Harassed by the Fuzz!

ianwood said:
You can download release forms for people to sign but you only truly need them if you are shooting for commercial, wide release. Even in limited commercial use (i.e. not for broadcast or general distribution) it is deemed unnecessary.

The release provides limited protection and people can still cause trouble despite them. In fact, such is the nature of the law that any one person can make it very difficult for you to carry on despite following all applicable rules. As would seem to be the case here.

Anecdotally, the inverse is also true where productions repeatedly break the law but law enforcement, local authorities turn a blind eye to it because it is big budget and generating local revenue.

P.S. as to the CAA rules, you can keep 'em!

Thanks Ian! I'll look into getting the forms, might save me some trouble in the future.
 
I got an email from my state representative with links to new laws which take effect on July 1st. Unfortunately, none of the links worked. I replied asking him for links that work and also asked him about this subject. He has always been pretty good about getting back with me, so I'll see what he says.

I still think the OP's best course of action would be to go to the police station and ask them exactly which law they are referring to and have a copy of 1009 on hand just in case they cite it. Then ask them to show him what part of that pertains to him.

In any case, 1009 isn't even in effect yet.
 
darwin-t said:
I got an email from my state representative with links to new laws which take effect on July 1st. Unfortunately, none of the links worked. I replied asking him for links that work and also asked him about this subject. He has always been pretty good about getting back with me, so I'll see what he says.

I still think the OP's best course of action would be to go to the police station and ask them exactly which law they are referring to and have a copy of 1009 on hand just in case they cite it. Then ask them to show him what part of that pertains to him.

In any case, 1009 isn't even in effect yet.

Darwin,
I've asked and they are referring to 1009. Currently we have one rather rude cop's interpretation of the law, but my attorney is meeting with the mayor's office to discuss the matter very soon, and we're planning on being at the next city counsel meeting. I've been advised not to fly again until the matter can be cleared up.
 
From what I read and interpret, Indiana House Bill 1009 is intended for law enforcement by limiting their use of electronic devices and drones for surveillance of its citizens. Sounds like they were trying to tell you that you needed the subjects authorization to digitally capture/film them...when in fact, law enforcement needs that permission/warrant to do so. Just my take!
 
Diner21959 said:
From what I read and interpret, Indiana House Bill 1009 is intended for law enforcement by limiting their use of electronic devices and drones for surveillance of its citizens. Sounds like they were trying to tell you that you needed the subjects authorization to digitally capture/film them...when in fact, law enforcement needs that permission/warrant to do so. Just my take!

"Unlawful Photography and Surveillance on Private Property," a Class A misdemeanor. This crime is committed by a person who knowingly and intentionally electronically surveys the private property of another without permission."

Please point out in these 2 sentences where the language refers to law enforcement.
 
Just to update everyone we'll be meeting with the Mayor on Monday morning.
 
CarlJ said:
"Unlawful Photography and Surveillance on Private Property," a Class A misdemeanor. This crime is committed by a person who knowingly and intentionally electronically surveys the private property of another without permission."

Please point out in these 2 sentences where the language refers to law enforcement.
Those sentences do not appear in the law in question. This is as close as it gets:

Chapter 8.5. Unlawful Photography and Surveillance on Private
Property
Sec. 1. (a) This section does not apply to any of the following:
(1) Electronic or video toll collection facilities or activities
authorized under any of the following:
(A) IC 8-15-2.
(B) IC 8-15-3.
(C) IC 8-15.5.
(D) IC 8-15.7.
(E) IC 8-16.
(F) IC 9-21-3.5.
(2) A law enforcement officer who has obtained:
(A) a search warrant; or
(B) the consent of the owner or private property;
to place a camera or electronic surveillance equipment on
private property.
HEA 1009 — Concur
12
(b) A person who knowingly or intentionally places a camera or
electronic surveillance equipment that records images or data of
any kind while unattended on the private property of another
person without the consent of the owner or tenant of the private
property commits a Class A misdemeanor.
 
What I read is all based on "on private property". Land owners don't own the aerial space above their head, making these law articles irrelevant.
The sky is not "owned" by individuals or organizations but by the state, and is regulated by the FAA.
 
darwin-t said:
(b) A person who knowingly or intentionally places a camera or
electronic surveillance equipment that records images or data of
any kind while unattended on the private property of another
person without the consent of the owner or tenant of the private
property commits a Class A misdemeanor.

