Your Opinion Of This Police Harassment Of Drone Pilot:

[ftttu]

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

My two times over in the UK were very positive. I spoke with a few police officers and those others types of officers who don't have full police powers(I can't remember what they are called). I would have loved to have gone on a ride-a-long with them if possible.

Sadly, MANY Americans are not the freedom patriots of the past. After many years of prosperity, MANY Americans have taken their eye off the ball, and are considered "sheeple." Government has become the people's keeper, and worse, their god. Our founding documents say our rights our endowed upon us by our Creator. Sadly, MANY Americans appear to not care anymore and are fine with "privileges" allowed by government.

I have no care if the police and the rest of government gets taken to task during their overreaching and/or perceived overreaching, but I would like to see it done in the right venue and not on the side of the road.

 

[MikeK]

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.

What does "less lenient" mean? Doesn't "lenient" refer to punishment?

Just curious.

 

[Rob Levine]

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.

Exactly - they "had issues." That's why the drone was there! Obviously the drone pilot thought there were objectionable things happening there. Whether or not those things were observable from a drone - maybe someday we'll see. Since this is essentially a First Amendment issue, as well as an airspace issue IMO law enforcement should make sure they know the drone rules - otherwise their enforcement could be perceived to be preventing legal, protected speech.

 

[m0j0]

For clarification. The officers were wrong. They should not have conducted a stop. No law was violated.

The drivers of the vehicles were right and they were wrong. They were right in that there was no basis to stop them. However, the officers believing that a violation occurred were correct in making the stop. Once stopped, they had every right to demand identification. Like stated earlier the officers aren't required to know all laws... if they reasonably believed a violation occurred their actions were legitimate. Bottom line is they were on the cusp of going to jail. I understand why SHARK guys were confrontational. I believe you have to stand up for what is right. The problem is standing up might just get you some time in jail until things are sorted.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[stitch0852]

I guess the first question that pops to mind is why were there five Sheriff cars along with the State Trooper for a stop where the folks stopped never made one physically threatening gesture towards the officers and there was no crime reported for the stop?

Second question would be, were the identities of those stopped provided to the security firm folks? That should not have been permitted but looked suspiciously as if that may have been happening. Why was the security firm still there after the stop? They can be called to press charges, if they were going to. Police should not give identification information to a person with a complaint, if charges are not filed. Do not know if this happened, but seems plausible given the demand for ID.

Were they actually flying over or flying above public property?

It looks like the security firm was wanting to know the identities of those checking into their facilities to me.

That all said, I would have provided ID after asking if my information was going to be released to the complaint security firm?

I am curious why those in the video did not call 9-1-1 and ask why they were being stopped?

 

[Bubz]

Some interesting reading of case law from last year .
You don't have to read it all, but paragraphs 18 and 19 tell you about air space and privacy in relation to drone operation.
Harassment or undue noise was not raised.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2674191/001-Complaint-for-Declaratory-Judgment-and.pdf

 

[Rob Levine]

Some interesting reading of case law from last year .
You don't have to read it all, but paragraphs 18 and 19 tell you about air space and privacy in relation to drone operation.
Harassment or undue noise was not raised.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2674191/001-Complaint-for-Declaratory-Judgment-and.pdf

That's the complaint. Has the case been decided?

 

[Bubz]

That's the complaint. Has the case been decided?

Not yet that I can find, but that shows fed law until revised or amended.
But as you know the only thing you can count on is death and taxes.

 

[CCrew]

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.

United States vs Causby, 1946.

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

 

[Bubz]

They dropped the criminal case against the drone shooter
But the drone operator looks like he's opening a federal case.

 

[MikeK]

Some interesting reading of case law from last year .
You don't have to read it all, but paragraphs 18 and 19 tell you about air space and privacy in relation to drone operation.
Harassment or undue noise was not raised.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2674191/001-Complaint-for-Declaratory-Judgment-and.pdf

Thank you for that info.

 

[ZeusDog]

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.
...
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.
...
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.

