Flying any kind of drone or remote-control aircraft is prohibited in all city parks! - Griffith Observatory

[BobaFut]

The only way they can get your GPS track is if they subpoena it, and a subpoena is a court order… But to get a subpoena requires probable cause in the first place. Regardless, airspace is exclusively the domain of the FAA, and no local jurisdiction has any authority whatsoever in terms of airspace once you're in the air.

The only, and I repeat only, aspect of local jurisdiction over drones relates to the specific operations known as "takeoff" and "landing". Once the drone is in the air, it only falls under FAA jurisdiction. When the drone is in your hand, then you're a private person possessing private property, which you cannot be deprived of, except by court order.

Remember that you never need to speak to police. You never need to say anything about anything that you were doing, ever. If you are questioned about anything that you were doing, you can simply say "I'm sorry officer I'm not interested in discussing my day with you, am I free to leave?"

Photography, videography, and cinematography are constitutionally protected rights.

Airspace is federal and owned by the public and regulated by the FAA, local jurisdictions do not have the authority to regulate airspace, period.



This is not a thing in most California state parks, as for certain national parks, they can restrict the takeoff and landing on their property only.

Only the FAA can restrict use of airspace.

Sorry, but this is mostly either untrue, misleading, or just very bad advice. Not only does Part 107 require you to show your license (both drone registration and pilot certification) to any LEO that asks, but law enforcement can jam you up for any number of offenses related to flying your drone, like reckless endangerment, trespassing, etc...and can confiscate your drone if they want. Will those actions hold up in court? Maybe, maybe not. Do you want to find out? Personally, I do not. And you're much more likely to find out if you **** around and do things like tell a cop "I'm sorry officer I'm not interested in discussing my day with you."

Cops can basically do whatever they want and then let you sort it out with the courts later. They do not give a **** and are basically accountable to no one. You could be flying your drone 10 feet off the ground in an empty field and if a cop doesn't like it, they can cite you for reckless endangerment on a whim and bye bye drone...get a lawyer and fight it in court. Cops will take any opportunity to make your life miserable, so don't give them an excuse to do so if you can avoid it. It's not right, but we have decided as a society that those who enforce the law are effectively above it.

Photography, videography, and cinematography are constitutionally protected rights.

Sure, but your ability to do these things is not absolute. Try taking photos along the fenceline of a miltary base and find out how "constitutionally protected" your right to photograph is....

 

[NightFlightAlright]

You sure about that?...

107.7.....​

Yes I'm sure about that.

Constitutionally, you never need to speak to the police. Per the Constitution of the United States of America, you are under no obligation whatsoever to make any statement to any law-enforcement official.

In some states, not California, you may be required to verbally identify yourself in the course of a lawful investigation.

In the course of driving a motor vehicle on public roads, you may be required to produce a license that demonstrates that you are appropriately permitted to operate a vehicle on public roads. You are not required to make any statement.

In the course of operating a drone under part 107 rules, meaning for purposes other than recreational flying, you may be lawfully asked to show your part 107 certification. You quoted it yourself:

...Present his or her remote pilot certificate....

And in showing it you are not required to hand it over. You should remain in possession of your certificate at all times and not hand it to anyone else. You are only required to show it or "present" it.

There's no requirement under part 107 for you to make any statements whatsoever, nor could there be due to constitutional restrictions to the contrary,

Important note, when it comes to your FAA airman certificate, if you hand it over you are in essence relinquishing your certificate. Do not ever do this, and especially do not hand your airman certificate over to anyone who is an officer of the FAA as they can and will accept it as a relinquishing of your certificate.

For what it's worth, I am also a part 61 certificated pilot, single engine land, since 1997.

And finally,

In the course of operating a drone under the recreational provisions as permitted by Congress, you are not required to follow the part 107 regulations nor are you required to be part 107 certified.
There is no requirement under the recreational provisions to provide ID. And further in general there is no requirement for a citizen to provide any identification to law enforcement unless actually under arrest, and being arrested for not identifying is a false arrest and you will win between $15,000 and $30,000 in damages from the police department that violated your constitutional rights in such a manner, as has been seen in a number of such lawsuits.
So yes, I am sure about that.

 

[NightFlightAlright]

Sorry, but this is mostly either untrue, misleading, or just very bad advice.

