Your Opinion Of This Police Harassment Of Drone Pilot:

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
BTW - the cops were WRONG to stop this guy. The complainant must say exactly what law the drone pilot broke. They obviously had no idea - they were just pissed off that someone was filming their operations. Absent actual broken laws you don't get to use the police for your private security force.
 
BTW - the cops were WRONG to stop this guy. The complainant must say exactly what law the drone pilot broke. They obviously had no idea - they were just pissed off that someone was filming their operations. Absent actual broken laws you don't get to use the police for your private security force.

The police were not wrong to stop them. Chances are that if they would have produce their license and registration they would have been sent on their way. Unless I missed it, I don't think the issue of whether it was legal to fly the drone over private property was ever raised by the police.

We've had a series of home invasion robberies in my area, the police have been dligent at trying to catch the people involved. They have stopped and questioned people who have driven through the neighborhood late at night and they have questioned me while flying drones in the area. They simply want to know who I am and if I'm collecting information for nephariois reasons. That's their job.

I'm not a civil rights attorney nor am I a police officer. My point is that context matters. The people in that video appear to be looking for confrontation and I don't think it's necessary for drone operators to debate the efficacy of this event. As far as drones and the law, this was a non event.
 
Being a LEO and a fellow UAV flyer, I see where both sides of this call could have done something different. The flyers clearly wanted to push the fact they weren't doing anything wrong and intentionally refused to comply with the officers request. The officers don't usually handle a call through the dispatchers by asking them questions about what the flyers did, where they were, etc. Dispatch gets basic info and the officers go from there. This type of call is new, but a "suspicious activity" call isn't. I think once the officers found out this was a drone call, they didn't have a lot of experience with this kind of call so they were winging it. The flyers soon realized the officers were unsure how to handle this, so they pushed even harder. I think a simple explanation by the flyers would have gotten them on their way mush sooner and nobody would be in cuffs. I'll bet next time this happens the officers will less lenient and hopefully more informed.
 
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]
If you look like a foreigners or minority, you would consider you are lucky walking away unharmed in that situation.
 
Oh.. well.. in that case I'd argue that whether the flight is legal or not AND whether or not the cops had any right to pull them over.. are BOTH irrelevant. The cops CAN pull you over. We saw them do it in this video. They can ask to see your ID. We saw that too. The cops can waste your time as evidenced by this video. Also in the video. Is it LEGAL? Let's assume not. Good on him for standing up for our rights, spending some of his time in jail for us and.. hopefully... he enjoys the lawsuit he should be able to win, because if yo go through all of this BS to prove a point and win a legal game of chess with 5.0, you're quite the loser if you don't get that money in the end.

That being said, if you ARE some sort of Super American, there are other avenues like joining the military one might consider because in the meantime, it's equally within MY rights to think they're butt-munches for making things more difficult for other drone owners over something soooooo petty.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots
 
  • Like
Reactions: Briflyer
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.
So say you, but this particular farm had issues, apparently. If you were running a business which was controversial to some and people were doing surveillance over your property at various altitudes, can you say for sure you wouldn't take issue.
 
I am in the UK and our attitude to the police is different to the USA. If the people who flew the drone treated the police with respect and gave them their details the problem was solved. If they are in a group that respects animals then why not advertise that. In the UK we have a habit of nailing our colours to the mast. Are these drone flyers ashamed of their group? Come on, You Americans have a history of courage, fight the fight.


Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scoddy71
I am in the UK and our attitude to the police is different to the USA. If the people who flew the drone treated the police with respect and gave them their details the problem was solved. If they are in a group that respects animals then why not advertise that. In the UK we have a habit of nailing our colours to the mast. Are these drone flyers ashamed of their group? Come on, You Americans have a history of courage, fight the fight.
Are you aware that the police were acting on behalf of a private security staff? If the significance of that escapes you, how would you like it if I called the police and had them stop and interrogate you because I didn't like the idea of you flying a drone around my property and I want them to find out who you are and what your business is?
 
The police were acting on a complaint. How do you say they were acting on behalf of private security staff. What is your evidence?


Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots
 
Further you would be the first to complain if I flew around your house. Give me your address and I will give it a try.


Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots
 
So say you, but this particular farm had issues, apparently. If you were running a business which was controversial to some and people were doing surveillance over your property at various altitudes, can you say for sure you wouldn't take issue.
Taking issue under those circumstances is one thing. I would certainly take issue. But is it okay for me to call the state and local police and have them accost and interrogate the drone pilots without making some formal complaint or reporting some apparent criminal activity? You, above non-LEO here, should know how off the wall that is. That is second to my calling the local PD and asking them to run a license plate for me.
 
Are you aware that the police were acting on behalf of a private security staff? If the significance of that escapes you, how would you like it if I called the police and had them stop and interrogate you because I didn't like the idea of you flying a drone around my property and I want them to find out who you are and what your business is?

You would be in your rights.


Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots
 
Taking issue under those circumstances is one thing. I would certainly take issue. But is it okay for me to call the state and local police and have them accost and interrogate the drone pilots without making some formal complaint or reporting some apparent criminal activity? You, above non-LEO here, should know how off the wall that is. That is second to my calling the local PD and asking them to run a license plate for me.




Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots
 
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.
Thank you for that info.

I knew there was some specific height beneath which a property owner has domain rights over (perhaps someone else here can further enlighten us about any more recent rules). But unless a drone is photographed while flying at a level which is plainly too low it would be extremely difficult to prove exactly how high it is flying.
 
Thank you for that info.

I knew there was some specific height beneath which a property owner has domain rights over (perhaps someone else here can further enlighten us about any more recent rules). But unless a drone is photographed while flying at a level which is plainly too low it would be extremely difficult to prove exactly how high it is flying.

Dear Mike, Please do not think I am against you. I live in The UK and I realise the culture is totally different to the USA, although what happens in the States eventually comes to us. I am 72 and retired from the RAF. I was in a reconnaissance outfit, Military police. I found that people who were friendly to me were treated in a like manner.
I cannot feel that America is different



Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
143,096
Messages
1,467,625
Members
104,982
Latest member
AnndyManuka