Your Opinion Of This Police Harassment Of Drone Pilot:

[Wheatfield]

I'm still of the thought, that it was a simple request to provide the officers ID. Had they done that and informed the police of their actions, it would have been over a lot sooner.

This video shows how far drone flying "has" to go.

The video shows them hiding simple, silly info as if their lives depended on it.

I think the police did what they had to do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Stand up for your rights and keep them, fail to do that and you lose your rights a degree at a time.
Your choice.

 

[X24]

Wow!! I can't believe all the people that simply cave to an illegal request. In New York State you are not required to carry ID. As a matter fact nowhere in the United States are you required to have papers. Freedom was the intent of the founding fathers. However if you drive a car you are required to have a license which must be produced if requested. These officers had no probable cause to pull these guys over, however since a complaint was made they have to investigate. Honestly if it was me, I would've done the same thing as these guys. I would've asked to see the law as well. However I don't think I would like someOne flying a drone over my property either. So we all need to respect the privacy rights of others and know the laws before we go. That being said it appears that there are no laws to fly in airspace over private property otherwise they would've been arrested.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots

 

[JaredReabow]

should have just flown in fro a distance so that the staff had no idea where it came from.

the P4P has very good range haha

 

[Travels with Yoly]

I can't believe how many people are defending the cops behavior. I also find it hard to believe that people actually think that operating a motor vehicle is illegal and cause for scrutiny like this. Everything about this stop was complete bull pucky and it has nothing to do with simply complying and being on your way. The real issue is the level of corruption that is prevalent in many police forces. As citizens, we have constitutional rights and a gun and a badge doesn't give anyone the right to deny you those rights. As long as they are allowed to get away with this kind of crap, more corporations will buy deeper into their services and our rights will be whittled away. It's no wonder law enforcement has a hard time garnering the respect it should with this blatant unlawfulness.

 

[Otto Maddox]

Some states require you to ID upon lawful detention.. others only upon lawful arrest. You need to know the laws for the state you are in.

Cops get a lot of leeway when it comes to the definition of lawful. In most cases it comes down to what the cop THOUGHT was lawful at the time of the detention/arrest. As long as the cop acted in good faith he's covered (in general).

It's one of the few times the legal defense of "I didn't know" is acceptable in court. Cops are not expected to know every law ever written. (Everyone else is though, but that's a different discussion.)

So if you find yourself stopped by the police it's your own personal choice (based on the above information) if you are going to provide your ID or not. If you're going to be doing something that might cause the cops to talk to you it's in your best interest to check the laws and know your rights BEFORE you do it.

Once you get past the ID portion of the stop you still have all the power in my opinion. You are NEVER required to answer any questions.

The right to remain silent is the same in every state. Politely tell the cop you aren't going to be answering any questions and repeat it over and over every time they ignore that statement and keep asking you questions. Politely request to be let go every once in a while to make it clear you want the detention to end. Remember, a cop cannot detain you indefinitely. They either have to arrest you or they have to let you go. 10-20 minutes out of your life isn't that big a deal. Don't start waiving your rights thinking you'll be let go sooner. The LESS you say the shorter the detention.

 

[Monte55]

I would imagine they would have gone through the same thing if they had been taking still pictures with a DSLR and telephoto lens. It seems the police there are in someones pocket. You may have rights but the police don't like to be tested and can make your day miserable. They can make up anything to have reasonable suspicion to harass you. If you have the time and money then go ahead and hold your ground. I would rather comply and be on my way. You have many rights violated every day. You can't fight them all.

 

[digital290]

OK. my two cents worth opinion. As a retired Deputy from Colorado I can only share our policy as it relates to traffic stops. If the drone was flown at a close distance to the private property (which is appx. 100 feet elevation or "Buzzed" any persons or animals or hoovered for any length of time that may have been considered Harassment, which the farm would have a valid complaint to call the police. The traffic stop was valid as well as the asking for driver only ID. The courts have ruled that a reasonable period of time is allowed to establish in the officers mind if a crime has been committed. Our department was 15 minutes max. Bottom line these officers were very wrong in detaining these guys as long as they did and arresting them. As rude as the drone guys were I think they have a valid civil rights complaint for "Unlawful Detention and Arrest". The police had no duty to give the names of our drone guys to the security officer at the farm.

