Got this email this morning.
Please see the proposed Amendments to the bill. In addition, please give me a call to discuss. Thank you.
So it seems they went from bad to worse... as difficult as that appears.
What they changed was their blatant ignoring of the First Amendment. Instead they reworded the proposed law in such a way to have the same affect of banning the taking of photographs of a public place but just going about it a different way. They don't even try to hide this fact in that the proposed law still specifically states it's intent is to prevent photographs from being taken in public. Now they are just banning the conveyance of the camera... rather then the action of taking the photo.
It appears from the wording of the proposed law that they are relying on the acceptance that public airspace starts 500' above the ground and that land owners retain their rights up to that distance. In US v Causby the Supreme Court mentioned that a land owner has the right to use their land as it was intended. In this case military planes were flying 83' over Causby's chicken farm and causing his chickens to kill themselves. Supreme Court ruled that the planes were infringing on this "easement". But they did not rule where this easement ends. Since these planes were 83', that easement goes up to at least 83' and ends at 500'. There is no ruling on the exact height. To make this clear, the US Supreme Court ruled that a land owner had an easement up to 83'. The FAA has ruled that 500' and above is public air space. So who owns the air space between 83' and 500'? It's yet to be determined.
What appears obvious to me in this matter are two things; First, this is not a case of infringing on someone's right to use their land. The county can build their building as high as they want and flying a drone is not affecting their use of their property. Second, they are attempting to apply law to air space that the FAA governs.
Let me just point something out... if Suffolk County thinks they govern air space under 500' (as the FAA controls only public air space and this starts at 500') then we should all be able to ignore FAA guidelines, outside of an airport area, when flying under 500'. This means the FAA cannot charge me with reckless flying or flying commercially as long as I'm under 500'. Anyone think this is going to fly (no pun intended)? If you don't think we can ignore the FAA under 500 feet then why do you think Suffolk County can ignore that the FAA _does_ control this air space?
Here is my opinion on this matter... Suffolk County cannot make a law that governs the airspace up to 500' unless it were to reinforce the US Supreme Courts ruling that users of air space cannot infringe on a landowners right to use the land as it was intended. They can also make laws the govern what takes place on the land itself, as long as it does not violate US laws, State laws or the Constitution.
Lastly, the proposed law states you cannot fly "at" or above. How far away is "at". They don't even try to make it clear who this law affects. If I'm across the street am I "at" their "county facility"? How are people to know what and where a "county facility" is located? This law does not state that signs need to be posted. Are we all just supposed to know everything that the county owns? I also thought it was insulting that people providing services to the county were exempt. Why? Do people walking into county facilities feel at ease when they see a drone be operated by someone the county has hired? Yet they are in "fear" when they are operated by someone else?
There are just so many holes in this stupid law I don't know where they start or end.
Edit: I understand where the county is coming from. They don't think it's a good idea to have drones flying over their property taking photos of the people walking in and out of the building. But truth is... we can do exactly that without a drone. I can stand off their property and take photos and video all day long of their property and the people walking in and out of the buildings. People don't have to like that but the right is given by the US Constitution. As I mentioned, this has been available for the past 100 (?) years. Who does not have a phone with a camera? Everyone pretty much does but we don't see people standing there taking photos all day. Certainly this is _way_ easier then hovering a drone for 20 minutes at a time over a building. These law makers simply don't understand reality and watch way too much owned media.