And thank you! My attorney was well aware of the law AND the local dynamics of the situation. YOU claimed on page 1 that there was no law. I wouldn't be running my mouth about the attorney if I were you.

And from the Indiana General Assembly Website, link included! http://iga.in.gov/legislative/2014/bills/house/1009/#

"Provides that, except for a law enforcement officer or governmental entity who has obtained a search warrant, a person who knowingly or intentionally places a camera or electronic surveillance equipment that records images or data of any kind while unattended on the private property of another person without the consent of the owner or tenant of the private property commits a Class A misdemeanor."

And anyone who “knowingly or intentionally places a camera or electronic surveillance equipment that records images or data of any kind while unattended on the private property of another person without the consent of the owner or tenant of the private property “ without a warrant could be charged with a Class A misdemeanor. http://collapse.com/james-daniels/2014/04/03/id2608.htm
 
sergekouper said:
What I read is all based on "on private property". Land owners don't own the aerial space above their head, making these law articles irrelevant.
The sky is not "owned" by individuals or organizations but by the state, and is regulated by the FAA.

Oddly it's convoluted as to who owns what in this case. The county granted 14,000 worth of land to the park, but they still own the land. The park's creator owns everything above the ground, and all the liability for the structure. This was intentional, but as I understand from my attorney that would still place the structure on public land, so I'm not in violation of the law. This is the point we hope to make with the Mayor on Monday.
 
Tomes proposed legislation making it a crime to photograph anyone with a drone, along with other restrictions that would prevent even police from flying them. http://www.wthr.com/story/22169952/back ... -questions

And a mountain of evidence of what this law's true intent is
 
From his blog: http://blogs.wishtv.com/tag/jim-tomes/

The unmanned aircraft known as drones are used primarily by the military. But what if a private citizen bought one and used it to spy on you? One lawmaker thinks it’s possible and state Senator Jim Tomes (R-Wadesville) thinks it’s time for a law that would place limits on drones. “That you couldn’t be videotaping you, your property, or your things without your written permission,” he said. The penalty would be a felony.
 
Are we done yet? Seriously some of you guys are worse to deal with than the police....
 
Watch out CarlJ... There are at least 4 people in that picture that can have you arrested (cars). :eek:
Were I an attorney (I'm not but did stay in a Holiday Inn Express once) I would argue that the section of "law" that your attorney used (as well as the police) is clearly not aimed at citizens but is aimed at Police and Private Investigators. "Surveilling" is the key word especially when it's connected to the prior paragraph(s) in the law. I would argue that the whole law is specifically written to make it illegal for any law enforcement to spy on citizens without warrant NOT to be used against citizens to photograph whatever public area they want.
Hopefully the Mayor sees the larger picture (pun intended) and straightens it out. As for apologizing to the cop... I wouldn't only because as you related the story you really did nothing wrong, especially after being accused of being a pervert.



Sorry guys I had to dump the video on my tablet and run it into my attorney's office. He said the language the police are referring to is:

""Unlawful Photography and Surveillance on Private Property," a Class A misdemeanor. This crime is committed by a person who knowingly and intentionally electronically surveys the private property of another without permission."

They told me no matter if someone ran into the shot and I wasn't trying to film them, I would still be in violation. I posted something about it on facebook and the phone has been ringing off the hook. I'm pretty sure we'll all be talking to the Mayor about this tomorrow.

Til then please enjoy Exhibit A in the case of The State of Indiana Vs CarlJ

Edit: and yes that's really the sign :)
 
twodips said:
Watch out CarlJ... There are at least 4 people in that picture that can have you arrested (cars). :eek:
Were I an attorney (I'm not but did stay in a Holiday Inn Express once) I would argue that the section of "law" that your attorney used (as well as the police) is clearly not aimed at citizens but is aimed at Police and Private Investigators. "Surveilling" is the key word especially when it's connected to the prior paragraph(s) in the law. I would argue that the whole law is specifically written to make it illegal for any law enforcement to spy on citizens without warrant NOT for citizens to photograph whatever they want.
I'd find another lawyer...

