Flying Over Private Property is Illegal?

[42FrankZ]

I respectfully disagree, and find this a bit heavy on the conspiracy-theorist side of judging fellow citizens.

Watch MD politics in action some time and you might not disagree so readily.

 

[dwallersv]

Watch MD politics in action some time and you might not disagree so readily.

Can't speak for MD.

Out here where I am in the Santa Cruz, CA area, it's certainly less corrupt than you describe. Of course, there's plenty of corruption, but drone annoyance simply isn't important or lucrative enough to attract corruption.

 

[erkme73]

Can't speak for MD.

Out here where I am in the Santa Cruz, CA area, it's certainly less corrupt than you describe. Of course, there's plenty of corruption, but drone annoyance simply isn't important or lucrative enough to attract corruption.

I regularly see videos from California where people with cameras film cops conducting roadside stops from a safe and non-intrusive distance. In no time at all, they are surrounded by cops who demand (illegally) to know who they are and why they are being filmed. Despite such filming being protected speech (SCOTUS has ruled in several landmark cases determining that a citizen has the right to film in public under 1st Amendment protections), police and other public servants regularly infringe on those rights.

Several states have attempted passing laws (and cities passing ordinances) which try to restrict the public's access to film public officials while they perform their duties. Public servants' unions lobby hard for such restrictive measures.

Drones offer yet another tool in the public's arsenal to keep watch over what .gov does, and don't for a moment think that this alone isn't tremendous motive and incentive to clamp down on the use of such technology.

All one has to do is see how much time, effort, and money unions are spending opposing the implementation of body cameras on police officers, to know that there are very powerful forces at play to limit what the public can see.

Whether you call it corruption, conspiracy theories, or simply bad politics, either way there are motives which run deeper than just public outcry for privacy.

 

[GMack]

Law needs to be more defined, imho. Too many gray areas and confusion abound.

1. Privacy should not be expected once outside your house - Period.

2. As to airspace, that too needs to be defined by the FAA. Maybe 50 feet over anothers property (Unless approved in writing by owner.) to 400 feet over or near obstacles.

Friend has a two story home with security cameras under the roof pointing everywhere and peering into other peoples yards are a part of it due to the wide angle lenses on them. He's caught graffiti artists spraying fences and garage doors and has taken the videos to the police, but they don't do anything. He's even got the delivery guys throwing boxes from their truck to his steps. Don't know what privacy they should expect out in public.

3. I'd like to see the NPS get off their anti-drone behavior too since they have started the "No drones allowed in parks" lead with some cities and their parks and land. One accidental flight into a geyser isn't a blanket call for a ban, imho. Simple NPS or city park law would be "If no one is around including animals (and even those animals who seem unfazed by drones) then no harm no foul." And animals do not get the privacy ruling either in #1 above either.

 

[42FrankZ]

Can't speak for MD.

Out here where I am in the Santa Cruz, CA area, it's certainly less corrupt than you describe. Of course, there's plenty of corruption, but drone annoyance simply isn't important or lucrative enough to attract corruption.

It isn't really less corrupt in CA, you probably just agree more with what they are doing.

 

[GMack]

I regularly see videos from California where people with cameras film cops conducting roadside stops from a safe and non-intrusive distance. In no time at all, they are surrounded by cops who demand (illegally) to know who they are and why they are being filmed. Despite such filming being protected speech (SCOTUS has ruled in several landmark cases determining that a citizen has the right to film in public under 1st Amendment protections), police and other public servants regularly infringe on those rights.

Reminds me of a CA newspaper photographer who has been arrested, more like detained, on a couple of occasions. Interesting story here: Meet the sheriff! My first arrest

 

[rladwig]

Airspace starts 1mm above the ground. You can't "own" airspace but you have an easement for it's use. Things in the air cannot interfere with one's right to use their land as it was intended. So far the only ruling has been up to 83 feet.

United States v. Causby - Wikipedia

All of this changes when put into the hands of local judges who don't care about existing laws.

+1

 

[N017RW]

Law needs to be more defined, imho. Too many gray areas and confusion abound.

1. Privacy should not be expected once outside your house - Period.

2. As to airspace, that too needs to be defined by the FAA. Maybe 50 feet over anothers property (Unless approved in writing by owner.) to 400 feet over or near obstacles.

Friend has a two story home with security cameras under the roof pointing everywhere and peering into other peoples yards are a part of it due to the wide angle lenses on them. He's caught graffiti artists spraying fences and garage doors and has taken the videos to the police, but they don't do anything. He's even got the delivery guys throwing boxes from their truck to his steps. Don't know what privacy they should expect out in public.

