Your Opinion Of This Police Harassment Of Drone Pilot:

[ftttu]

I have no idea what the laws are in NY, but if they are similar to our laws here in Texas, an officer has the authority to stop and detain a person for that violation of law. Our law in short is: Sec. 423.003. OFFENSE: ILLEGAL USE OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT TO CAPTURE IMAGE. (a) A person commits an offense if the person uses an unmanned aircraft to capture an image of an individual or privately owned real property in this state with the intent to conduct surveillance on the individual or property captured in the image.

IF the officers had that law to work with, they had the authority to stop and detain the individual(s) they had at least reasonable suspicion to be believe were in violation of this law for further investigation.

I have no dog in this fight one way or the other. I am a retired Texas LEO, and I dearly cherish our freedoms endowed upon us, not by constitution, but by our Creator.

Like any criminal law, officers have the authority to demand the detained individual to identify themself. In Texas, you don't have to show an ID other than for a traffic offense. If you don't show on demand for a traffic offense, you can be cited or arrested.

I love dogs and other animals used for research, but IF your personal investigation is criminal, then be prepared to be dealt with by the state and/or civilly by the affected party.

 

[The_Phantom_Menace]

I don't know the laws in the USA but in the UK we have to give the police our details backed up with ID, such as passport, driving licence. If we provide false details we will be arrested until our ID is confirmed. I see nothing wring in that. Marshall Farms are doing nothing illegal and if they are breeding animals for research then it is up to politicians to change the law. The security are paid by Marshall Farms to protect the business and they would be neglecting their duty if they did nothing. I know I am a UK resident and you can say I should mind my own business but I am only observing.


Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots

I'm from the uk and that's 100% untrue, if you're suspected of a crime then you do have to identify yourself. But the same apples in the U.K. That you can't just stop people and tell them to identify themselves for no reason. "Up to politicians to change the law" remember that hitler broke no laws in Germany


Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots

 

[The_Phantom_Menace]

But the strange assumption here by quite a few people is that "Marshall farms are doing nothing illegal" how do you know this? I'm not saying they are, but what makes you sure of this from that video?


Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots

 

[Les Davidson]

I'm acting as devils advocate here. If we had a drone over our house hovering and taking pictures we would be annoyed. Whatever Marshall farms do they are the same and that is why they called the police. I would call the police. This kind of drone use is what is bringing the hobby into disrepute. In the UK animal rights groups have been categorised as terrorist groups.


Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots

 

[MikeK]

There is a guy in Sacramento who had his drone confisicated by the police for flying it. It was a legal fly and they grossly over stepped their authority from the articles that I have read. Unless we stand up for our rights they will be quickly erroded.

[...]

You've raised a critically important issue, one which will occur as incredible to some but is important to all who fly expensive hobby drones in places where the pertinent laws are even vaguely subject to question. Because whether you like it or not, or believe it or not, and whether are breaking any laws or not, any cop can seize your drone on the mere suspicion that your flight might be unlawful.

This practice is called "Civil Asset Forfeiture." It is perfectly legal and cops all over America are making use of it to enrich their departments -- and in some examples, themselves.

I know there are many who simply cannot believe this, so I urge them to research the facts via Google or YouTube under the keywords, Asset Forfeiture Abuse.

Briefly stated, this dreadful policy originated as a weapon in the War On Drugs. It was intended to seize the profits and properties of major drug traffickers and other high-level criminals. But its language is such that the law can be applied to the mere suspicion of any offense from selling fifty pounds of heroin to flying a hobby drone in a restricted area. And if your drone is seized the process for recovering it is convoluted, time-consuming, and can cost ten times as much in lawyer fees as the drone itself, which is why few victims of this form of highway robbery by police ever bother to recover their money or property.

 

[pomonabill220]

I just wonder if Marshall Farms and the local PD are in bed with each other?
"You scratch my back and I'l scratch yours"....

 

[MikeK]

I'm acting as devils advocate here. If we had a drone over our house hovering and taking pictures we would be annoyed.

The first question the police dispatcher will ask is, "how do you know the drone is taking pictures?" Next, if the dispatcher is knowledgeable you will be told that unless the drone is violating the height regulation, or is flying in a dangerous or irresponsible manner, its presence is not unlawful.

Whatever Marshall farms do they are the same and that is why they called the police.

And the police who responded to Marshall Farms' complaint had no business doing what they did. There was absolutely no cause to suspect those SHARK folks of any wrongdoing.

This kind of drone use is what is bringing the hobby into disrepute.

The SHARK people used their drone in a perfectly lawful manner. They did not violate any privacy laws. Marshall Farms has no legal control of the air space above their property.

