No, my statements about the FAA are about the fact that flying a drone over private property is legal and unless you can prove that there is other activity that is illegal...firing bullets for example as you mentioned...then I don't see how you are justified in assuming otherwise for the purposes of destroying the drone or suing the operator. I really don't see how you can say that the default legal position is that a drone IS invading privacy without actual proof. After all the CA law you cite says that the invasion of privacy includes trespassing with intent to capture images. If you can't prove the drone has a camera, the camera was on, and was aimed in a direction that would capture images that you would have a reasonable expectation of privacy, then where's your case? And in any case destroying someone else's private property is illegal (hence people being arrested for it and having to pay restitution) and knocking down an aircraft is illegal under federal law. So youdefinitely break the law because someone else ​may have broken the law.

Hmm, and here I thought that you actually had to commit a crime to be convicted. I guess as long as someone imagines you committed a crime even if they lack proof that's enough. I guess presumption of innocence is "unworkable" in your professional lawyer's opinion.

You'd have my vote in your favor, Biker395. :thumb:

Seriously?

Laws are written to be workable ... they define criminal behavior in clear terms. It has nothing to do with presumed innocence.

How about an example? It's already illegal for you to walk into someone's back yard without permission, regardless of whether you have a camera or not. It's trespassing. Going there with a camera and snooping around in windows is a separate, additional crime.

Given that, why should you think you're entitled to fly a drone into it and hover around instead? All you are doing is using your drone as a proxy for yourself.

I'm frankly astounded that you would regard flying a drone around in someone else's back yard to be OK.

But there is no criminal behavior in just the mere presence of a drone, even over your property. I'm going to say this again. The FAA regulates aircraft and airspace. A drone is an aircraft. The simple act of flying a drone in the airspace above your property is not a violation of any law. Local communities cannot legislate flying an aircraft as an illegal act because the FAA regulates the airspace. Got it?

So if you define additional actions, be it photographing, dropping things, firing weapons, etc. as illegal, then fine. But guess what? If you want to charge someone with those things, you actually have to prove they did it! Just flying a drone (try not to lose focus here...we've established just flying a drone is legal) does not support a criminal charge, and is not evidence of any of the additional activity that is illegal.

Presumption of innocence is the heart of it because you want to make it illegal for someone to fly a drone on your property and the only way you can possibly do that is to impose presumption of guilt for something that you admit you have no way of proving.

And trespassing law doesn't apply to aircraft in regulated airspace, which includes above your property. There is no crime with an aircraft flying or even hovering your house, yet if someone walked onto your property, it would be a crime. Do.you.now.see.the.distinction? You're an actual frickin' lawyer and you can't even see that your analogy is utterly flawed and useless?! This is why people operating jetliners, FedEx cargo flights, Cessnas, crop dusters, news choppers, etc. cannot be charged with trespassing for flying over your property. Nor can they be charged with invading your privacy unless you can present, you know, actual evidence that they did so. Just whining "but they're in my airspace, they must be spying on me!" actually doesn't constitute proof of anything except perhaps that the person is a big stranger-danger crybaby.

Given that the FAA says that it is legal to operate a drone for recreational purposes in airspace up to 400' even over private property, yes I think everyone has that right. You keep using words like "entitled" to make it seem like I'm taking some stand about rights. All I am doing is pointing out that the law gives everyone that right and people who think they can destroy a drone are violating federal law regarding aircraft and local laws about destruction of property, endangerment, etc., and incurring civil liability for the property that they destroy. I have not taken any moral stand on the rightness or wrongness of this, other than to say that we should be subject to the actual laws the way they are written, not how we imagine them to be.

Keep trying. Why as a lawyer would you be astounded that someone simply points out what is clearly legal? The letter of the law says so, the law has been practiced so (given a number of drone-attackers being arrested and paying restitution while drone operators are not arrested, charged, or convicted, or subject to civil suits regarding privacy invasion). Only your assurances that it *must* be illegal anyway and this actually, somehow, some way, gives you the right to destroy aircraft in the air in violation of federal law, say different.

Wow, is this some sort of jedi lawyer mind trick you're trying, where you prove the exact point I am making, then act like it shows you were right all along? If so, you may need to spend some more time channeling the Force because it's not working.

My point was that despite what you or the general public thinks invasion of privacy is, the law may say something very different. I'm pretty positive if I had asked you before the Arne Svenson case whether it was legal to take photos of people through their windows with a telephoto lens and then publicly display them, you would have said a definitive "no". Especially given that you think a much lesser activity, that being a gopro-equipped drone merely being in the airspace above your property, is also an invasion of privacy. Yet the court ruled very clearly that it was legal. Meaning what you and probably most people (including me) thought was an illegal invasion of privacy actually was not.