3. I'd like to see the NPS get off their anti-drone behavior too since they have started the "No drones allowed in parks" lead with some cities and their parks and land. One accidental flight into a geyser isn't a blanket call for a ban, imho. Simple NPS or city park law would be "If no one is around including animals (and even those animals who seem unfazed by drones) then no harm no foul." And animals do not get the privacy ruling either in #1 above either.

Re #1(not exclusively but for example):

Department or other store changing room?

Doctor examination room?

ANY restroom not of your own control (plane, restaurant, hotel, school, gov't building, etc)?

 

[dwallersv]

I regularly see videos from California where people with cameras film cops conducting roadside stops from a safe and non-intrusive distance. In no time at all, they are surrounded by cops who demand (illegally) to know who they are and why they are being filmed. Despite such filming being protected speech (SCOTUS has ruled in several landmark cases determining that a citizen has the right to film in public under 1st Amendment protections), police and other public servants regularly infringe on those rights.

[balance elided]

Look, you've strayed rather far from the original point.

You made some sweeping generalizations about what's motivating these local ordinances. As I said, "I respectfully disagree".

I personally know every person on the City Council in my town of 10,000. Your generalizations do not apply to these people, and while some of them I respect and a few I don't, even the "bad ones" are not addressing drones for the cynical reasons you state. They're taking notice and action because their constituents are angrily contacting them when their homes are being buzzed or worse, "peeped". With the flood of new, semi-autonomous drones in the hands of thousands of less-than-responsible amateurs, this is become a sudden epidemic.

There really isn't much point in arguing this further. I wasn't discussing LEOs or any other officials. I was responding to a rather damning claim you made about legislative leaders and the reasons for restrictive drone laws, which is as fair and accurate as saying that all doctors play golf every afternoon.

 

[dwallersv]

It isn't really less corrupt in CA, you probably just agree more with what they are doing.

Absolutely not. I'm pissed that these restrictive ordinances and state laws are being passed.

I'm just more realistic about why. Indeed, in my view countering this trend is only hampered by adhering to false notions about what's causing it. If it were simply cynical manipulation of the voting public as was asserted, the actions to try and blunt or reverse the trend are very different than if the legislators are instead responding to petition from their constituents.

Hence my interest in getting this right.

 

[dwallersv]

Department or other store changing room?

Doctor examination room?

ANY restroom not of your own control (plane, restaurant, hotel, school, gov't building, etc?

Is there no roof over the enclosure, and I can easily see in from my hotel room across the street? No.

One's "right to privacy" also requires, under the law, that one take reasonable measures to protect that privacy. This is embodied in the legal phrase, "reasonable expectation".

Of course someone in and enclosed space created for the purposes of private activity has a "reasonable expectation". However, should Macy's paint a set of 10'x10' squares out in the parking lot and designated it a "changing area", regardless of what Macy's calls it there is no "reasonable expectation" of privacy.

This all gets muddy when we are talking about Real Property that is completely visible from heights above fences. Does a person have a "reasonable expectation" of privacy from being viewed by an AC, but at the very same time does not have that reasonable expectation from their neighbor looking out their upstairs bedroom window into the backyard?

This is not cut-and-dried by any measure, and is being worked out by our democratic process.

 

[AlecW]

My last house had a very private tree lined and walled back yard, in the summer there was no way for anyone to see into it, even the neighbors. Sure the odd plane flew over, I was a few miles from a regional airport but it was/is essentially very private. If a drone flew over at 150 feet I wouldn't worry about it, if someone flew over, hovered and dropped to 100 feet I wouldn't have been happy. It maybe legal, but the point is we are pissing people off and they will try to do something about it. When enough people complain towns and cities will look into using privacy laws to try to make their residents happy at the expense of Chinese toy drone owners that virtually no one cares about.

It's up to us to try not to piss people off so I try to not fly over people houses if I can avoid it or at least do it fast and high so they won't notice.

Some will argue that they don't care and it's legal. To me that's like going into Starbucks with an AR15 just because you can doesn't make it the right thing to do. It won't help convince anyone that drone owners are even close to being responsible.

 

[Desoto Drone]

It is going to be pretty hard for an ambulance chasing attorney to prove intent on what my camera might inadvertently capture.

 

[rmb]

I'm sorry I am confused. As a FAA licensed operator it was made very clear to me that you are NOT allowed to fly over large groups of people or densely populated area with out permission notifying the group and getting consent. Am I wrong?

 

[Helihover]

Crazy the interpretations..........