The matter of "disrepute" regarding the drone hobby is the result of its "newness." When the first automobiles began "zooming" around public roads and streets they were similarly regarded by the general public and complaints were common.

In the UK animal rights groups have been categorised as terrorist groups.

The only animal rights groups in the UK which are regarded as "terrorist" groups are those which are responsible for actual terrorist actions involving property damage and other destructive and menacing behaviors. The same circumstance would apply here in the US, but the SHARK group has never been accused of any unlawful actions or behaviors.

 

[MikeK]

I just wonder if Marshall Farms and the local PD are in bed with each other?
"You scratch my back and I'l scratch yours"....

That is a very valid concern.

I wonder if Marshall Farms makes substantial contributions to the "benevolent associations" of their local state police barracks and to the Wayne County police department.

Most (all?) police agencies routinely solicit contributions, usually around Christmas time. Some police departments issue little bumper and window stickers to contributors.

 

[Multicoptertec]

It's not the posters video, the poster is only linking to it.

In the US you cannot be detained unless you are the suspect in a crime. No crime and you can't be a suspect. The police can _ask_ for ID (which they usually do, as a "request") but you are not obligated to produce ID upon something that is just a request. The police attempt to hide this legal right by not explaining this and making it _sound_ like you have to show ID. When/If that request fails some (bad) law enforcement agencies will then start making up illegal reason's to obtain your ID, which is appears that they are doing in this case.

But we are getting off topic.

I saw this video yesterday. It's not really about drone flying. It's more about property owners and an animal rights organization not getting along and the property owner wanting the group stopped for "questioning".

Sure, anyone can feel free to give up their constitutional rights in order to avoid an illegal detention. However, this only serves to erode ones legal rights and leads to further abuses. If someone is allowed to get away with something they will probably continue to do the same thing. Some people get pulled over based on the color of their skin. Should these people stop behaving like "jerks" and just allow it to continue in order to get on their way more quickly?

What those people actually "deserved" (that is a light term, as it's actually guaranteed in the US Consitution) is free travel within the US.

With that said, I think this _might_ have been a tough call for the police. Even the police admitted that they did not know if what was being done was illegal. They needed to investigate and make that determination. You could make the argument that they are required to know the laws before they detain someone but it's not always a perfect world. I could see them being detained for 20 minutes or so... but it was something like 40 minutes? The question is if the police were doing this to harras the animal activists on behalf of the property owner or not.

[/QUOTE]

Well said, exactly correct.


Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots

 

[Helihover]

Some of you guys could use a little more knowledge in the drone "law" department.

Nobody owns the air above nothing.

FAA regulates the airspace and ALL state rules, or laws must be approved by the FAA.

Everybody, this means you!, needs to get over this privacy thing! People please quit watching the news! Seriously.

 

[kirk2579]

The sooner you give up your rights the sooner we will have a Police state written by a retired law enforcement officer.,[emoji3]

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

Thanks,
I agree

the big problem is not so much giving the name if done like the past.

however today is different

Today each name or ID is run through the system at each and every contact.
no matter why the contact good or bad, that license and name is run every time.

good luck and have fun flying!

 

[m0j0]

Law enforcement perspective

I think they made a bad stop and could be sued for doing it... they didnt know the law and had no basis to make a stop.

Other side -

Improperly stopped. Then they acted like asses. They really had no obligation to provide identifiers based on the bad stop and were probably correct for refusing to provide identification. It could have, however, resulted in their arrest because the police believed they made a legitimate stop. So... they are fortunate they weren't arrested. Police are fortunate they didn't arrest them because they would have really been in trouble if they had. Potentially sued.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[yorlik]

SHARK gets illegally harassed often. They know their rights. We all need to know our rights and follow their lead to slow down the police state build up.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[kirk2579]

Law enforcement perspective

I think they made a bad stop and could be sued for doing it... they didnt know the law and had no basis to make a stop.

Other side -

Improperly stopped. Then they acted like asses. They really had no obligation to provide identifiers based on the bad stop and were probably correct for refusing to provide identification. It could have, however, resulted in their arrest because the police believed they made a legitimate stop. So... they are fortunate they weren't arrested. Police are fortunate they didn't arrest them because they would have really been in trouble if they had. Potentially sued.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

those that participated recently in expanding and bringing forward CCW rights and laws have a bit of experience in this concept.

it has taken years now but those days of harassment about ccw and stuff seem to be mostly solved by time and good behavior

good luck and have fun flying!

 

[pedwards]

In the UK animal rights groups have been categorised as terrorist groups.

Im sorry! What a load of tosh. A sweeping statement that is not true, or have the RSPB and RSPCA recently been re categorised?



