CA. Bill 142 to make it a crime to fly over private property....

BARF!
Oh please. Before you go getting into an uproar, please read the law.
The very first line of it says, that a person must enter the land of the owner.

1708.83.
(a) A person knowingly enters onto the land of another person pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 1708.8 if he or she operates does either of the following:

This does not criminalize fly overs where the pilot is standing outside of the property.
Such as standing on a public sidewalk and flying over the nearby oil refinery.

This law also clearly states that the ceiling limit is 350 feet.
The FAA ruling says 500 feet. So that gives 150 feet to legally fly in.

The law is unconstitutional on the grounds that federal law already allows the use of airspace above real property by anyone.
Land owners do not own that airspace, neither does the state.
It ain't gonna get passed!
 
BARF!
Oh please. Before you go getting into an uproar, please read the law.
The very first line of it says, that a person must enter the land of the owner.

1708.83.
(a) A person knowingly enters onto the land of another person pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 1708.8 if he or she operates does either of the following:

This does not criminalize fly overs where the pilot is standing outside of the property.
Such as standing on a public sidewalk and flying over the nearby oil refinery.

This law also clearly states that the ceiling limit is 350 feet.
The FAA ruling says 500 feet. So that gives 150 feet to legally fly in.

The law is unconstitutional on the grounds that federal law already allows the use of airspace above real property by anyone.
Land owners do not own that airspace, neither does the state.
It ain't gonna get passed!

When you finish barfing you might want to read it again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dirkclod
Dang Marlin..ya made me read it !! Was liking the barfing part
Ya Got Em Good.gif
Whoops. Sorry went OT on ya :oops:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Marlin009
Oh please. Before you go getting into an uproar, please read the law.
The very first line of it says, that a person must enter the land of the owner.
So basically they are going to try and pass a law to make some thing be illegal that's already illegal in the first place any way.

Thats about as riduless as how they pass hate crime bills that say its against the law to beat some one up or murder them based on if they are black or gay when its already against the law to assault or murder any one in the first place.

Or when they try to pass laws saying its against the law in ny to put more then 10 bullets in a gun and also made it an extra felony if some one were to commit a much more serous crime with a gun in the first place as if a mass shooter who's already going to go murder people or go in a gun free zone is going to think oh I better not put more then 10 rounds in the mag cause they will not want to risk being charged with violating ny states safe criminal work environment act. Which is a law designed to only effect law abiding gun owners in the first place being criminals usually arn't to keen on following laws in the first place.
 
With over 700,000 laws that have been enacted at the local, state and federal levels......it has been said that the average American violates at least seven laws a day! And we all know that Phantom pilots are far from average!
 
So basically they are going to try and pass a law to make some thing be illegal that's already illegal in the first place any way.

No, Suwaneeguy read it incorrectly.... which may be why they included that part. To confuse people. They mention a few things that are already illegal then piggy back the new law, to make it look like it's just an extension of existing law. However, it's not an extension. It flies (no pun) in the face of existing laws that says a property owner does _not_ own the air above their property and that it's public space regulated by the FAA.

I doubt the law is enforceable. However, it _does_ succeed in making the innocent person prove it's an illegal law.
 
Seriously land owners DO own their air rights to a level they reasonably can use. Low flying aircraft that interfere with those reasonable rights are trespassing and may be liable for civil damages. Under no circumstances however do property laws grant you the right to do anything except bring an action in court. You may not shoot anything without exposing yourself to legal action. This 19th century thinking creates more problems than it solves. Self-help is inappropriate in these cases
 
This is an attempt for Ca. to try and respond to the public privacy complaints made by it's citizens...

In a nutshell it says that if an operator of a drone flies it less than 350agl over private property then the operator can be considered trespassing on and occupying the real property so that they can try and charge you with the following existing laws...

Which state that if you intentionally record video, sound etc of the on goings on that property and done in a manner that is offensive then you can be subject...


It also states that by flying within 350agl over private property and you cause damage to the property then you will be held responsible.

