*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.

Get yourself a pet raptor. Apparently they are quite territorial:

According to Federal Aircraft Regulations (FAR 91.119) Aircraft must maintain AT LEAST 1000' agl over populated areas, 500' over rural areas.

Hmmm, I thought you did own the airspace above your property. 'How far up" was debatable, but ownership of airspace over your property is not in question. For Causey vs US Government, chicken farmer named Thomas Lee Causby sued the US government for flying approximately 83 feet above his property, the noise of which caused a bunch of Causby’s chicken’s to accidentally kill themselves by running into walls. Causby won his case and the courts agreed that although a property owner wasn’t entitled to own all of the air above their land, they were entitled to enough so that planes they were entitled to enough that planes flying overhead wouldn’t kill their chickens. See case here.

I figure that if it is close enough to disturb the peace and within close range, that one should be able to take actions to restore the peace.

I hear that super soakers can work well.

Here is a how to:

?How to Shoot Down a Drone

Right On!!

It appears that drones have actually forced the FAA and NTSB to define aircraft and airspace very broadly. Essentially, any device used for flight is an aircraft (including teeny tiny toys). And anywhere that an aircraft can safely navigate (which is virtually everywhere above the ground) is airspace and under the FAA's jurisdiction. The linked article quotes an FAA representative who says this is the FAA's position.

I think there is a difference between a drone flying close and one filming. Most have the ability to film these days. And if it's in my yard and I can hit it with a stick or my hose, it's going down. Just playing with the dog or watering my lawn, officer.

Just note that in the past, people destroying another person's drone even on their own property have been arrested and had to pay for the damage. Also if the drone is recording, you could have a much harder time making the case that it was an "accident".

If I were on a jury for someone being tried for bringing down a drone that was buzzing them, invading their privacy, etc. not only would I vote for acquittal, I would also acquit them if they hunted the owner down and beat them senseless with it.