Had my first semi "confrontation"

[Chip]

Florida Statute 934.50 is interesting in that it defines reasonable expectation of privacy by reference to what is visible at ground level as opposed to from the sky.

(a) A law enforcement agency may not use a drone to gather evidence or other information.
(b) A person, a state agency, or a political subdivision...may not use a drone equipped with an imaging device to record an image of privately owned real property or of the owner, tenant, occupant, invitee, or licensee of such property with the intent to conduct surveillance on the individual or property captured in the image in violation of such person’s reasonable expectation of privacy without his or her written consent. For purposes of this section, a person is presumed to have a reasonable expectation of privacy on his or her privately owned real property if he or she is not observable by persons located at ground level in a place where they have a legal right to be, regardless of whether he or she is observable from the air with the use of a drone.

 

[SpyderSkeets]

Just be nice and say no. Now here how easy was that. You don’t need to be rude be nice and explain when you land you can talk a bit more.

Seriously? A guy gets on my case because he might happen to be a speck on my video and I'm supposed be patronizing to him? I was nice to him at first and I usually like talking to people about it and answering questions but that changed when he started getting belligerent.

 

[JSKCKNIT]

Florida Statute 934.50 is interesting in that it defines reasonable expectation of privacy by reference to what is visible at ground level as opposed to from the sky.

(a) A law enforcement agency may not use a drone to gather evidence or other information.
(b) A person, a state agency, or a political subdivision...may not use a drone equipped with an imaging device to record an image of privately owned real property or of the owner, tenant, occupant, invitee, or licensee of such property with the intent to conduct surveillance on the individual or property captured in the image in violation of such person’s reasonable expectation of privacy without his or her written consent. For purposes of this section, a person is presumed to have a reasonable expectation of privacy on his or her privately owned real property if he or she is not observable by persons located at ground level in a place where they have a legal right to be, regardless of whether he or she is observable from the air with the use of a drone.

Your bolding is omitting a key part of that statute.

"With the intent to conduct surveillance".

Inadvertently capturing someone on their property is not a violation of that statute.

 

[JSKCKNIT]

Your bolding is omitting a key part of that statute.

"With the intent to conduct surveillance".

Inadvertently capturing someone on their property is not a violation of that statute.

Story from Florida about a woman who accused a home inspector of violating her privacy for using a drone during a roof inspection.

https://www.news-press.com/story/ne...s-learning-curve-rising-technology/686007002/

 

[Bigbird48]

you answered your own ?

 

[ac0j]

Florida Statute 934.50 is interesting in that it defines reasonable expectation of privacy by reference to what is visible at ground level as opposed to from the sky.

(a) A law enforcement agency may not use a drone to gather evidence or other information.
(b) A person, a state agency, or a political subdivision...may not use a drone equipped with an imaging device to record an image of privately owned real property or of the owner, tenant, occupant, invitee, or licensee of such property with the intent to conduct surveillance on the individual or property captured in the image in violation of such person’s reasonable expectation of privacy without his or her written consent. For purposes of this section, a person is presumed to have a reasonable expectation of privacy on his or her privately owned real property if he or she is not observable by persons located at ground level in a place where they have a legal right to be, regardless of whether he or she is observable from the air with the use of a drone.

It means that if they can expect privacy at ground level, they can expect the same from the air.

It is just a matter of time before some of the “ yes I can” crowd will inadvertently film the wrong person. And finally figure it out. First it is “ there is no law against......”. And when you show them the law it turns to. “But that doesn’t say I can’t IF”.
Some need to be burned before they respect fire.

 

[ac0j]

Your bolding is omitting a key part of that statute.

"With the intent to conduct surveillance".

Inadvertently capturing someone on their property is not a violation of that statute.

Nice try. If you are “surveying” a roof or property when you “accidentally” get the bikini girl sunbathing. That won’t help you in that state. The definition of Surveillance is broader than what you want to think it is. It a lot of states, to do surveillance on someone on their own property requires a warrant.