In the first law, you would have to proven guilty of intent of... "to physically invade the privacy of the plaintiff with the intent to capture any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression of the plaintiff engaging in a personal or familial activity and the physical invasion occurs in a manner that is offensive to a reasonable person."

If your flying over the property in transition of capturing aerial images without the intent of invading the specific privacy of said property then your fine.

The second law, just says if you fly over someone elses property and you happen to cause damage to it, then you have to pay for the damages..

This is pretty far reaching and IMHO, it's scary as to exercise your rights as a drone operator, you would have to go to court to protect yourself... And the arresting LEO will not take into consideration you are in transitional flight and not intending to invade someone's privacy.


a) A person is liable for physical invasion of privacy when the defendant knowingly enters onto the land of another person without permission or otherwise committed a trespass in order to physically invade the privacy of the plaintiff with the intent to capture any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression of the plaintiff engaging in a personal or familial activity and the physical invasion occurs in a manner that is offensive to a reasonable person.

(b) A person is liable for constructive invasion of privacy when the defendant attempts to capture, in a manner that is offensive to a reasonable person, any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression of the plaintiff engaging in a personal or familial activity under circumstances in which the plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy, through the use of a visual or auditory enhancing device, regardless of whether there is a physical trespass, if this image, sound recording, or other physical impression could not have been achieved without a trespass unless the visual or auditory enhancing device was used.

(c) An assault or false imprisonment committed with the intent to capture any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression of the plaintiff is subject to subdivisions (d), (e), and (h).

(d) A person who commits any act described in subdivision (a), (b), or (c) is liable for up to three times the amount of any general and special damages that are proximately caused by the violation of this section. This person may also be liable for punitive damages, subject to proof according to Section 3294. If the plaintiff proves that the invasion of privacy was committed for a commercial purpose, the defendant shall also be subject to disgorgement to the plaintiff of any proceeds or other consideration obtained as a result of the violation of this section. A person who comes within the description of this subdivision is also subject to a civil fine of not less than five thousand dollars ($5,000) and not more than fifty thousand dollars ($50,000).

(e) A person who directs, solicits, actually induces, or actually causes another person, regardless of whether there is an employer-employee relationship, to violate any provision of subdivision (a), (b), or (c) is liable for any general, special, and consequential damages resulting from each said violation. In addition, the person that directs, solicits, actually induces, or actually causes another person, regardless of whether there is an employer-employee relationship, to violate this section shall be liable for punitive damages to the extent that an employer would be subject to punitive damages pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 3294. A person who comes within the description of this subdivision is also subject to a civil fine of not less than five thousand dollars ($5,000) and not more than fifty thousand dollars ($50,000).

(f) (1) The transmission, publication, broadcast, sale, offer for sale, or other use of any visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression that was taken or captured in violation of subdivision (a), (b), or (c) shall not constitute a violation of this section unless the person, in the first transaction following the taking or capture of the visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression, publicly transmitted, published, broadcast, sold or offered for sale, the visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression with actual knowledge that it was taken or captured in violation of subdivision (a), (b), or (c), and provide compensation, consideration, or remuneration, monetary or otherwise, for the rights to the unlawfully obtained visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression.

(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), "actual knowledge" means actual awareness, understanding, and recognition, obtained prior to the time at which the person purchased or acquired the visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression, that the visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression was taken or captured in violation of subdivision (a), (b), or (c). The plaintiff shall establish actual knowledge by clear and convincing evidence.

(3) Any person that publicly transmits, publishes, broadcasts, sells or offers for sale, in any form, medium, format or work, a visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression that was previously publicly transmitted, published, broadcast, sold or offered for sale, by another person, is exempt from liability under this section.

(4) If a person's first public transmission, publication, broadcast, or sale or offer for sale, of a visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression that was taken or captured in violation of subdivision (a), (b), or (c), does not constitute a violation of this section, that person's subsequent public transmission, publication, broadcast, sale or offer for sale, in any form, medium, format or work, of the visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression, does not constitute a violation of this section.