 

[ribjig]

What is NY law wrt flying over private property?
(isn't it illegal in one or more states? e.g. IL)
Am brand new to P4P+
South FL police seem relaxed.
They often get complaints from citizens.
Police simply ask to see FAA $5 license.
Then owner can continue or
must stop, go home & get it.

 

[HellKraft]

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

It is true that things could have been done quicker if they just gave their ids. But that's not the law. The ACLU, with legal precedent and the US Constitution to back them up, have proven that if there is no clear offense that can be stated, the police do not have ultimate authority that the citizens are mandated to follow. [See the rules of being stopped: http://www.nyclu.org/node/3249]

I didn't like that the person doing the video seemed to lose their cool, even though I have been stopped, had my car searched for a long time, and then been [of course] let go with no summons or even apology. So I understand that can push ones patience. But as an activist, it's also important to be trained to comport ones self in a way where their behavior doesn't become a thinly veiled reason to be further probed and/or to lose public support for your action. Also, as a kid in the 60's and 70's, I would be stopped under "suspicion" because I fit the description of someone who was "sneaking around the neighborhood" or "...there was a recent break-in and you were close to the description. For the record, I grew up on the New Jersey shore that had a small community of color, AND I was a punk rocker with a mohawk and dressed in ways that no one else there did, of whatever ethnicity. Whenever I asked what the description was, there was always some nebulous explanation to stall, and when it was clear I wasn't wanted for anything, nor did their illegal search and detainment of me result in anything, I was just let go...again...without so much as an apology. All that to say, 40 years later as a person iin my 50's, I have no tolerance for vague stops by police. And even less tolerance when it is almost clear there was no legal precedent to support the manner of the stop, though the stop itself wasn't illegal.

To be clear, I've had a number of conversations with police in Brooklyn, NY, [nothing legal, just their interest in the drone], and I was the one to tell them about the laws and registration process. This means people have to be prepared as pilots to present all info and regulations. I have a printout packet with all the info possible. If they had one of those, which also include the legal statutes as mine does, they could have dealt with that simply by reading the officers the law they are duty bound, as well as paid by our tax dollars] to follow. That would have forced the police to be clear about telling them exactly what law broken, what the consequences of breaking that law are, and exact proof they have broken it.

I certainly understand that if they were buzzing the farm, that might be enough to generate an honest police response and inquiry. And, if there had been a proper stop, that would have been the information sought from the complainant so that way at least 20 mins into the stop they could have been told what they did wrong and the like. But, when these businesses have the officials on their side, for whatever reason, the "law" becomes an even more amorphous tool corporations use against the average citizen to keep us compliant. Drones are going to be used on all sides of issues like this around the country. We as pilots need to be on top of our game to make sure we abide by all laws, so we don't have laws put in place to stop us from flying, outside of formal places we have to pay to fly at, all together.

 

[JCP10]

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?

I checked with a friend who is a civil litigatory (trial attorney). He says the owners of a property theoretically have airspace rights. There is a ton of new case law being written, but there was a 1940-50s case about a chicken farm that determined "83 feet" as a limit on airspace.

 

[Member]

Well I watched the whole video and in my opinion, you did this to yourselves.
They just wanted to ID you. No one knows wether that drone had a bomb or not.

Ugh...

 

[borschelrh]

These days it is already a police state in the US and most, if not all, rights are already gone under certain circumstances. All they have to do is suspect you of terrorism and all rights are gone instantly. They can arrest you without probable cause refuse you a lawyer and keep you detained indefinitely without anyone being informed. This is part of the National Defense Authorization Act. Bombs on drones haven't yet happened in the US yet but as sure as the sun rises it will. That is scary for everyone. That said, as painful as it might be, and basically unnecessary, it is wisest to be of as much assistance as possible. Yes, in the US you have the right to silence and you can force them to arrest you on suspicion, then the fun begins and you are putting your life in jeopardy. Way back when I was 16 I was detained while walking after 2200 in the LA metro area. There was a curfew prohibiting minors from being out after 2200 except I had just gotten off work as a dishwasher. I exercised my rights to refuse to show ID and was beaten severely with batons, thrown into the drunk tank for 3 days and not given food or a bed. It took 3 days for my prints to finally give my ID and I was released to my parents. Was I right? Legally, yes but when you screw with police you get screwed. Today, you might just get shot and then they will explain it away. The alternate to cooperation is bad and the police do not have to justify anything these days. Everyone is now suspicious of everyone else and all citizens are assumed by the police to be nefarious until proven otherwise. That is just survival for the police now.