So...when you point out that the court said, hey our hands are tied here, and it required changes to the law to make such activity illegal, then you are making the same point as me. That what you are so sure is illegal actually may not be! That legislators are scrambling to patch a hole in the law does not mean the hole doesn't exist.

there was an idiot flying a private plane in tight circles above my house below the allowed ceiling, maybe 100 feet. I was really annoyed. I should have called the FAA on the pilot, there would have been a "come to Jesus" meeting.

I fly model planes, and quadcopters. I would never fly near someone. Ok, so I've hit my labmate with my tiny quadcopter a couple of times, but it barely stings. We have some quadcopters with 9 inch blades that would probably put you in the hospital. Model airplane flying is not allowed on campus here, with the popularity of quadcopters I expect those rules to be challenged. If someone was buzzing me with one, I would probably call the cops. Looking around for the idiot with the radio is another option.

the Navy's is a bit bigger Navy: New laser weapon works, ready for action - CNN.com

I give up.

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c2...psb8vgoatz.jpg

Previous to drones, court rulings have stated "the air above the minimum safe altitude of flight... is a public highway and part of the public domain." So far courts have not determined this.

Sure...so can STA missiles, all of these, F16 fighter jets, and the Bermuda triangle.

The continued use of UAVs to invade privacy will create (has created) the need to review current law. A change is required due to unforeseen misuse of what is essentially a toy. Big boys toy but yes, a toy. Being the high point of the election cycle it will be touched on eventually. Whether any meaningful change will result remains unanswered.

Very often, technology out paces current law. It happened with computers in the early 90's when there were no laws pertaining to theft by/from a computer, hacking or any other crime which in which a computer was the instrumentality of the crime. Sooner or later State and Federal Law will catch up with the new toys.

Sooner rather than later in California. Yesterday, the Assembly passed legislation making controllers of drones civilly liable for flying below 350 feet over private property without written permission. It does not require the presence of cameras on such drones:

Today's Law As Amended

This is in addition to the bill referenced earlier that imposes civil liability with regard to using drones to take photographs and the like.

Wait, you've been arguing this entire time that it's already illegal to fly drones over private property and you have the right to smash them...why would these bills be at all necessary if that was the case?

Edit: This is no surprise in California. The reason this was adopted so quickly to protect movie stars from paparazzi, not any concern for regular folks. It will be interesting to see if it catches on anywhere else. It will also be welcomed by businesses such as agriculture which want very much to avoid any public scrutiny, and used to prosecute journalists and whistleblowers acting in the public interest.

*Sigh* I know it is useless to respond, but I'm assuming you are asking the question because you want to learn something, not to be argumentative.

There is statutory law and common law. Statutory law is what it sounds like ... laws enacted by the legislature. Common law is law developed over time by the judicial system. They exist together. It is not uncommon for the legislature to codify (or augment) what is already common law in statutes. You might have noticed that the legislation referred to this statement:

That is an example of what I am referring to.

I'm regular folk and I welcome the law. Like virtually everyone I've spoken to, I regard a drone flying around in my backyard as trespassing and an invasion of privacy. That the law passes so quickly in California indicates to me that most folks feel the same. I think you'll encounter similar legislation elsewhere soon.

Very Good!!! And other states will follow suit.

I have no moral objection to a law that says it's illegal to fly a drone over private property. I don't think it's anyone's natural right to be able to fly a drone over private property, and it's not anyone's natural right to prevent a drone flying over private property. Therefore the moral obligation is to follow the law whatever it says. But until it says you cannot, you can, due to the federal aviation law being the only one that applies in most jurisdictions, and the FAA explicitly ruling it a legal activity. I find it hard to believe common law would upend that, considering that the FAA already overrules common law regarding the use of airspace above your property. I welcome clear, unambiguous laws and don't really care whether property owners or drone operators ultimately benefit. But I don't subscribe to your view that common law or any current law gives you the right to assume criminal activity without evidence and a right to destroy property at will and knock aircraft out of the sky, no more than you can set up booby traps injure trespassers, or even smash someone's camera for taking pictures on your property. Once the trespassing bill is signed in CA, then you can call the cops, try to identify the drone operator, press charges, etc., but you still don't have a right of violence unless you are actually being threatened with bodily harm.

(A) "... federal aviation law being the only one that applies in most jurisdictions ..." - FAA law is not the only one that applies in most jurisdictions. Common law doctrines exist in all states, not just California.