 

[JSKCKNIT]

Nice try. If you are “surveying” a roof or property when you “accidentally” get the bikini girl sunbathing. That won’t help you in that state. The definition of Surveillance is broader than what you want to think it is

I'm an honorably discharged Marine Corps veteran. I'm not some perverted pedophile using a drone for nefarious purposes, nor am I a part of the "yes I can crowd". So no, the definition of surveillance is not "broader than what I think". The statute clearly states intent. If you're using your drone to photograph someone in a bikini, obviously your intent is not a roof inspection!! Nice try though.

Don't take my word for it, run it by an attorney and they will tell you the same thing. I ran the above statute by an attorney before I posted. Did you do the same?

 

[ac0j]

I'm an honorably discharged Marine Corps veteran. I'm not some perverted pedophile using a drone for nefarious purposes, nor am I a part of the "yes I can crowd". So no, the definition of surveillance is not "broader than what I think". The statute clearly states intent. If you're using your drone to photograph someone in a bikini, obviously your intent is not a roof inspection!! Nice try though.

Don't take my word for it, run it by an attorney and they will tell you the same thing. I ran the above statute by an attorney before I posted. Did you do the same?

No I didn’t. So. Yes YOU can it seems.
The point is. Even if you can squint at a pretty clear definition of expectation of privacy and read some unwritten and written loopholes to negate that right of privacy. It’s not the law or lack of. It’s the people flying drones that should morally do the right thing instead of looking for loop holes to crawl through if their wreckless flying gets them in a thing

I have flown a lot and there are very few “ inadvertent” or accidental pictures of people I don’t know from within 100 feet. I would guess 2 or less but in contrast, I live in a fairly small town surrounded by farms and fly mostly outside of town. I do that because I know it makes a lot of people uncomfortable when a drone is buzzing around them. I also don’t feel the need to argue with them why I can do it.
When I get into internet discussions. I am not compelled to contact attorneys to prove there is a way to sidestep any persons right to expected privacy. It surprises me that people do that just to be the Internet forum champ.
For those who haven’t seen me say this dozens of times.
Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.
New laws are being made every day because people can’t exercise simple morality and respect the feelings of others.
Thank you for your service.

 

[JSKCKNIT]

For those who haven’t seen me say this dozens of times.
Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should..

I completely agree with that!

Wasn't trying to be an internet champ, just didn't want to post disinformation to Chip so I asked a friend their understanding of that statute. Plus she just went through drone training with law enforcement.

 

[Chip]

Your bolding is omitting a key part of that statute.

"With the intent to conduct surveillance".

Inadvertently capturing someone on their property is not a violation of that statute.

You are right that FLA (but not Idaho) law references surveillance which may exclude inadvertent video capture. Did you ask the lawyer what to do if an angry person comes up to you and asks you to prove you were not violating the law in FLA? Can drone operator turn back and walk away? What if a police officer gets involved? Can officer demand to inspect drone to determine whether law was broken?

My reason for bolding a portion of the FLA law was to point out that a state legislature may define what constitutes a reasonable expectation of privacy under state law. It is not one size fits all.

 

[Mr. Salty]

Nice try. If you are “surveying” a roof or property when you “accidentally” get the bikini girl sunbathing. That won’t help you in that state. The definition of Surveillance is broader than what you want to think it is. It a lot of states, to do surveillance on someone on their own property requires a warrant.

Actually, it would in Florida. From the news story JSKCKNIT linked to above:

"Under Florida law, exemptions to drone use include property appraisers. They also exempt, Florida statue 934.50 says, “a business or profession licensed by the state … used to perform reasonable tasks.”

Most of these "surveillance" laws were written with the express intent of stopping police from using drones to conduct warrantless searches.

 

[ac0j]

Actually, it would in Florida. From the news story JSKCKNIT linked to above:

"Under Florida law, exemptions to drone use include property appraisers. They also exempt, Florida statue 934.50 says, “a business or profession licensed by the state … used to perform reasonable tasks.”

Most of these "surveillance" laws were written with the express intent of stopping police from using drones to conduct warrantless searches.

Works if you are licensed by the state to operate a drone for commercial purposes. NOTE, That is NOT the Part 107 that they should have, but an additional requirement Most freelance "roof inspectors" will not go through that hassle.

 

[Steve L Reid]

in the states that require you to do so, I would assume yes.
Have you never seen people blurred out in photos and videos before? Its the same principle.