 

[Rob Levine]

These days it is already a police state in the US and most, if not all, rights are already gone under certain circumstances. All they have to do is suspect you of terrorism and all rights are gone instantly. They can arrest you without probable cause refuse you a lawyer and keep you detained indefinitely without anyone being informed. This is part of the National Defense Authorization Act. Bombs on drones haven't yet happened in the US yet but as sure as the sun rises it will. That is scary for everyone. That said, as painful as it might be, and basically unnecessary, it is wisest to be of as much assistance as possible. Yes, in the US you have the right to silence and you can force them to arrest you on suspicion, then the fun begins and you are putting your life in jeopardy. Way back when I was 16 I was detained while walking after 2200 in the LA metro area. There was a curfew prohibiting minors from being out after 2200 except I had just gotten off work as a dishwasher. I exercised my rights to refuse to show ID and was beaten severely with batons, thrown into the drunk tank for 3 days and not given food or a bed. It took 3 days for my prints to finally give my ID and I was released to my parents. Was I right? Legally, yes but when you screw with police you get screwed. Today, you might just get shot and then they will explain it away. The alternate to cooperation is bad and the police do not have to justify anything these days. Everyone is now suspicious of everyone else and all citizens are assumed by the police to be nefarious until proven otherwise. That is just survival for the police now.

Well I know that Part 107 pilots are required to respond to queries from law enforcement. This guy could have just given his ID - cops already knew who he was prolly from his vehicle registration. Then he could have pressed them - just what law had he broken? None that I know of. It definitely WAS harassment based on the factory farm security wanting him harassed. They're the real bad guys here.

 

[N017RW]

Pratt-107 holder or not,upon observation of operation all drone operators are required to prove registration for any aircraft over 0.55 lbs when requested by any public safety officer.

 

[Grandpa Don]

Cops have a tough job. If someone calls to report something, no matter what it is, they have to go investigate. They never know what they are walking into. If it would have been me, I would have thanks them for their service and handed them my I.D. Because of a stop like this one, they are probably going to have a bad attitude toward the next person they have to stop. Too many stops like this, and someone is going to get killed!

 

[Rob Levine]

Cops have a tough job. If someone calls to report something, no matter what it is, they have to go investigate. They never know what they are walking into. If it would have been me, I would have thanks them for their service and handed them my I.D. Because of a stop like this one, they are probably going to have a bad attitude toward the next person they have to stop. Too many stops like this, and someone is going to get killed!

It looked like the cops exhibited very good behavior here. But they really need to get someone - at least in the office - who knows about drone laws.

 

[Scoddy71]

First of all, as a group we need to admit to ourselves that drone flying poses some plausible risk to others. Put yourselves in the position of driving down the interstate and having a drone piloted by some 11 year old kid crash through your windshield or dropping out of the sky on your kids in the pool. I'm not saying it's happened but it could and it's only a matter of time before the authorities start to really crack down on our collective asses ESPECIALLY if we're dicks every time they try to ascertain what's what around drone drama. WE need to be the polite respectful people rather than the people reporting us. "Yes, officer, here's my name right here, I live in this neighborhood, I haven't broken any laws, and I'm not trying to scare anyone."

Now, the guy in this video isn't some hobbyist. His YouTube channel is video after video of him poking bears. Yes, well within his rights, but at what cost to the rest of us? If you're acting within the law, just show your ID. They're on the clock no matter where they are and if they can "have some fun" detaining you on the side of the road, they will. What is your (our gain) here. Protecting our rights? Not letting anyone take what's rightfully ours? Come on. If it means that much to you, go walk through the projects yelling the N word out with a GoPro on your head. It's your right- freedom of speech an all and we just can't let them take that away. Whatever.