(B) " ... the FAA explicitly ruling it a legal activity ..." - Please provide the FAA law or ruling that says flying drones over private property is legal activity (and I'm not talking high altitudes ... lets say below 350 feet, consistent with the California legislation.

(C) " ... the FAA already overrules common law regarding the use of airspace above your property ..." - Reference, please?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/40103

Also, here's an analysis of the legal authority that the FAA has asserted essentially from surface upward, and specifically in regard to the CA law, even over private property, meaning that aircraft (including drones) have the right to use that space. This is from a Pepperdine law professor who is something of an expert on drone law. He claims that even the new CA law is fatally flawed because it restricts drones to below navigable airspace, while FAA rulings have made it clear that because of drones, they consider all airspace from the ground up to be navigable, meaning that CA law actually applies in no actual airspace.

I asked for a reference indicating that the FAA ruled that it was legal to fly drones over private property at below, say ... 350 feet.

You provided a opinion article from a lawyer who said that the CA legislation would pass muster with FAA regulations if it limited it's application to altitudes below 350 feet.

The CA legislation regarding trespassing applies only to drones flying at altitudes under 350 feet.

It looks as if you provided a reference that refutes (A), (B) and (C) ... What am I missing here?

My mistake...the bill was obviously changed since the publication of the article (and when I first read it) to incorporate the language which eliminates the flaw that Gregory McNeal pointed out.

That said, he does a better job than me in this article and others of his he links to of outlining how, absent a law like California's new one, drones are legally permitted to fly over private property.

I think our disconnect is that we are envisioning different circumstances.

I think the situation you're envisioning is someone flying a drone at low altitudes across a largely or sparsely uninhabited area that is private property, or at higher altitudes that are more densely populated. That doesn't trouble me so much, nor do I think it would constitute a tort (for nuisance, trespass or invasion of privacy) under common law .... it would depend on the circumstances.

The situation I envision is someone flying a drone at 10 feet or so into my back yard and loitering it there. That troubles me a lot, and likely would constitute a tort under common law.

Does that make sense?

BTW, the California legislation isn't law yet ... the Senate has to pass it (likely, as they have a similar bill pending), and the Governor must sign it ... (there is no telling what he'll do).

I did get what you were saying. I have imagined myself what I would do if a drone was hovering a few feet above my yard. Especially if my wife and 4 year old son were out. I would be angry, feel like someone was violating me for a cheap thrill, or worse. I can even understand the temptation to go full-on piñata whack on it. But unfortunately the law currently allows this pretty much everywhere. As you have pointed out, it really is a gap in privacy/trespass law that simply doesn't account for low-flying drones. But we have to abide the laws as they are until they are adapted to current circumstances. And I think a invasion of privacy case is not that strong because of difficulty of proving it. You'd have to get the images captured (and seizing them by force from a disabled drone opens up a whole slew of legal issues to me), and as I said, most 170 degree FOV cameras simply operating in broad daylight simply aren't going to be all that invasive and different from "public view" shots, even from 10' away.

I've thought long and hard about what I would do, and you may not believe me, but I thought about it some more over the past day in an effort to understand your point of view. In the end, I would call the police, try to find the operator, confront them calmly, and hope that with some police mediation, they would take their drone somewhere else, but knowing that my recourse is limited due to the current state of laws. I'd probably openly record my interaction with the drone guy. I think the perceived anonymity of a drone gives people a little more courage than they would have in person and on camera themselves.

Edit: Thanks for the clarification on the state of the CA bill. From the link you sent, I had thought it passed both houses and was just waiting for the governor to sign (which I would guess would be likely). When/if it does pass, it will be a good experiment into figuring out good public policy regarding this technology. I do not believe that people will ever have the right to knock drones out of the sky (other than emergency personnel under specific circumstances).

Does anyone have any opinions as to the legality, or not, of flying a drone over someone's personal property and the legalities or ramifications of the property owner destroying that drone?

fify

Not beyond 83 feet. Below that you may have violation of property rights justification.

Southern California riders:

If you do long rides in the Whittier, OC, Santiago Canyon areas there were Sheriff's Helicopters and LE Cessnas surveilling you long before drones were common. So riders realize you've been watched from the air for a long time.

Interesting about air rights over a building. Not too long ago a downtown church sold its air rights over its building to another building so they could build the other building higher.

Here is another example in another state:

$40 Million in Air Rights Will Let East Side Tower Soar

This new hobby could bring back an old hobby - skeet shooting.