IMO, it's never a good idea to defy the police, whether they are right or wrong. I agree with Briflyer that the cops in the video didn't know the law, but were investigating on the suspicion that a crime had been committed. Their suspicion was probably unfounded, given that simply flying a drone over private property (as the complaint apparently alleged) is not, in itself, illegal (although there may or may not have been other potential violations involved). At one point, an officer stated that he didn't know whether overflight of private property is illegal, so his suspicion that a crime had been committed was tenuous, but he appeared to believe it. It would be interesting to see what the courts say about that if it ever gets there. Do the police have reasonable suspicion if the alleged activity is not illegal but they are unfamiliar with the applicable law? What would have happened if the police had observed a kilo of heroin in the back seat? Would the drug bust get tossed as fruit of the poisoned tree? I don't know, but you can be sure it would be litigated.

In that situation in the video, the approach I would suggest (if I had my wits about me) after being told the reason for the stop would be to say "Officer, I have a registered unmanned aircraft that I have operated legally. The FAA regulates such flights, and I have complied with those regulations. I understand that the complainants don't like that, but my activities have been legal. Do you have any reason to believe I have violated any law or regulation, and if so, what is (are) they?"

When asked for ID, I would be to politely ask "Am I required to give that to you?" If the answer was yes, especially with video rolling, I would definitely ID up. Keep it friendly and pleasant, but make sure to continue to query the officers as to what they are actually requiring you to do. Be sure to make it clear that you will comply with what they require, but will not be going beyond that voluntarily. It's also wise to ask pleasantly "am I free to go?" and if not "when will I be free to go?" The time to determine the legality of the stop and ID check is later, through a complaint or court process, not in the field with 7 or 8 armed officers on you. If you keep it friendly, it just seems much more likely that the officers would consider the legality of their actions, rather than digging in their heels. And if they are wrong, contest their actions later.

My $.02, FWIW.

 

[MikeK]

I guess the first question that pops to mind is why were there five Sheriff cars along with the State Trooper for a stop where the folks stopped never made one physically threatening gesture towards the officers and there was no crime reported for the stop?

And that is a very good question; five police cars and eight cops -- including the goon in plainclothes who ordered the perfectly peaceful SHARK fellow to "Get away from the police car because it has weapons in it!" That was a textbook example of donut-shop creativity in which reasons to justify unnecessary aggression are contrived. Five cars, eight cops, no valid complaints, and no supervisory officer to break that example of gross and wasteful incompetence up.

Second question would be, were the identities of those stopped provided to the security firm folks? That should not have been permitted but looked suspiciously as if that may have been happening. Why was the security firm still there after the stop? They can be called to press charges, if they were going to. Police should not give identification information to a person with a complaint, if charges are not filed. Do not know if this happened, but seems plausible given the demand for ID.

Another good question.

Imagine calling 911 and telling the dispatcher that someone just flew a hobby drone over your property and then drove away, but you have their license plate number and you'd like the police to stop and interrogate them. What do you think the dispatcher would tell you? But in this example that is exactly what happened.

A question that occurs to me is the identity of the security agent who placed the call. Because it is not at all uncommon for off-duty cops to work at private security. If this is the situation it represents a highly irregular nexus between Marshall Farms and the local police.

 

[ftttu]

MikeK, perfectly nice people have killed and injured many LEOs. Not all cop killers look and act like cop killers. Also, people who never ever thought the could kill or assault an officer have done just that.

If you have time, go on a ride along, and see the world through the eyes of a LEO. I've taken many citizens on ride alongs, and some have told me it has opened their eyes and changed their negative opinions. Some have told me they would like to not have had their eyes opened due to the hellishness of society.

Also, I don't see why it would matter if the drone reported was a hobby drone used commercially or an Inspire II used for hobby if it may have been used in the commission of a possible crime or ordinance violation.