(5) This section applies only to a visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression that is captured or taken in California in violation of subdivision (a), (b), or (c) after January 1, 2010, and shall not apply to any visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression taken or captured outside of California.

(6) Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to impair or limit a special motion to strike pursuant to Section 425.16, 425.17, or 425.18 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(7) This section shall not be construed to limit all other rights or remedies of the plaintiff in law or equity, including, but not limited to, the publication of private facts.

(g) This section shall not be construed to impair or limit any otherwise lawful activities of law enforcement personnel or employees of governmental agencies or other entities, either public or private who, in the course and scope of their employment, and supported by an articulable suspicion, attempt to capture any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression of a person during an investigation, surveillance, or monitoring of any conduct to obtain evidence of suspected illegal activity or other misconduct, the suspected violation of any administrative rule or regulation, a suspected fraudulent conduct, or any activity involving a violation of law or business practices or conduct of public officials adversely affecting the public welfare, health or safety.

(h) In any action pursuant to this section, the court may grant equitable relief, including, but not limited to, an injunction and restraining order against further violations of subdivision (a), (b), or (c).

(i) The rights and remedies provided in this section are cumulative and in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law.

(j) It is not a defense to a violation of this section that no image, recording, or physical impression was captured or sold.

(k) For the purposes of this section, "for a commercial purpose" means any act done with the expectation of a sale, financial gain, or other consideration. A visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression shall not be found to have been, or intended to have been captured for a commercial purpose unless it is intended to be, or was in fact, sold, published, or transmitted.

(l) For the purposes of this section, "personal and familial activity" includes, but is not limited to, intimate details of the plaintiff's personal life, interactions with the plaintiff's family or significant others, or other aspects of the plaintiff's private affairs or concerns. "Personal and familial activity" does not include illegal or otherwise criminal activity as delineated in subdivision (g). However, "personal and familial activity" shall include the activities of victims of crime in circumstances under which subdivision (a), (b), or (c) would apply.

(m) (1) A proceeding to recover the civil fines specified in subdivision (d) or (e) may be brought in any court of competent jurisdiction by a county counsel or city attorney.

(2) Fines collected pursuant to this subdivision shall be allocated, as follows:

(A) One-half shall be allocated to the prosecuting agency.

(B) One-half shall be deposited in the Arts and Entertainment Fund, which is hereby created in the State Treasury.

(3) Funds in the Arts and Entertainment Fund created pursuant to paragraph (2) may be expended by the California Arts Council, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to issue grants pursuant to the Dixon-Zenovich-Maddy California Arts Act of 1975 (Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 8750) of Division 1 of Title 2 of the Government Code).

(4) The rights and remedies provided in this subdivision are cumulative and in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law.

(n) The provisions of this section are severable. If any provision of this section or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.




3334. (a) The detriment caused by the wrongful occupation of real
property, in cases not embraced in Section 3335 of this code, the
Eminent Domain Law (Title 7 (commencing with Section 1230.010) of
Part 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure), or Section 1174 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, is deemed to include the value of the use of the
property for the time of that wrongful occupation, not exceeding five
years next preceding the commencement of the action or proceeding to
enforce the right to damages, the reasonable cost of repair or
restoration of the property to its original condition, and the costs,
if any, of recovering the possession.
(b) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), for purposes of
subdivision (a), the value of the use of the property shall be the
greater of the reasonable rental value of that property or the
benefits obtained by the person wrongfully occupying the property by
reason of that wrongful occupation.
(2) If a wrongful occupation of real property subject to this
section is the result of a mistake of fact of the wrongful occupier,
the value of the use of the property, for purposes of subdivision
(a), shall be the reasonable rental value of the property.
 
If I ever crash and burn my P3P but the camera still works, I am going to attach it to a kite and see if that bothers anyone. I was out flying it today and thought the same thing as you AmosMoses...nobody gives a tinker's about a plane flying over at 500 feet, but them little pesky drones...we can't have that. This is getting so ridiculous it's almost funny...I said almost.
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,358
Members
104,936
Latest member
hirehackers