Sorry guys I had to dump the video on my tablet and run it into my attorney's office. He said the language the police are referring to is:

""Unlawful Photography and Surveillance on Private Property," a Class A misdemeanor. This crime is committed by a person who knowingly and intentionally electronically surveys the private property of another without permission."

They told me no matter if someone ran into the shot and I wasn't trying to film them, I would still be in violation. I posted something about it on facebook and the phone has been ringing off the hook. I'm pretty sure we'll all be talking to the Mayor about this tomorrow.

Til then please enjoy Exhibit A in the case of The State of Indiana Vs CarlJ

Edit: and yes that's really the sign :)

I really can't understand this. The attorney said I should get written permission, not that the police were applying the law correctly. My attorney feels the police are in error, or that other matters might be influencing the situation...like the current pissing match that's underway with the park's owner and the city about who is allowed to do what.

It's very local, the actual law isn't even in effect, so how can I be in violation?

I've been very honest here, I've gone so far as to provide the project files that I'm working on. There are 2 laws (one died in committee (Senate Bill 20)). I believe the police officer was addressing both laws, but I really don't understand why, as the most restrictive law was never passed. Even still out of an abundance of caution my attorney has suggested that it would be wise to obtain written permission at least until the matter is cleared up. What is so radical about that advice and what in your opinion is unsound?
 
darwin-t said:
I supposed you could fly it without the camera, I suppose.

No way I'll accept that, that's a violation of our freedom of expression. The city is going to back down or we're going to court.

Until then please enjoy Exhibit B in the case of The State of Indiana Vs Carlj:

This photo taken June 14th, 2014 with the Mayor and Chief of Police sitting mere feet away. The drone and it's operator (Louisville, Kentucky) were hired by the city to film a local event that day, but a barricade was knocked over and the drone broken and never flew.

I'll be sure to thank the Mayor for staying with local business...

10517151_10204371531951122_2100960790_n.jpg
 
That's a hoot! The city hired somebody to use one, a clear violation of the FAA's rules!

I meant fly it without a camera until it gets sorted out, not in general. Sorry I wasn't clear on that.
 
CarlJ said:
And thank you! My attorney was well aware of the law AND the local dynamics of the situation. YOU claimed on page 1 that there was no law. I wouldn't be running my mouth about the attorney if I were you.

And from the Indiana General Assembly Website, link included! http://iga.in.gov/legislative/2014/bills/house/1009/#

"Provides that, except for a law enforcement officer or governmental entity who has obtained a search warrant, a person who knowingly or intentionally places a camera or electronic surveillance equipment that records images or data of any kind while unattended on the private property of another person without the consent of the owner or tenant of the private property commits a Class A misdemeanor."

And anyone who “knowingly or intentionally places a camera or electronic surveillance equipment that records images or data of any kind while unattended on the private property of another person without the consent of the owner or tenant of the private property “ without a warrant could be charged with a Class A misdemeanor. http://collapse.com/james-daniels/2014/04/03/id2608.htm

I said "There was a PROPOSED law to regulate photography from remote control aircraft, but it didn't pass. I'll look it up. " and that is true. That law didn't pass. It was tabled until the legislature studied the matter. From a later reply by me:

This may be he one I was thinking of - it did not pass.

http://iga.in.gov/legislative/2014/bills/senate/336/

DIGEST

Unmanned aerial systems. Requires the division of preparedness and training within the Indiana department of homeland security to develop and administer a program to license persons who operate unmanned aerial systems. Provides that a person who operates an unmanned aerial system without a license commits a Class C infraction.

S 01/14/2014 First Reading: Referred to Homeland Security, Transportation, and Veterans Affairs

END QUOTE

At the link you provided here, the language refers to leaving a camera unattended on someone else's property.. In any case, that is a digest of what the law says, and not the actual law, even though the actual law says basically the same thing.

If your lawyer had read the law, he would have know it isn't in effect yet and that it was all about the police and government entities.

A much more logical reading of the part about leaving a recording device on someone's property would be that it refers to cops without a warrant and not the general public.

Good luck. It sucks that you even have to hire a lawyer to deal with this. I'm anxious to hear what happens on Monday.
 

Members online

Forum statistics

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