Sent from my SM-T800 using PhantomPilots mobile app

 

[MikeK]

Law enforcement perspective

I think they made a bad stop and could be sued for doing it... they didnt know the law and had no basis to make a stop.

Other side -

Improperly stopped. Then they acted like asses.

[...]

Who are you saying "acted like asses?" The SHARK people or the cops?

The SHARK people behaved like citizens who know their Fourth Amendment rights and chose to assert them, for which I give them credit. The problem with too many Americans who are improperly (unlawfully) accosted by police is they choose to behave submissively and go along with the police demands for identification or other forms of compliance. Such submissive behavior serves to encourage even more substantial civil rights violations by police. So you should understand that what the SHARK people did actually serves your interests and mine in the final analysis.

As far as the cops' behavior is concerned, I'd say the Trooper was polite and inoffensive even though he seemed to mistakenly believe his action was justifiable. But the Wayne County cop in plainclothes who ordered the SHARK fellow to "Get away from that police car because it has weapons in it" is a textbook example of an obnoxious, bullying goon, the type whose conduct projects a negative impression of all cops. There was absolutely no valid reason for what he did and I was hoping the SHARK fellow would refuse to move away from the police car and the jerk would arrest him for it. Because that would have been a guaranteed punitive damage award for false and malicious arrest.

 

[ftttu]

MikeK, you make statements that the SHARK people didn't violate any laws, which may be true or not. Again, I don't have a dog in this fight, but you state they "operated it in a perfectly lawful manner", but how will the officers know if they haven't investigated the "incident" yet? That's the entire reason for the detention. Their authority is to detain for at least reasonable suspicion in order to investigate a crime they believe may have, is occurring or is about to occur.

Everyone and their dog wants to sue officers, but in my experience, it rarely happened. If anyone wants to, more power to them. If anyone is angry with the performance of an officer, the least they can do is go face to face with their supervisor(s) at his/her office. It may or may not be recorded in their record, but no officer wants to be confronted by their supervisor. The next step is to file an official complaint with the officer's Internal Affairs, where the incident will be investigated. More and more officers are equipped with recording devices so be prepared for that. The media is another outlet. If someone wants to go for a civil rights violation, then the FBI is the route to go.

 

[Gary Duncan]

You sir...are a fuckwit !!!!

 

[arcaine25]

He was originally stopped for suspicion. He had been accused of filming in a secured area(had guards for some reason). So he was stopped operating a MV. He is required to present drivers license and whatever else is required in that state while operating a MV.

Operate a MV and refuse to comply, you will be arrested and taken into custody, your car search or "inventoried" to protect the Dept. from false casualty claims and towed.

Play stupid games and you will when stupid prizes EVERY time.

What an azzhat he was, I couldn't even finish the video. He set the video up to be confrontational deliberately. He gives drone operators a bad name.

The driver eventually gave his license if you watched the video... which you probably did not? I watched this the other day, and what transpired was in fact illegal. The other fact here is that once the driver finally handed over ID because of the made up causes after police initially admitting there was NO CRIME, was they went right over to the security guy of the animal farm, and gave him the guys information. That security guy has absolutely no right to know who the individual is, and the fact that the police are / were so chummy with the security guy from the company goes to show who the police most likely "work for".. If the police wanted to verify the license of the driver, record it, and let him go, then by all means, ok (after forcing to comply btw) but the two that got arrested were NOT drivers, and were NOT required by state law to show their ID's, and yet were forced to in order for police to give it to the security guy.

I hope they get their butts sued off, I truly do.. Will they win? probably not, but i hope something happens.

 

[THEHOFF]

My impression of what happened here is the private security staff of a breeding farm for research animals called upon the New York State Police to investigate the flight of a drone over the farm's property -- and the police complied.

I believe the police were as wrong as two left feet in this example. What is your opinion?

This happened to me about 5 years ago. Wasn't breaking any laws or anything was asked to fly over a pre football game event tent two hours before the game. I was swarmed by 8 officers who demanded I land it. I did as they asked and then they asked for my ID which I did show them. Then they said it was illegal to fly within city limits which I told them they were wrong. They needed to look at the law closer. So that I could go to the game in two hours, I didn't fly anymore that day I was already 80% done anyway. After talking with the chief of police he just stated he just had concerns for the people below that in case it came down it could hurt someone. I agreed yes it could, that's why I'm usually within 20 ft of it to watch it carefully just in case so I could yell "Look Out" if something went wrong while flying over crowds. Since then laws have been changed and put into place where 95% of city, lakes and everything is now a no fly zone. I get that we have two used airports such as Waco regional and Mcgregor airport but these private little rabbit run which has 4 Ft tall grass no. Plus I also know both hospitals now have helicopters I get that too but geez. Now I have two drones that they took all the fun out of a hobby.