Harassed by the Fuzz!

[CarlJ]

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.

I got the photo from a friend who attended the event. They didn't violate the FAA's rules because the drone never flew, but they were gonna! My attorney LOVES the photo and said he might even get it framed for the Mayor. :lol:

 

[twodips]

Wow, seems to me the Police are talking out of both sides of their mouths! Chief and his honor both standing by while an out of state pilot HIRED by them (in direct violation of stated FAA rules btw) prepares to fly? Hmmm, wonder how that would go if/when you get to court.
It would seem to me that any conversation with "his honer" should include the chief so it can filter down to his officers.
Good luck, I'm sure y'all have it well in hand given what you've said so far.

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...

 

[darthvader]

Lol

 

[darwin-t]

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

So how did it go?

 

[CarlJ]

So how did it go?

I had to appear in front of the full city council this morning. They're a little confused as to why the police would quote a law that died in committee, but added to the minutes of the meeting that the Chief of Police would address the issue with her officers and offer clarification as to the "real" law, and that it in no way applied to me.

I was told I'll have no more issues with the Peru Police. So everyone in Indiana, continue as you were!

 

[chuddly]

Good man Carl!!! Thanks for blazing a path for the rest of us Hoosiers.

 

[Garysam]

Yes good job for your persistence and diligence.

 

[darwin-t]

Woohoo!!!!!

It's a shame that you had to pay a lawyer to handle the matter, though.

 

[twodips]

So how did it go?

I had to appear in front of the full city council this morning. They're a little confused as to why the police would quote a law that died in committee, but added to the minutes of the meeting that the Chief of Police would address the issue with her officers and offer clarification as to the "real" law, and that it in no way applied to me.

I was told I'll have no more issues with the Peru Police. So everyone in Indiana, continue as you were!

1 solid point for the citizenry! Congrats and thanks for the update.

 

[darwin-t]

Here is the reply I got from my state senator:

Also, in response to your drone question. Listed below is some information one of our Legislative Assistants was able to pull for you.



HEA 1009 (2014) deals with law enforcement use of "unmanned aerial vehicles" as well as creating the offense of "Unlawful Photography and Surveillance on Private Property".



HEA 1009 creates a new section IC 35-33-5-9 which states that law enforcement must obtain a warrant before using an unmanned aerial vehicle. There are exceptions to the warrant requirement, including exigent circumstances and the need to respond to a natural disaster.



"Unmanned aerial vehicle" is defined as an aircraft that:

(A) does not carry a human operator; and

(B) is capable of flight under remote control or autonomous programming.



"Use of an unmanned aerial vehicle" means the use of an unmanned aerial vehicle by a law enforcement officer to obtain evidence relevant to the enforcement of statutes, rules, or regulations.



This section only applies to law enforcement.



HEA 1009 also has a separate section creating a new misdemeanor offense "Unlawful Photography and Surveillance on Private Property". This language found in new code section IC 35-46-8.5-1(b) states in full,



"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 misedemeanor."



I don't believe this language would apply to the use of a quadcopter with a camera on it because this would not be equipment that records images "while unattended", I could see how a police department could interpret it to ban photography on private property by these vehicles, but I don't believe that was the intention.



We hope this answers question to some degree.



Have a wonderful week and 4th of July!

 

[MonsieurAnon]

Carl, what is the name of this town in Indiana I love a good fight I'm retired have some time on my hands lol I would take lots of pictures with 35mm camera iPhone and the quad, I doubt that they even have laws on their books regarding this how you described it. I would especially take pictures of state owned buildings those *** buildings are publicly owned. But I would definitely challenge them.

Most state owned property in the US is free for photography as far as I was aware. The US Federal Government actually has some very liberal laws when it comes to this, and the photos that they take are freely available to anyone, worldwide.

In Australia our laws are pretty clear too:

You cannot record audio of someone in public without written consent, should the audio become relevant in a court case.

You cannot fly a drone within 30m of someone uninvolved in the operation.

You cannot fly a drone over private property or persons where if a component fails, the drone will not clear the area.

This last one is the most important for quads, as they will simply fall if a motor dies, so no flying over private buildings or people.

You can't fly over 400 feet above ground level, or within 8 miles of an airport.

You have to maintain line of sight at all times. FPV is legal only for licenced, commercial operators, and they will often need a radio certificate too.

 

[TIDALWAVE]

It is apparently illegal to photography any industrial building/complex in Illinois! My best friend was doing some night photography of a refinery outside of Chicago (many lights and gas flares burning). A state patrol car stopped and
told him that he had to stop taking pictures and that he had to hand over his camera memory card. He was told if he didn't...he would be arrested and handed over to Homeland Security as a 'terrorist threat'. The cop said
that it would probably take several weeks for him to get out of jail and years to clear his name off Homeland Security 'watch lists'!

 

[Rizzo Media Factory]

It is apparently illegal to photography any industrial building/complex in Illinois! My best friend was doing some night photography of a refinery outside of Chicago (many lights and gas flares burning). A state patrol car stopped and
told him that he had to stop taking pictures and that he had to hand over his camera memory card. He was told if he didn't...he would be arrested and handed over to Homeland Security as a 'terrorist threat'. The cop said
that it would probably take several weeks for him to get out of jail and years to clear his name off Homeland Security 'watch lists'!

First, always obey law enforcement but it is unlawful in the United States for the seizure of the memory card or any other property without a warrant or being charged with a crime. If I was in your friend's shoes, I would have handed over the memory card and politely got the officer's name then hired a lawyer.