Illegal to fly under 400 foot?

The Drone Law Journal link has a great section on State and Local Government Drone Law. Excellent read. Basically, they can make up whatever laws they want but, if challenged in court, they would be doomed. lol. Not that I want to test that out, mind you.
 
Lordy, please spare me all this madness....

ALL I wanna do is fly my leetle quad copter and have a leetle fun !!
 
I think maybe you all are missing something. It sounds like the Chief's concerns are not about FAA controlled airspace but about invasion of privacy which is something he does have control over. The FAA does seem to want the local and state government to deal with that issue as its not in the FAA's area of responsibility. I think you need to approach this from the privacy aspect. Check your local laws very carefully. Many of the newly passed laws are very vague and will need to be tested in court. I doubt you want to be the first test case in your state.

I agree with many of the posters about trying to dialogue with him. Find out what his concerns are and then see if you can alleviate them. You might even invite him out to fly and let him see what you are doing. He probably has no idea what the video looks like. I think a lot of people think we have huge zoom lenses that can peep right into "the daughters bedroom." If that doesnt work, then see if you can find an elected councilman that will listen to you. Believe me, they have a lot of influence over a Police Chief (I work in local Government so I see it all the time)
 
Print out a copy of United States v. Causby
328 U.S. 256 (1946) - United States v. Causby - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And nicely provide a copy to the chief.

sssssssss.......
Yall gone push that Boss Hog into going postal on someone's haid
WwKDta3L69klNkG3MnmmPvri9pzq2lVvXHlDZZL3mkE.png


But seriously....good point adfischer
 
I think Kandelin's comment is a funny because it's true and NEair's post explains things in good details.

The policy "chief" is 100% incorrect and it yet another reason why he's not a judge. He _clearly_ is mixing information he's gleamed into his own thinking on the matter. As such, it's 100% incorrect.

No one owns the airspace above their property. That is a simple fact. As Causby shows, a property owner has a easement into the airspace as to be allowed to use their _property_ as it was intended. This is probably where the chief get's how "ownership" information (or he's going back prior to modern aviation which make's him look more ignorant). He's also ignoring US Code which states it's _public_ airspace and US Code that states only the FAA can regulate this airspace. What he's taking is the FAA 400' recommendation and combining it with Causby in order to get his facts completely incorrect. He's then also ignoring that the FAA is in charge of airspace.

He's then taking right of privacy in non-public places and applying this to any public place and also ignoring the 1st Amendment of the Constitution. BTW, it's the _FIRST_ Amendment so it's not that hard to find. The Supreme Court (the one he mentions) has ruled that photos are a form of speech (expression) and protected.

There is a reason why that chief is not a judge or attorney. There is also a good reason why he should understand what he's talking about before he tells someone that they would be breaking the law and would charge them with something.
 
I think Kandelin's comment is a funny because it's true and NEair's post explains things in good details.

The policy "chief" is 100% incorrect and it yet another reason why he's not a judge. He _clearly_ is mixing information he's gleamed into his own thinking on the matter. As such, it's 100% incorrect.

No one owns the airspace above their property. That is a simple fact. As Causby shows, a property owner has a easement into the airspace as to be allowed to use their _property_ as it was intended. This is probably where the chief get's how "ownership" information (or he's going back prior to modern aviation which make's him look more ignorant). He's also ignoring US Code which states it's _public_ airspace and US Code that states only the FAA can regulate this airspace. What he's taking is the FAA 400' recommendation and combining it with Causby in order to get his facts completely incorrect. He's then also ignoring that the FAA is in charge of airspace.

He's then taking right of privacy in non-public places and applying this to any public place and also ignoring the 1st Amendment of the Constitution. BTW, it's the _FIRST_ Amendment so it's not that hard to find. The Supreme Court (the one he mentions) has ruled that photos are a form of speech (expression) and protected.

