouths and feel they have accomplished something. But then the case goes to court and the pilot`s attorney pounds away at the fact the altitude cannot be proved lower than 200 ft. It appears to be an attempt to discourage fling into someone's "personal space" and stay high enough as to curtail reports of dangerous "low fling". Believe me- we may not always hear about it but dispatchers across the nation get calls everyday with reports that a person has been violated (LOL) by a drone and or was scared this drone was gonna hit their house or the power lines and want something done. If there isn't a clear violation, most LEOs want nothing to do with it and move on. Then the other person has to file something on their own.

If someone has your drone because they took it down using a broom on their property, yep its pretty clear you were lower than 200 feet and that law might give them the right and immunity to their actions.

 

[GMack]

Sounds like Oklahoma HB-1326 drone bill has passed the Senate and now in the governor's hands for approval.

Drone Bill Awaits Governor's Signature - Oklahoma Energy Today
http://okenergytoday.com/2017/05/drone-bill-awaits-governors-signature/
The 7:12 minute audio debate over it is interesting to hear in the above link too. They use the term unregulated Class G airspace under 400 feet as their possible in for the bill's approval.

Sounds like once in place, they'll come back for more anti-drone blood next year.

Fly 'em while you still can.

 

[FlyerFocus]

Oklahoma can make all the laws it wants. They are nullified by Federal per-emption. Until the FAA says "Okay states, you get to regulate the airspace from the ground to 200 feet AGL" these kinds of laws are merely wishful thinking on the part of the state or any municipality.