Your opinion is noted, but then, you're not an attorney.

My statements come directly from information provided to me by an attorney at law, and corroborated by several different attorneys for that matter.

Not only does Part 107 require you to show your license (both drone registration and pilot certification) to any LEO that asks,

Did I say anything about part 107? No I did not. Did I say that if you were flying under part 107 that you didn't have to show an ID? No I did not.

If you were flying under part 107 rules, then you must show, as in present but not handover, your certificate.

You are not then nor are you ever required to make any statements whatsoever of any kind.

but law enforcement can jam you up for any number of offenses related to flying your drone, like reckless endangerment, trespassing, etc...and can confiscate your drone if they want.

No they can't. And this right here is the bad, wrong advice ^^

Your private personal property cannot be confiscated by the state except pursuant to a court order. The other two issues reckless endangerment and trespassing require probable cause, which is beyond a suspicion. Example:

You are physically standing on someone else's private property behind a fence, and the property owner, or a person legally in control of that property, made a complaint to the police, then the police have probable cause that you are trespassing. Otherwise they don't.

Will those actions hold up in court? Maybe, maybe not. Do you want to find out? Personally, I do not. And you're much more likely to find out if you f*&k around and do things like tell a cop "I'm sorry officer I'm not interested in discussing my day with you."

I don't care much about people who are willing to give up their rights, because those people are part of the problem.

The bonus is, when a cop violate rights, the victim of that police abuse can then sue the department, and these lawsuits are won all the time, netting each victim of police harassment tens of thousands of dollars. Or more. A close friend of mine was a victim of police abuse by a corrupt Ventura cop, and he received over a $150,000 settlement which he then used to go to law school, and has spent much of his law career getting bad cops ejected from the force.

Cops can basically do whatever they want and then let you sort it out with the courts later. They do not give a f*&k and are basically accountable to no one. You could be flying your drone 10 feet off the ground in an empty field and if a cop doesn't like it, they can cite you for reckless endangerment on a whim and bye bye drone...get a lawyer and fight it in court. Cops will take any opportunity to make your life miserable, so don't give them an excuse to do so if you can avoid it. It's not right, but we have decided as a society that those who enforce the law are effectively above it.

So completely and utterly out of your mind wrong here it is unbelievable, and I hope that nobody listens to anything that you're saying. The fact is, over 80% of the people in prison are there specifically because they opened their mouth and talked to the cops.

You gain absolutely nothing talking to police. If they have a reason to arrest you, it doesn't matter what you say they're going to arrest you no matter what. If you talk to them you're not gonna talk yourself out of it. But if you talk to them when they didn't have a reason to arrest, you you could very easily give them a reason to arrest you right there and then you're in a world of hurt, and you put yourself in that situation only because you opened your stupid mouth.

Keep your mouth shut and don't talk to cops. Be polite, be respectful, but don't give them a reason to arrest you by opening your f***ing mouth. It's just a common knowledge today, it's shocking to me to hear somebody who is so ignorant of these basic, actual facts.

Nice job at being a sheeple, LOL.

Sure, but your ability to do these things is not absolute. Try taking photos along the fenceline of a miltary base and find out how "constitutionally protected" your right to photograph is....

There is a well-known constitutional exception regarding military bases if and when that military base has appropriate signage stating that it is a military base for national defense and no photography is permitted.
The sign must be present.

All of this is academic, and any attorney-at-law will tell you the same thing.

 

[NightFlightAlright]

The catch is the Griffith Observatory is part Griffith Park which is huge, like the side of a mountain. Unless you can launch from someones private property, there is no close legal launching place.

Not that huge, and definitely within range of a drone, plenty of public sidewalks with direct-line of sight to the observatory itself.

That regulation was written in 1979! So consumer grade drones were not even around then. But they do fly and they are a type of aircraft so they got us there.

Personally I wish someone would test that in court and throw out that regulation as not partaning to drones since they are not specifically mentioned but I don't see that happening any time soon.

So then, looking at the enumerated variety of prohibited flying devices:

...balloon... helicopter, parakite, hang glider, aircraft or powered models thereof...

A drone is definitely not a balloon, not a helicopter, not a parakite, not a hang glider, and not a powered model of any aircraft. As to "Aircraft" — the statute makes a distinction between a helicopter and an aircraft, which implies the meaning of aircraft as in the FAA definition "airplane" which defines a fixed wing, as separate from a rotorcraft IE helicopter, or a powered lift which is yet another separate definition.