There is a reason why that chief is not a judge or attorney. There is also a good reason why he should understand what he's talking about before he tells someone that they would be breaking the law and would charge them with something.

This thread has taken an erroneous twist. The gist of the OP was that an authority figure wrongfully threatened him.
We've been over the actual law 1000 times, it's not difficult to find the applicable laws and it's obvious the Chief was wrong.

As sUAV hobbyist, in the current atmosphere, I think this thread is more about dealing with those authorities even when they are wrong because many of us are probably going to run into this at some point. Trying to school a LEO when he or she's just told you sternly that you are wrong is an exercise in futility if not just stupid. We have a long way to go on the Bell Curve of Acceptance until public opinion begins to return to reasonableness on these aircraft. Right now the overall perception is bad.

Fact is, we're up against a lot of uneducated people (in authority positions) who quite frankly couldn't care less about Causby or the FAA. You can pull documents out till you turn blue, but the truth is, the Chief was in charge at the moment. Best to not poke the hornets nest. And good luck trying to educate a Police Chief who clearly has put you on notice in no uncertain terms. Save your documents for your day in court or better yet, politely apologize and collect your gear and go.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FotoGeek
This thread has taken an erroneous twist. The gist of the OP was that an authority figure wrongfully threatened him.
We've been over the actual law 1000 times, it's not difficult to find the applicable laws and it's obvious the Chief was wrong.

As sUAV hobbyist, in the current atmosphere, I think this thread is more about dealing with those authorities even when they are wrong because many of us are probably going to run into this at some point. Trying to school a LEO when he or she's just told you sternly that you are wrong is an exercise in futility if not just stupid. We have a long way to go on the Bell Curve of Acceptance until public opinion begins to return to reasonableness on these aircraft. Right now the overall perception is bad.

Fact is, we're up against a lot of uneducated people (in authority positions) who quite frankly couldn't care less about Causby or the FAA. You can pull documents out till you turn blue, but the truth is, the Chief was in charge at the moment. Best to not poke the hornets nest. And good luck trying to educate a Police Chief who clearly has put you on notice in no uncertain terms. Save your documents for your day in court or better yet, politely apologize and collect your gear and go.
You really must have had some pretty awful interactions with police in your life?

The first step in educating the public (or the Chief) is starting a discourse. You seem convinced this will end in disaster. In fact you said:
"Ok, so you feel that having an unreasonable officer bash your head to the ground, taze or shoot you is better?" - all this because the OP presents the FAA's rules to the Chief. I don't understand why you want the OP to be as fearful of police as it seems you are?

Meet with the Chief - take a witness if you are that paranoid. If the Chief isn't receptive, then go above him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lonewolf
Where can you fly? Under water of course! Hmmm.....
Oh ok good to know!
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.


Sent from my iPod touch using PhantomPilots mobile app
 
You really must have had some pretty awful interactions with police in your life?

The first step in educating the public (or the Chief) is starting a discourse. You seem convinced this will end in disaster. In fact you said:
"Ok, so you feel that having an unreasonable officer bash your head to the ground, taze or shoot you is better?" - all this because the OP presents the FAA's rules to the Chief. I don't understand why you want the OP to be as fearful of police as it seems you are?

Meet with the Chief - take a witness if you are that paranoid. If the Chief isn't receptive, then go above him.

No, not really. It's not good to assume things.
Run ins with cops? Nothing unusual. I've had a few, same as most people.
A couple of deserved speeding tickets but one where they were dishonest when I was a teen.

All I'm saying is when a LEO tells you the things he told the OP at the beginning of this particular thread, that is probably not the time to try to school them.
If you are honest, you will have to admit there is a lot of conversation in the nation about Police brutality...mostly concerning blacks however.
So there's an atmosphere that already puts Police on edge. That's why they will often approach you during a stop in pairs or sometimes with one hand near the Glock, depending on the circumstances. It's self defense training on their part.