Part time jobs for LEOs, if permitted by the officer's agency, allows officers to bring in extra money. If LEOs were working a part time there at the incident location, I can't see how you would think anything wrong with that since it would be their "right" to hire them. If this animal farm needs security, they must have a regular problem with problem people - people who may be trespassing, vandalizing, burgalarizing, assaulting, stealing, causing public disturbances, and whatever else problem people do.

IF there is a criminal conspiracy of the police which is harmful in any way to these people, I'd like to see heads roll and good people take their place. However, incidents like this play out all around this and orher countries when people make certain decisions on the side of a road and not handling grievances in the proper venue.

 

[JasonP4]

Folks. Learn your constitutional rights. For Christ sakes people have died for them the least you could do is know them. All of you saying it's the drone/vehicle operator instigating and making everything harder is ignorant.

1. If the officers are going to say they suspected a crime was committed such that it was enough to use as probable cause for a vehicle stop, they better freakin know what law it is.

2. If, like they said, they did not know for sure if a crime had been commited, then you don't have PC to detain crap!

3. Given the fact they they incriminated themselves by admitting they didn't know what law or crime they had even broken then that would logically make the whole thing an unlawful detention.

4. However, as a vehicle operator, you MUST produce valid ID when stopped to verify both identity and validity of driving privileges. That being said the invalid stop alone though negates the officers legal authority to even ask for ID since they had not committed a traffic offense.

The officers should have taken the complaint. Then should have gotten the license plate info and descriptions of those involved from the security guys AND THATS IT!!! There was no actionable info and definitely some ignorance so they should have simply told the complainants that they are not certain whether or not it was illegal to do what they reported and that they will look up the legalities and follow up with them at a later time.

This way, no one is illegally detained, no ones rights are trampled all over, and cops don't have to look ignorant on camera and then compensate with aggression and missinformation to try and get what they want. And THEN if after their investigation they determine a crime has reasonably been committed then and only then should they make contact with the folks involved. They got their license plates/descriptions so they have somewhere to start.

 

[erkme73]

Aside from the civil rights issue (whether there was PC to stop someone and ask for ID), there appears to be a very uncomfortable relationship between the farm security and local LE.

Ask yourself this... If you spotted an aerial platform either over or near your property doing some kind of surveillance, do you think if you called the police you'd get that kind of response? And would you then be allowed to mingle in with the police as they questioned the 'suspects'?

You can see how the 'suspect' cameraman has orders barked at him to get back and stay away (all in the name of officer safety), but the farm personell were able to stand wherever they wanted - even chumming it up with the LEOs. That relationship seems a bit too cozy. And if the 'suspects' saw that, they SHOULD be even more reluctant to provide their ID, and the assumption has to be that this information will immediately get handed over to the farm personell.

It's not as black and white as the suspects "playing stupid games". If I were them, I too would have serious reservations of handing my home address to the cops knowing the farm personell are standing right behind them.

 

[Les Davidson]

My two times over in the UK were very positive. I spoke with a few police officers and those others types of officers who don't have full police powers(I can't remember what they are called). I would have loved to have gone on a ride-a-long with them if possible.

Sadly, MANY Americans are not the freedom patriots of the past. After many years of prosperity, MANY Americans have taken their eye off the ball, and are considered "sheeple." Government has become the people's keeper, and worse, their god. Our founding documents say our rights our endowed upon us by our Creator. Sadly, MANY Americans appear to not care anymore and are fine with "privileges" allowed by government.

I have no care if the police and the rest of government gets taken to task during their overreaching and/or perceived overreaching, but I would like to see it done in the right venue and not on the side of the road.

Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots

 

[Les Davidson]

We have police Officers with full powers and support officers that do not have the power of arrest. Armed officers are becoming more prevalent .


Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots

 

[yorlik]

"Always comply with Police requests.....period."

I find it a very sad day when an American sheeple gives up their freedom so readily like this.

 

[erkme73]

"Always comply with Police requests.....period."

I find it a very sad day when an American sheeple gives up their freedom so readily like this.

Bingo. Why even bother with a Constitution, right?

"The freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state." -- The U.S. Supreme Court, June 15, 1987