A drone is a remote piloted quadcopter, which is not a helicopter, and it's not a model of any fixed wing aircraft, nor is it a fixed-wing aircraft any kind. It has no fixed wing of any aerodynamic capability.

Otherwise "aircraft" is not defined in the statute, and because the statute enumerates multiple other forms of craft, but does not specifically enumerate a "remotely controlled photography device with a plurality of lifting motors and integrated object collision avoidance" as something that is specifically prohibited, one could conceivably make the argument that the fact that it has integrated collision avoidance, a technology that was not available in 1979, that it does not fall under the purview of the restriction.

That said, such a trial would probably be a bit costly, and ultimately moot, as most likely it would simply result in the city council drafting a new statute with inclusive language.

That said, I am now going to refer to my drone as only:

"a remotely controlled, gimbaled photography device mounted to an atmospherically maneuverable quadpod stabilization platform that incorporates a plurality of computer-controlled motors actuating lightweight petals providing atmospheric buoyancy with integrated collision avoidance for safe operation, and is most definitely not an airplane."

 

[BobaFut]

Your opinion is noted, but then, you're not an attorney.

My statements come directly from information provided to me by an attorney at law, and corroborated by several different attorneys for that matter.


Did I say anything about part 107? No I did not. Did I say that if you were flying under part 107 that you didn't have to show an ID? No I did not.

If you were flying under part 107 rules, then you must show, as in present but not handover, your certificate.

You are not then nor are you ever required to make any statements whatsoever of any kind.

You know your argument is solid when you have to split hairs to defend it...

No they can't. And this right here is the bad, wrong advice ^^

Your private personal property cannot be confiscated by the state except pursuant to a court order. The other two issues reckless endangerment and trespassing require probable cause, which is beyond a suspicion. Example:

You are physically standing on someone else's private property behind a fence, and the property owner, or a person legally in control of that property, made a complaint to the police, then the police have probable cause that you are trespassing. Otherwise they don't.

There are literally stories *ON THIS WEBSITE* of this happening. It doesn't matter what your rights are on paper. Cops will violate your rights first and ask questions later.

The bonus is, when a cop violate rights, the victim of that police abuse can then sue the department, and these lawsuits are won all the time, netting each victim of police harassment tens of thousands of dollars. Or more. A close friend of mine was a victim of police abuse by a corrupt Ventura cop, and he received over a $150,000 settlement which he then used to go to law school, and has spent much of his law career getting bad cops ejected from the force.

Tell me you don't watch the news or like, one single movie, without telling me you don't watch the news...Cops being held accountable is the exception and not the rule. If a cop confiscates your drone and cites you for reckless endangerment, you're not going to win a huge settlement against them. You will have to fight the citation and to get your drone back and the cop probably won't even show up to court because he doesn't care.

So completely and utterly out of your mind wrong here it is unbelievable, and I hope that nobody listens to anything that you're saying. The fact is, over 80% of the people in prison are there specifically because they opened their mouth and talked to the cops.

You gain absolutely nothing talking to police. If they have a reason to arrest you, it doesn't matter what you say they're going to arrest you no matter what. If you talk to them you're not gonna talk yourself out of it. But if you talk to them when they didn't have a reason to arrest, you you could very easily give them a reason to arrest you right there and then you're in a world of hurt, and you put yourself in that situation only because you opened your stupid mouth.

Keep your mouth shut and don't talk to cops. Be polite, be respectful, but don't give them a reason to arrest you by opening your f***ing mouth. It's just a common knowledge today, it's shocking to me to hear somebody who is so ignorant of these basic, actual facts.

Nice job at being a sheeple, LOL.

Where did I say "talk to cops?" I said don't f*&k around with cops unless you want to find out, because cops WILL violate your rights with impunity if they feel like it. Telling a cop "I'm not interested in talking to you" is an *escalatory* statement. You can be polite and not give a cop any unnecessary information without escalating. I agree with your larger point about not talking to cops, but if you think that you'll just sue or whatever if you "mouth off" (for lack of a better term) and they break your face, you're in for a rude awakening.