If the Chief is receptive to discussion good. THIS one did not appear (from the OP description) very open to discussion. He seemed quite clear in his assertions. Clearly even you should be able to see that from the OP?

So you don't misunderstand, I am discussing this thread. This Police chief or any LEO that responds as he did in THIS situation. There are many threads here where LEOs responded in a very friendly manner.

To say "I want the OP to be fearful of Police" is mean on your part imo.
You claim to be trained in psychology and disarming situations I think you said?
Use that talent in a constructive way.
Please don't assume or revise what I actually said. :)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: kirk2579
No, not really. It's not good to assume things.
I've had a few, same as most people.

All I'm saying is when a LEO tells you the things he told the OP at the beginning of this particular thread, that is probably not the time to try to school them.
If you are honest, you will have to admit there is a lot of conversation in the nation about Police brutality...mostly concerning blacks however.
So there's an atmosphere that already puts Police on edge. That's why they will often approach you during a stop in pairs or sometimes with one hand near the Glock, depending on the circumstances. It's self defense training on their part.

If the Chief is receptive to discussion good. THIS one did not. Clearly even you should be able to see that from the OP?

So you don't misunderstand, I am discussing this thread. This Police chief or any LEO that responds as he did in THIS situation.

Please don't assume or revise what I actually said. :)
Fact: Neither you or I have any real idea of how the OP was approached by this Chief, what his demeanor or attitude was when he spoke to the OP. All we know is what the OP said in his initial post (he hasn't responded to any subsequent posts). I think some here are assuming he was hostile and/or angry when he approached the OP, but we really don't know. He may have been very pleasant, but just a buffoon that doesn't know the law.

And we don't have any idea WHY the OP was even approached by the police - was he flying where he shouldn't? For all we know the OP could have been flying over the Chief's daughter as she lay by the pool. There is a lot here we don't know.

I've had lots of interactions with police in my 57 years. Sometimes in handcuffs. I still don't fear them, nor am I a cocky *** when I interact with them. I treat them with respect, and have always been treated with respect in return. I'm not black, or my story might be quite different.

I still think the best plan is to ask to speak to the Chief with documents from the FAA in hand.
 
Fact: Neither you or I have any real idea of how the OP was approached by this Chief, what his demeanor or attitude was when he spoke to the OP. All we know is what the OP said in his initial post (he hasn't responded to any subsequent posts). I think some here are assuming he was hostile and/or angry when he approached the OP, but we really don't know. He may have been very pleasant, but just a buffoon that doesn't know the law.

And we don't have any idea WHY the OP was even approached by the police - was he flying where he shouldn't? For all we know the OP could have been flying over the Chief's daughter as she lay by the pool. There is a lot here we don't know.

I've had lots of interactions with police in my 57 years. Sometimes in handcuffs. I still don't fear them, nor am I a cocky *** when I interact with them. I treat them with respect, and have always been treated with respect in return. I'm not black, or my story might be quite different.

I still think the best plan is to ask to speak to the Chief with documents from the FAA in hand.


No problem with your opinion. That what's discussions are all about.
I still think this particular chief was not the right person to push at that time...given the OP's stated circumstances.
As far as the OP, I have no reason to 2nd guess his post. I'm taking it for face value that he presented it as it happened and just discussing it as if it happened as he said. If he wants to change or modify what he said so be it.

Peaz
 
  • Like
Reactions: GoodnNuff
You can pull documents out till you turn blue, but the truth is, the Chief was in charge at the moment. Best to not poke the hornets nest. And good luck trying to educate a Police Chief who clearly has put you on notice in no uncertain terms. Save your documents for your day in court or better yet, politely apologize and collect your gear and go.
The chief was not in charge of anything at the time. The OP is a free person and operating within the law. Police are not a judge and no one is guilty until a judge says they are. However, that is not the _real_ problem. The problem is, when you don't exercise your rights.... you tend to lose them. The next time the chief sees someone flying he will tell them the same thing... and the next and the next. Pretty soon... no one can fly and ta-da.... you've just given up your rights.

