Are State Drone Rules Doomed From the Start?

[51 Drones]

If you have some state lawmakers in your state considering drone regulations, have them watch this.

This is Catastrophic to State Drone Regulations!

 

[GFields]

Thanks for sharing

 

[PHZ]

Russ, thank you for this and all of your work.

 

[PacificSkyDreamn]

Good video on the topic, but I’m still confused about local governmental authorities. Is the below drone ban legal?

Here in the San Francisco Bay Area is the East Bay Regional Park District a government special district covering over 195 square miles with 73 parks and over 1,330 miles of trails. It was its own fire and police departments that enforce rules enacted by the District’s locally elected board of directors. The District added a ban on drone

“409. No person shall engage in any of the following activities within the District except in areas specifically designated and set aside from time to time by the Board for such activities.​

​

409.3 Operate self-propelled (motor driven) Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS aka "drone") model aircraft, boats, automobiles, or other model craft of any kind or description, or fly any UAS closer than 500 feet above District parklands, as defined by Federal Regulations.”​

Citations for violating the drone ordinance cost about $300.

Enjoy Your New Drones, Just Not in the Parks

12/23/2015 The East Bay Regional Park District reminds park visitors that drones – motorized, remote-controlled aircraft – are illegal in all parks and open space areas in the District. Drones are extremely dangerous for helicopters and airplanes. Even a small drone could shatter a windshield or...

www.ebparks.org

 

[Firejay27]

The problem with the video Russ put out is that it's way to simplistic and too cut and dry. While he states that the FAA and federal governement is the only entity that can regulate the airspace he forgets about the ground. Take for instance New York which has basically banned drones from many areas of the city. How? By saying they can't take off or land from areas. Make that area big enough and viola.. drones are banned. With VLOS requirements you would be hard pressed to go outside of the area to take off and land and still get the shots you want. Federal government already did this in National Parks and many States have also done this in their State Parks or local environmental areas.

Let's also not forget that the FAA has allowed for the creation of CBO's in local areas to basically provide safe guidance for operation of a drone. While not many CBO's exist currently you're still required to fly under one even if one doesn't exist in your areas. I personally choose to fly under the one by FliteTest since there is not a CBO in my area. A CBO though, when they start forming, are going to be nighmares for some as they will basically be HOAs for the communty when it comes to drones.

There's also the issue if you fly over these areas that have restricted take off and landing areas and you have to "crash land". You can now be cited as your drone is on the ground in a restricted area. This happens with people and private property all the time and conflicts that arise if a drone lands in someones back yard or on top of someone's barn.

Unfortunately it's those that don't follow any rules at all that are going to make things like CBO's become nightmares. And there is nothing to say that a State can't petetion the Federal Governement to restrict airspace in certain areas if they can prove some sort of safety or other reason.

 

[tvc184]

To at least understand where I’m coming in forming my opinion….

I recently retired with a little over 37 years as a police officer in Texas. For about the last 25 years I have taught what is essentially constitutional law as it applies to the police. I am also an FAA licensed private pilot and hold a Part 107 license as well as created and commanded a police drone unit. I realize that my opinion is just like anyone else’s and until a court of competent jurisdiction rules otherwise, it is just an opinion. My opinion and $8 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbuck’s.

So…..

As I was watching the video, after a couple of minutes I thought he was full of crap. Then I got to about the five minute mark.
I knew that in my opinion, certainly, you could file charges under state law for actions with a drone, not in the flight itself but the results. By the same reasoning, you could file charges against somebody under state law for the way they fly an airplane and I have done so (actually it was a helicopter pilot).

At about that 5 minute mark, he explained exactly what I was thinking. The state has the authority under the Tenth Amendment to enact laws that are not in conflict with the Constitution or federal law (he didn’t go into an explanation of why).

A government entity (state, school district, county, city, etc.) other than the US government, cannot enforce airspace, licensing requirements and training of pilots. That is completely under the authority of the FAA however privacy, injury, endangering and so on, are within a state’s authority and jurisdiction.

For example if a person is acting stupidly with a drone by flying over a city park and is buzzing people, that could be a violation of federal law under FAA jurisdiction. The state cannot enforce any airspace violation for the flight. If the drone pilot accidentally injured a person, that would be assault under Texas state law (only as an example as each state has its own laws) which says it is an assault to “recklessly” injure a person. It is a misdemeanor but if the injured person is 65 or older, it is a felony.

That isn’t a drone law since airspace and a pilot license or certificate have no bearing. It isn’t the drone flight itself but the results of the flight.

It is a silly example but to make the point, you could not intentionally fly a drone into a person and kill him, then claim it is not murder under state because only the FAA controls drone operations.

So yes, actions with a drone can be prosecuted under state law. It most likely cannot be a “drone law” as was mentioned in the video. Before he got to the five minute mark, I was even thinking of the voyeurism or Peeping Tom laws since that is probably most people’s concerns about privacy. He then mentioned that exact scenario. It is against the law to look into a window for lewd purposes. The person is not exempt from that law because he is doing so with a drone.

So….

Can a government entity, other than the federal government, control airspace, pilot licenses and certificates, etc.? No.

Can those government entities enforce other laws that apply to everyone that are not specifically against drone flights and requirements, if a state law is violated? Yes. Just because the drone is the instrument used doesn’t negate state policing authority.

In my opinion.

 

[mavictk]

If you have some state lawmakers in your state considering drone regulations, have them watch this.

This is Catastrophic to State Drone Regulations!

Like with other law enforcement interactions the process is the punishment. When Florida passes its new additions to 330.41 law enforcement will point to this law for their intervention in your part 107 activities. When you are put into the system you will be the one spending the money to get the courts to recognize that the FAA has the jurisdiction. By way of an off topic example look how many 1st Amendment violations by law enforcement when the 1st Amendment is well established. Look up HonorYourOath on Youtube for some real world examples.

 

[Dmcvey]

There's also the issue if you fly over these areas that have restricted take off and landing areas and you have to "crash land". You can now be cited as your drone is on the ground in a restricted area. This happens with people and private property all the time and conflicts that arise if a drone lands in someones back yard or on top of someone's barn.

Rule for trespass don't apply in an emergency situation. If you crash or are forced to land that is beyond the rules, in an emergency situation you do what you must to get the aircraft on the ground safely. Just like a pilot that loses power and lands a Cessna in a cornfield, that is not trespassing. Probably be liable for damages but not trespass. Someday there will be an Amazon or some such drone that will be forced to land due to mechanical failure while on a delivery run. No way that would be considered trespassing.

The conflict arises when the landowner won't return the aircraft and then it becomes theft.

 

[tvc184]

Rule for trespass don't apply in an emergency situation. If you crash or are forced to land that is beyond the rules, in an emergency situation you do what you must to get the aircraft on the ground safely. Just like a pilot that loses power and lands a Cessna in a cornfield, that is not trespassing. Probably be liable for damages but not trespass. Someday there will be an Amazon or some such drone that will be forced to land due to mechanical failure while on a delivery run. No way that would be considered trespassing.

The conflict arises when the landowner won't return the aircraft and then it becomes theft.

Yes, called mens rea in Latin or the culpable mental state by most statutory laws. It is the “guilty mind” (mens rea) or intent of the person.