My opinion is that if you're going to video yourself flying a drone AND putting it out there for the world to see, you need to quit the rebel trespass-flying, cop denying, rights jockey BS that makes life for us drone users more difficult. Just my opinion. I'm not denying his right to be the *** that he is and do the stuff he does.

 

[ftttu]

Does anyone dispute LEOs have the authority to stop, detain, and have the person identify themselves(Texas law-verbally) when the LEO has at least reasonable suspicion a violation of the law has just occurred, is occurring, or is about to occur? (Texas traffic law, you have to display your DL upon demand if traffic related)

These officers may have overstepped their policies, state and federal laws after the initial stop, but I'm not commenting on that part since I stopped watching a little past the appearance of the plain clothes officer. My comment is about submitting to authority officers have when they are exercising that authority.

Again, if the scenario is like this: Officers get called to a drone harassing and/or trespassing at a certain location with a description of the vehicle and/or person(s) involved. Officers see vehicle and/or person(s) matching the description leaving the area just after the reported "incident", so they stop the vehicle. The officers investigating the incident eventually demand the person(s) to ID themselves due to their belief they may have just been involved in a crime which may have occurred.

Is everyone fine with that up to that point? No officer has complete knowledge of all of the laws they have authority to arrest for, nor are they constitutional scholars with full working knowledge of all of the latest laws or case law from courts all over the country. LEOs, being human, are affected by public opinion, supervisor demands, personal beliefs, health issues, family problems, peer pressure, etc, so meeting Robocop is not possible.

ALL officers, like any other person, make bad decisions, but most don't intentionally or knowingly do so in the course of their duty due to supervisor/agency reprimands, loss of job/career, civil lawsuits, criminal prosecution, etc. Officers are the long arm of government, charged with enforcing ordinances and criminal/civil laws. Unofficially, they are charged by society to take out the "trash" by dealing with people, situations, and issues no one else wants to.

As I have said, anyone with a complaint of an officer's performance, you have official outlets. There are better venues than the side of a road to protest government overreach and corruption.

 

[Tomahawk072]

This video had little, if anything to do with the drone. It was simply the reason they gave for initially stopping them.

If the guy in the video is so concerned with the well being of the animals being legally bred for research he should take that up with his local representative to change the law.

He was harassing the facility in as much as the police were herassing him so they were both wrong. Unfortunately they were doing thier survailance with a drone. It's one thing for the police to ask a motorist for their drivers license while operating a motorvehicle, it's another for them to share that information with the security company. We don't know that's what happened but it's what this video was insinuating.

The idea of using animals for research is a very contentious issue which often pits very passionate people with good intentions against law abiding facilities. I'd suggest that it's counter productive for drone operators to wildly speculate about what's legal, whether the drone is invading privacy or has a bomb on board, or the legalities of the traffic stop.

This was a propaganda video that was about the mission the drone was on. If they had stood on the roof of their vehicle with a camera there would have been the same result. It had nothing really to do with drones.

 

[Rob Levine]

This video had little, if anything to do with the drone. It was simply the reason they gave for initially stopping them.

If the guy in the video is so concerned with the well being of the animals being legally bred for research he should take that up with his local representative to change the law.

He was harassing the facility in as much as the police were herassing him so they were both wrong. Unfortunately they were doing thier survailance with a drone. It's one thing for the police to ask a motorist for their drivers license while operating a motorvehicle, it's another for them to share that information with the security company. We don't know that's what happened but it's what this video was insinuating.

The idea of using animals for research is a very contentious issue which often pits very passionate people with good intentions against law abiding facilities. I'd suggest that it's counter productive for drone operators to wildly speculate about what's legal, whether the drone is invading privacy or has a bomb on board, or the legalities of the traffic stop.

This was a propaganda video that was about the mission the drone was on. If they had stood on the roof of their vehicle with a camera there would have been the same result. It had nothing really to do with drones.

The PURPOSE of the video or drone flight is completely irrelevant. Was the flight legal? That is the only question. The FAA is the SOLE regulator of the airspace in the US. Property rights pertaining to land owners only extend to whether any air operation interferes with the use of the land. There is no way that flying a drone over a farm (unless very low) impacts the ability of the owner to use the land.