Personally, I could afford to pay a fine. I'd simply explain to the chief that he's incorrect, let him know I'm going to fly (when and where) and respectively invite him to be there to issue a citation.
 
I am pretty sure we all agree the chief wouldn't have a leg to stand on federally. Shitty thing about that is you need to fail at a state level before being heard by the supreme court on an a non-inditable (not a felony) offence. (I think... not sure in USA but canada anyway). This means your drone is in an evidence locker for as long as you pay a lawyer. Waste of time sure, it's your time though I guess. One man's waste of time is another man's learning experience.

Even if you do win 2 years later. Yay?
 
Last edited:
The chief was not in charge of anything at the time. The OP is a free person and operating within the law. Police are not a judge and no one is guilty until a judge says they are. However, that is not the _real_ problem. The problem is, when you don't exercise your rights.... you tend to lose them. The next time the chief sees someone flying he will tell them the same thing... and the next and the next. Pretty soon... no one can fly and ta-da.... you've just given up your rights.

Personally, I could afford to pay a fine. I'd simply explain to the chief that he's incorrect, let him know I'm going to fly (when and where) and respectively invite him to be there to issue a citation.

The OP didn't state whether the discussion was during the flight or afterward. But it sounded as though it was during a flight.

Tell you what...next time a cop mistakes you for an armed burglar who also happened to be driving a blue sedan, and tells you to get on the ground, try that "free person" thingy ;)
 
Tell you what...next time a cop mistakes you for an armed burglar who also happened to be driving a blue sedan, and tells you to get on the ground, try that "free person" thingy ;)

That's a bit different. If suspected of a crime or doing anything that requires a license you need to identify yourself for purposes of detention. They're still not allowed to mistreat you despite what they may think. Many do try. I personally disagree with the fact that they're allowed to lie to you but I digress.

Even suspected of murder, you are detained and when cause is found, arrested. When the details come out you are either released or remanded. Knowing how to handle yourself with police is a valuable skill.

They are NOT your friend. Their sole purpose is to keep the peace and secondary is to build cases against suspects.
 
He's also ignoring US Code which states it's _public_ airspace and US Code that states only the FAA can regulate this airspace. What he's taking is the FAA 400' recommendation and combining it with Causby in order to get his facts completely incorrect. He's then also ignoring that the FAA is in charge of airspace.

He's then taking right of privacy in non-public places and applying this to any public place and also ignoring the 1st Amendment of the Constitution. BTW, it's the _FIRST_ Amendment so it's not that hard to find. The Supreme Court (the one he mentions) has ruled that photos are a form of speech (expression) and protected.

Not going to defend the claims attributed to the police by the OP.

I get what you are stating and see where you are coming from. I still see a big hole in the logic.

Sure, the FAA reserves the authority to regulate airspace. Not sure I agree with your belief that "no one" owns any airspace, but that's not here not there.

In the OP, there was no claim of airspace rule enforcement. There were claims of trespass and privacy law enforcement.

When your write "applying this to any public place" in this context (plus your other comments) you seem to be asserting that ALL airspace is public (since we only have an "easement" to any airspace above our property."

Is it then your belief that ONLY the FAA can create rules and has sole enforcement power for any activity that takes place off the ground? Is it your believe that there cannot be trespass if it is done one inch or five feet off the ground (either because it is happening in "public" airspace or simply because the FAA doesn't have any trespass rules for such circumstances)?

Do you believe that people do no have an expectation of privacy in their own, fenced in, backyard? (Thus, permitting a UAV to photograph you in your yard at will).

One of the big arguments against the need for FAA regulations in this area is that there are already laws on the books to cover these situations. Trespass, privacy, etc. You cannot walk (or drive an RC car) into someone's backyard and harass them, take photos of them or invade their privacy. There are many in the law enforcement and legal communities who believe that these same laws apply to UAVs.

