Welcome to PhantomPilots.com

Sign up for a weekly email of the latest drone news & information

First Negative Encounter in San Jose

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by CYeutter, Oct 18, 2015.

  1. CYeutter

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2014
    Messages:
    49
    Likes Received:
    10
    After almost two years of flying in a particular San Jose city park and hundreds of flights, this morning a ranger stopped by and told me no remote controlled devices are allowed in city parks. I was done flying in the deserted park, thanked him for the information and left.
     
  2. Bigdz

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2014
    Messages:
    638
    Likes Received:
    121
    Location:
    San Jose, Ca
    Curious what park is this? Never had any issues with rangers when flying in sj city parks
     
  3. CloudsNeverDie

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2015
    Messages:
    227
    Likes Received:
    60
  4. tcope

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2015
    Messages:
    3,532
    Likes Received:
    1,389
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT
    I'd say that code is outdated. That is, it was made before drones were around and really could be argued that it does not apply to drones.

    "No person shall operate in any park, any model airplane, boat, car, rocket or other device that is powered by a rocket motor, an internal combustion engine, or other power source, except in an area and at such times as are designated for such use by the director of the department of recreation, parks and community services."

    "or other device that is powered by... other power source"

    Such as a radio or cell phone?
     
  5. Lonewolf

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2014
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    108
    No it's not. Read it again. Whereas, it specifically states..."or other device... that is powered by other power source. Therefore, the ordinance is deemed current. The OP was right not to argue & left without issue.
     
    #5 Lonewolf, Oct 19, 2015
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2015
    GoodnNuff and Buckaye like this.
  6. tcope

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2015
    Messages:
    3,532
    Likes Received:
    1,389
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT
    What is an "other device... powered by other power source"? This could be a cell phone, flashlight, etc. A person could argue that it never states UAV/Drone and never defines what it applies to so how could they know it applies to drones. The people writing the ordinance can write whatever they want to they are required to be clear on the matter.

    In that they wrote, "other device" is laughable.
     
  7. CloudsNeverDie

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2015
    Messages:
    227
    Likes Received:
    60
    It's poorly written, but I'd bet most judges would rule that any reasonable person would conclude that it does apply to drones, since they are essentially souped-up model airplanes. Not a risk I'd want to take.

    On the other hand, many people seem to get away with it on a routine basis... :)
     
    GoodnNuff likes this.
  8. BlackHawk388

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2015
    Messages:
    507
    Likes Received:
    202
    Location:
    Point Washington, FL.
    The initial opening statement of this ordinance makes it clear that it applies to remote controlled aircraft and not cell phones or flashlights. "Other device/Power source" is an open ended catchall that covers battery powered aircraft. It was intentionally written that way to precluded future designs of aircraft from being loop-holed into legality.

    There's nothing here to argue about. Don't like it, work in your local community to have the ordinance rescinded or changed.
     
    GoodnNuff likes this.
  9. Lonewolf

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2014
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    108
    Please, don't be ridiculous! Any intelligent, responsible person can comprehend what it defines.
     
    GoodnNuff likes this.
  10. tcope

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2015
    Messages:
    3,532
    Likes Received:
    1,389
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT
    Vagueness doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    "A statute is also void for vagueness if a legislature's delegation of authority to judges and/or administrators is so extensive that it would lead to arbitrary prosecutions.'

    "Definitions of potentially vague terms, are to be provided"

    You don't think "other device" and "other power source" is just slightly vague?

    Meaning that law enforcement does not get to make up their own definitions. In leaving the wording so unspecific is a double edged sword.

    If you read some of the examples of what the courts have ruled as "vague" I think you will see that a court certainly could rule in that in this situation.

    If you want to read further:

    http://www.tml.org/legal_pdf/ConstChallenges.pdf
     
  11. BlackHawk388

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2015
    Messages:
    507
    Likes Received:
    202
    Location:
    Point Washington, FL.
    I certainly do believe the ordinance is vague, and intentionally so.

    However, the courts in a given State are much more likely to rule in favor of the intentionally, liberal left leaning interpretation of a given description. Which is why it's so very important to my family and I to live in a State where individual rights are more important than federally mandated "rights".
     
  12. Clipper707

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2014
    Messages:
    887
    Likes Received:
    327
    Location:
    SF Bay Area
    It's not vague if you consider the title in context with the body of the code.

    13.44.160 - Powered models - Operation restrictions
     
    GoodnNuff likes this.
  13. liketogethigh

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2014
    Messages:
    131
    Likes Received:
    22
    Location:
    San Jose, Ca
    i had a similar experience this weekend flying in Alviso slough. When i was returning to my car a park ranger drove up and told me drones are not allowed in any county park. Too bad because this was my first time here and I was hoping to make this my regular flying spot.
     
    GoodnNuff likes this.