 

[erkme73]

I'm sorry I am confused. As a FAA licensed operator it was made very clear to me that you are NOT allowed to fly over large groups of people or densely populated area with out permission notifying the group and getting consent. Am I wrong?

If you can envision a scenario where your camera is capturing private property without flying OVER said property, then you're question is not relevant.

 

[tcope]

My last house had a very private tree lined and walled back yard, in the summer there was no way for anyone to see into it, even the neighbors. Sure the odd plane flew over, I was a few miles from a regional airport but it was/is essentially very private. If a drone flew over at 150 feet I wouldn't worry about it, if someone flew over, hovered and dropped to 100 feet I wouldn't have been happy. It maybe legal, but the point is we are pissing people off and they will try to do something about it. When enough people complain towns and cities will look into using privacy laws to try to make their residents happy at the expense of Chinese toy drone owners that virtually no one cares about.

Personally, I agree 100% with this part of the statement.

 

[potluckman]

No one owns airspace. It's public. Land owners have an easement into the air. Causby's case was 83' up so, at this time, we can know that this easement goes up 83'. It's very clear that the FAA regulates all public airspace. Regulating airspace, the FAA and Causby can/are all different things. The FAA is not involved as the civil suit involved property damage on the ground. The FAA had nothing to do with the Causby case for that reason. Now would they have anything to do with a privacy issue that occured on the ground. The flight of a drone over land most likely involved the FAA. The complaint of privacy does not.

A land owner can sue anyone at any time. A land owner could have a valid suit no matter what the height of the drone was as it all goes to what the complaint is. If the drone is 500' in the air the land owner could still have a case that the flight infringed on his/her rights to use the property.

This is a complex post in that its about 10 different situations all rolled into one. I think it's important to keep in mind that there are FAA issues with the actual _flight_ of a drone but also other government and civil issues with the rights of people on land. When someone asks about privacy and flying over land, many different things _might_ apply. Was the flight in airspace legal (regulated by the FAA). Were any privacy issues violated (determined by local and federal governments other then the FAA). Were any civil laws broken (complaints by US citizens and any/all laws apply but it's a civil case).

This definitely is a mess and needs to be settled by the FAA so the rule is national. However in the Sue for Anything USA they can sue even if you are legal. Whats gets me is as a licensed private pilot I used to fly over farms in western kansas sometimes at no more than two hundred
feet and was perfectly legal as it was a unpopulated area. And how about hot air balloons, I have seen them many times floating over houses at no more than 150 ft. agl. Far as privacy,
it has always been a joke among pilots of circling over a area where young ladies are sunbathing totally nude in the farm field but never heard of any of above leading to legal action.
Frankly the real question is are our FAA REGISTERED drones considered an aircraft by the
FAA. If so, then only the FAA has the say.

 

[Helihover]

This definitely is a mess and needs to be settled by the FAA so the rule is national. However in the Sue for Anything USA they can sue even if you are legal. Whats gets me is as a licensed private pilot I used to fly over farms in western kansas sometimes at no more than two hundred
feet and was perfectly legal as it was a unpopulated area. And how about hot air balloons, I have seen them many times floating over houses at no more than 150 ft. agl. Far as privacy,
it has always been a joke among pilots of circling over a area where young ladies are sunbathing totally nude in the farm field but never heard of any of above leading to legal action.
Frankly the real question is are our FAA REGISTERED drones considered an aircraft by the
FAA. If so, then only the FAA has the say.

Hot air balloons....... lol

I used to live Temecula, in wine country, and it was a daily occurrence. One time a balloon basket hit the roof of my neighbors house!

 

[NRJ]

The 500ft rule has been pretty well defined by the Supreme Court.

Argent v. U.S. 124 F.3rd 1277,1281 (1997) citing Lacey v. United States, 219 Ct.Cl. 551, 595 F.2d 614, 616 (1979) (treating 500 feet as line of demarcation between compensatable property taking and non-compensatable overflights); Matson v. United States, 145 Ct.Cl. 225, 171 F.Supp. 283, 286 (1959) (providing compensation for flights under 500 feet).Aaron v. United States, 160 Ct.Cl. 295, 311 F.2d 798, 801 (1963) (allowing claims based on flights below 500ft, while denying those based on flights over 500ft).​

You evidently are very knowledgeable about these particular cases, but if you really want to be understood, why don't you summarize these for us folks who don't have access to these cases, won't go look them up and wouldn't understand the language if we did read them? And please what you are talking about when you say "the 500 ft rule". We drone hobbyists are limited in altitude to 400ft. Thanks.