Are you suggesting that these laws do NOT apply because UAVs are operating in "public" space (anything above ground level)?
 
Sure, the FAA reserves the authority to regulate airspace. Not sure I agree with your belief that "no one" owns any airspace, but that's not here not there.
You don't agree only because you've not read up on the issue (which is a little disingenuous). It's very easy and 100% clear:

United States v. Causby - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the OP, there was no claim of airspace rule enforcement. There were claims of trespass and privacy law enforcement.
Actually, those claims were half of his entire post:
"I recently had a discussion with our chief of police who informed me he could charge me with trespassing for flying over private property below 400 foot, as well as confiscate my phantom and phone."

So he told the OP he _would_ charge him with a false crime as well as illegally take his personal property.

Is it then your belief that ONLY the FAA can create rules and has sole enforcement power for any activity that takes place off the ground? Is it your believe that there cannot be trespass if it is done one inch or five feet off the ground (either because it is happening in "public" airspace or simply because the FAA doesn't have any trespass rules for such circumstances)?
Yes. This is _specifically_ why this is becoming a huge issue and problem. I've spent a lot of time researching these issues because I find the whole thing very interesting. I know other people have better things to do with their time. But _yes_... that _is_ exactly correct! It's why local law makers have felt the need to make their own (illegal) laws regulating airspace. The FAA was told to come up with these regulations and they have missed their deadline. This is now hurting us drone flyers because is kind of forcing local people to do the (still illegal) regulating of the airspace in their area. It's also allowed the media to make this all news worthy. Think about it... I can buzz my drone 5' over your back yard (as long as it's done in a safe and non-reckless manner and it's pretty much legal. I'm not condoning it or even saying I think it should be legal (local law enforcement might be able to charge you with something like disturbing the peace or something like that).

Do you believe that people do no have an expectation of privacy in their own, fenced in, backyard? (Thus, permitting a UAV to photograph you in your yard at will).
VERY GOOD COMMENT! I think we are right together on this thought. I think it's legal right now but have to admit... perhaps the home owner should have a right to that privacy. A drone creates these brand new issues! We've not really had this as an issue before. Personally, No pun but I'm on the fence about this issue. I think a drone should be allowed to fly over someone's property just as any other aircraft but I don't think it's a good idea to hover over someone's property low enough as to indicate it's specifically targeting that person's closed in area that otherwise would not be seen from off that property. It _is_ a tough call.

One of the big arguments against the need for FAA regulations in this area is that there are already laws on the books to cover these situations. Trespass, privacy, etc. You cannot walk (or drive an RC car) into someone's backyard and harass them, take photos of them or invade their privacy. There are many in the law enforcement and legal communities who believe that these same laws apply to UAVs.
Ok... your post here really indicates to me that you understand this issue as you nail it right on the head. If I can see over your fence from public property (or my own) then it's legal for me to look in your backyard. However, I can't come onto your property and look over your fence (I'm somewhat simplifying that). But a drone gives a unique vantage point. I'm not on your property but can still easily look into your backyard that would not otherwise be visible from off your property.

Are you suggesting that these laws do NOT apply because UAVs are operating in "public" space (anything above ground level)?
Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. I'm not condoning it or agreeing that it should be done. I'm also blaming the FAA for not doing what they were told to do. Don't take that the wrong way... I don't really want the regulation but they need to say something in order to stop drone use being being news. That is why I look at drone registration as a good thing. People now think the FAA did something to "regulate" drones. But we all know it did nothing. It does not stop us from flying as we always have. I also like DJI's Geofencing idea because it does the same thing.

Read the Causby case and put it together with that you already know. Digest that information. You might find it interesting.
 
You don't agree only because you've not read up on the issue (which is a little disingenuous). It's very easy and 100% clear:

I snipped the rest of your post simply to save space.

My reply was intended for me to better understand your position. While it wasn't meant to be argumentative, I do strongly disagree with your conclusions. I was already familiar with Causby. Not sure how you could accuse me of being disingenuous (which would not apply whether or not I knew anything about Causby).