All of this is academic, and any attorney-at-law will tell you the same thing.[/I][/B]

Cops killed over 1,100 people in 2022. Hardly "academic."

 

[GFields]

@BobaFuct and @NightFlightAlright Do not make this thread about yourselves. Otherwise, I will remove your posts

 

[lookout]

I think the idea due to the lack of manpower at the faas disposal and leave it to the local fuzz is going to be a bad idea.

 

[NightFlightAlright]

@BobaFuct and @NightFlightAlright Do not make this thread about yourselves. Otherwise, I will remove your posts

Sorry I was only responding to his derisive comment.

 

[NightFlightAlright]

I think the idea due to the lack of manpower at the faas disposal and leave it to the local fuzz is going to be a bad idea.

Yea, it's a bit appalling that the FAA put that line about local LE in the 107 regulation.

 

[Chip]

@NightFlightAlright, I am trying to wrap my head around flying a drone for two hours from the patio outside Wolfgang Puck's cafeteria at the Griffith Observatory which I assume must be on the left in this photo where people are sitting. You really did that in daylight when place was open and got in no trouble? If the police had been called and approached you when you had remote in hand and drone was in the air, and asked what are you doing, then what would you have said?

 

[NightFlightAlright]

I am trying to wrap my head around flying a drone for two hours from the patio outside Wolfgang Puck's cafeteria at the Griffith Observatory which I assume must be on the left in this photo where people are sitting. You really did that in daylight when place was open and got in no trouble? If the police had been called and approached you when you had remote in hand and drone was in the air, and asked what are you doing, then what would you have said?

There is no Wolfgang Puck cafeteria..... that looks like some kind of special event that you're have pictures there at the far left of the observatory down low is where the cafeteria is, in this picture there are a number of empty tables.

 

[Aerophile]

Yea, it's a bit appalling that the FAA put that line about local LE in the 107 regulation.

I believe that language is lifted pretty much verbatim from the Part 61 requirement that states pilots "must present his or her certificates, authorizations, identification, and other documents required under Part 61 for inspection upon a request by the administrator, NTSB, or any federal, state, or local law enforcement officer."

I don't believe that's anything new, or surprising. Federal regulations 101.

A cop pulls you over while you're driving down a public road. You have issues with showing them your drivers license, car registration and (if required in your state) proof of insurance?

Probably not the happiest thing that'll ever happen to you, but...Appalling?

 

[Chip]

There is no Wolfgang Puck cafeteria..... that looks like some kind of special event that you're have pictures there at the far left of the observatory down low is where the cafeteria is, in this picture there are a number of empty tables.

Got it. That is less obtrusive spot below the main deck. I’ve not been there but looks great. I would love to fly right off there myself but I would not risk it. The place has no drones allowed as far as I know.

 

[NightFlightAlright]

I believe that language is lifted pretty much verbatim from the Part 61 requirement that states pilots "must present his or her certificates, authorizations, identification, and other documents required under Part 61 for inspection upon a request by the administrator, NTSB, or any federal, state, or local law enforcement officer."

I don't believe that's anything new, or surprising. Federal regulations 101.

Well I guess “nothing new” is relative… When I went to ground school “any law enforcement officer” was not part of who you had to present credentials to, as I recall that was added amid some controversy some years after my first checkride…

And importantly at one point it said “reasonably request” but eventually the word “reasonably” seems to have Disappeared…. I think the word “reasonably” vanished shortly after 9/11.

A cop pulls you over while you're driving down a public road. You have issues with showing them your drivers license, car registration and (if required in your state) proof of insurance?

I do if they pulled me over without just cause.

But then, I am after all a cranky old man who remembers things the way they used to be prior to the 1994 crime bill, private for profit prisons, and several SCOTUS rulings stating that cops were free to beat the crap outa ya.

Regardless, I have have my papers ready by the time the cop is at my window.… but, that’s also a different set of circumstances and body of law.

Probably not the happiest thing that'll ever happen to you, but...Appalling?

Well, I am known for my egregious hyperbole…

 

[BobaFut]

Well I guess “nothing new” is relative… When I went to ground school “any law enforcement officer” was not part of who you had to present credentials to, as I recall that was added amid some controversy some years after my first checkride…

And importantly at one point it said “reasonably request” but eventually the word “reasonably” seems to have Disappeared…. I think the word “reasonably” vanished shortly after 9/11.



I do if they pulled me over without just cause.

But then, I am after all a cranky old man who remembers things the way they used to be prior to the 1994 crime bill, private for profit prisons, and several SCOTUS rulings stating that cops were free to beat the crap outa ya.

Regardless, I have have my papers ready by the time the cop is at my window.… but, that’s also a different set of circumstances and body of law.




Well, I am known for my egregious hyperbole…

I'm pretty much fully on board with your vision of what our rights are and the overreach of law enforcement (with some quibbles about interpretation of some legal points). The tricky part for me is where the line gets drawn in real-world situations between where willful compliance with law enforcement is an erosion of one's rights and where compliance can effectively deescalate a situation. Which I think is a tough thing for folks like drone pilots, where cops are woefully undereducated about the law and their role. And when cops misunderstand something, they tend to err on the side of violating your rights (and I'm putting that very mildly).

There are stories on this forum where if the pilot had just said "here's my ID, I thought I was operating legally, but I'll stop since you asked" then the situation would've resolved itself without issue. But obviously that's how cops WANT the system to work, regardless of what our rights actually are, and that is just another area where our rights get slowly worn down in practice, if not on paper. The answer to cops being power-tripping **** shouldn't be "let's all just comply and be nice." It should be "cops need to be educated so they don't overstep," but that's hardly ever the solution that gets implemented...

I personally try to just manage my flying so as to minimize the likelihood of negative attention, but that's a tactic and not a strategy to deal with cops, and I'm not sure what the solution is in the long-term.

 

[Dunegolfer]

So is this true or just some BS thing they put on their website? Scroll down to outside guidelines. I get that they don't want you to fly at the observatory, but they go way beyond that with that statement. I can't find an actual LA city law that bans flying drones in city parks. You can fly in Macarrthur Park and Silver Lake for example.

Guidelines - Griffith Observatory - Southern California’s gateway to the cosmos!

I checked here, nothing about that, just Malibu, and few other cities but not Los Angeles city parks:

Drone Laws in California [Updated January 11, 2022]

I’ve flown at Will Rogers Park’s polo field when I first got into Droning, and was never once hassled by park rangers. In fact they were quite interested!

 

[Skyryder]

That's a cool picture of a large telescope facility that appears to be a open to the public during evening dusk hours, but out of respect to most of the working observatory's, I wouldn't come close to one with a drone during there imaging operations. Myself I'd call and ask if my drone flight would cause any interference with their operations. Call it common courtesy. There is nothing worst than having an aircraft (of any size) streak through my scopes CCD camera FOV that took so much effort to set up especially when the actual imaging is going on. Even though I can't control planes flying over my amateur imaging sessions and passing through my scopes target objective, I wouldn't be too happy about a drone ruining a night of astrophotography either. As a professional photographer I'm sure you can relate this.

That's not a working Obseratory, it hasnt been for many, many decades. It was built in 1933 for people in mind and it's purely a tourist attraction. Griffith's objective was to make astronomy accessible to the public, as opposed to the prevailing idea that observatories should be located on remote mountaintops and restricted to scientists so it's irronic that they act like it's private property and they dont want drones taking pics of it.

 

[dronerdave]

That's not a working Obseratory, it hasnt been for many, many decades. It was built in 1933 for people in mind and it's purely a tourist attraction. Griffith's objective was to make astronomy accessible to the public, as opposed to the prevailing idea that observatories should be located on remote mountaintops and restricted to scientists so it's irronic that they act like it's private property and they dont want drones taking pics of it.

Well, I'd still check. Just makes common sense. Some of those places have public outreach astronomy programs and I wouldn't want to be there after dusk flying a drone. Daytime shot..meh.

 

[NightFlightAlright]

Well, I'd still check. Just makes common sense. Some of those places have public outreach astronomy programs and I wouldn't want to be there after dusk flying a drone. Daytime shot..meh.

They do have amateur astronomers bringing by a large portable telescopes on some nights, but still not particularly relevant there’s no way a itsy-bitsy little drone is going to somehow interfere with any of that.

 

[MS Coast]

Yes I'm sure about that.

Constitutionally, you never need to speak to the police. Per the Constitution of the United States of America, you are under no obligation whatsoever to make any statement to any law-enforcement official.

Reference, please.