The link you provide to Causby is a wiki page. Even working with the premise that Wiki is correct and not omitting some important facts, you seem to be misreading.

Look at the main quote in that article:

Thus, a landowner "owns at least as much of the space above the ground as he can occupy or use in connection with the land," and invasions of that airspace "are in the same category as invasions of the surface."

This clearly indicates that the landowner OWNS some amount of airspace above his land. It also states that a trespass in that airspace is the same at trespass on the ground. SCotUS decisions trump FAA assertions. That alone would give local law enforcement the authority and power to enforce trespass laws for a craft flying onto someone's property.

Same would hold true for violation of privacy or endangerment or harassment. Just because you are a few inches off the ground does not give you a loophole to skirt the law.

Remember that the court found in favor of Causby in that case... the US Government lost. (Although the full decision did give contravene the previous common law principle and give the government authority over "navigable" airspace.)

Further:
Since the aircraft passing over Cause's property were at 83 feet, the court determined the flight path was an easement, a form of property right. Because the government had taken the easement through private property, Causby was owed compensation under the Takings Clause.

You mentioned earlier that no one owns the airspace over their property, they only have an easement. Again, I think you misread. Based on the above quote, the opposite is the case. The property owner in Causby was determined to have owned the space above his property. It was the government that had taken that easement and thus owed compensation to Causby.

It has been a long established principle (well before Causby, going back to English Common Law) that you own the airspace above your property. Prior to aviation, height of that owned airspace was effectively infinite. Causby put a limit on that. Even though the number used in Causby was 83 feet, the actual height you own was determined to be "as much of the space above the ground as he can occupy or use in connection with the land." That gave the courts discretion... the farmer in Kansas (flat land/plains) is going to have a lower "usable" space than the builder of a skyscraper in NYC (where, incidentally air rights are regularly bought/sold by builders and landowners without any FAA involvement).


Regarding privacy and photos, I also believe you have a misunderstanding of the laws involved. In public, people generally do not have an expectation of privacy. If you leave your drapes open and do something in front of your picture window, you would have a hard time arguing you have an expectation of privacy.

If, however, you build a high "privacy" fence or take other actions to shield your yard from public view, you would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. It wouldn't matter if someone climbed a tree, put a camera on a long stick to reach over your fence, or flew a UAV over your property... it is an invasion of privacy. To what degree you can can get in trouble will vary greatly on location and circumstance. The fact remains, however, that there is no exclusion for a UAV. The medium does not give you a free pass to skirt the law.

Another point which people often misunderstand... While you can take photo in a pubic place, how you use that photo can be limited. Public place or not, everyone still owns their own "likeness." You cannot use a photo of someone for commercial purposes without their permission. What constitutes "commercial" can be debated these days as technology has outpaced the law. If your YouTube video is monetized, it _may_ be considered commercial. You may need an attorney on retainer to find out for sure.


Again, I will not claim the officer in the the OP was correct. Nor will I claim he was wrong. It depends on the situation.

I will state that in SOME circumstances he could enforce a trespass (or privacy or endangerment) charge and confiscate the UAV as evidence. In the right situation, those actions would both be legal and could lead to a legitimate conviction. No FAA rule is necessary. The law is not regulating airspace - it is protecting private property and people's rights.

Another thing to keep in mind... if the police officer reasonably believes his actions are legal you can be charged with obstruction or resisting. Even if the original charge is dismissed or shown to be unenforceable, the obstruction/resisting charge could still be upheld.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: jlummel and NEair
A property owner only owns the airspace to the tallest structure. (Tree top, roof, antenna tower)

But I would stay as high as I can and still under 400'. Don't be pointing your camera directly at house/in windows.

I am a drone owner, so I understand them. But if I didn't, I would probably be angry with one over my house.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,358
Members
104,935
Latest member
Pauos31