That's because they published it on TV or where ever without permission. You don't have the right of privacy in public in any State. Same thing is true if you have a license plate number in a picture, it's not against the law to have it but you're subjected for liability if you publish it on a public forum or TV.

 

[ac0j]

You have not it through the thread enough yet I guess to read Chips laws posts where in many cases you DO have the expectation of privacy. I'll digress till you catch up.
The thing people seem to not understand is that everything outside the four walls of their homes is NOT entirely public.
I am not sure about the license plate thing, but I have seen people go to some length to hide them in photos when the car is for sale. New info for me.

 

[Steve L Reid]

You have not it through the thread enough yet I guess to read Chips laws posts where in many cases you DO have the expectation of privacy. I'll digress till you catch up.
The thing people seem to not understand is that everything outside the four walls of their homes is NOT entirely public.
I am not sure about the license plate thing, but I have seen people go to some length to hide them in photos when the car is for sale. New info for me.

Again, the reason you see peoples face covered is because the person making the video didn't have permission to show them on TV. you can't video or take pictures of people or their identifiable property and show it on a public forum TV, Youtube or a picture in a Magazine for profit. If you're walking down the street live streaming by iPhone or GoPro on FB or any other public forum you're not violating any law. People and business are recording you all the time.

 

[ac0j]

Not disagreeing with you! Welcome to the forum!
Business will always record their own PRIVATE property.
Google maps street view even blurs peoples faces when people get caught by the camera. imagine the amount of manpower it takes for google to view every minute of the street view recordings to locate and blur faces!
Must be a reason they go to the trouble and expense. But maybe its all software driven?
The google camera car driving around taking video doesn't seem that different from a guy with a go pro walking down the street.....

 

[Chip]

... If you're walking down the street live streaming by iPhone or GoPro on FB or any other public forum you're not violating any law. People and business are recording you all the time.

That is probably true much of the time. But, there are exceptions and here we are talking about the legality of taking photos/video from a drone and what to do if you are approached by a bystander or police officer and asked to explain what you are doing or to show what you have recorded. Some state legislatures have drawn radical distinction (rightly or wrongly) between taking photos on street with regular camera and taking photos from the air with a drone.

 

[Chip]

Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989)

Issue

Whether surveillance of a greenhouse in a residential backyard from the vantage point of a helicopter located 400 feet above is a 'search' for which a warrant is required under the Fourth Amendment.

Answer

No, because having a helicopter hover at 400 feet above your house does not violate a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Facts

The Pasco County FLA Sheriff got a tip that Riley was growing marijuana on 5 acres of rural property. A deputy sheriff investigated the tip and went to Riley's mobile home. Unable to see inside a greenhouse, which was behind the defendant's mobile home, the deputy returned with a helicopter and circled over the property at 400 feet.

The absence of two roof panels allowed the deputy to see, with his naked eye, what appeared to be marijuana growing. This gave probable cause for a judge to issue a search warrant which led to the discovery of a grow operation in the greenhouse. Riley successfully argued before the FLA trial court that the aerial search violated his reasonable expectation of privacy and Fourth Amendment rights but the case wended its way through multiple appeals before ending up in the US Supreme Court which held that police officials do not need a warrant to observe an individual's property from public airspace.

The Supreme Court held that the accused did not have a reasonable expectation that the greenhouse was protected from aerial view, and thus that the helicopter surveillance did not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment. However, the Court stopped short of allowing all aerial inspections of private property, noting that it was "of obvious importance" that a private citizen could have legally flown in the same airspace:

Any member of the public could legally have been flying over Riley's property in a helicopter at the altitude of 400 feet and could have observed Riley's greenhouse.

Note: The court emphasized that the helicopter did not interfere with the normal use of the property:

As far as this record reveals, no intimate details connected with the use of the home or curtilage were observed, and there was no undue noise, no wind, no dust, or threat of injury.

So, having a sheriff's helicopter hover over your house at 400 feet looking for illegal activity is perfectly safe and does not violate a reasonable expectation of privacy requiring a warrant.



But according to FLA legislature, hovering this Tello over someone's house presumptively violates a reasonable expectation of privacy. Make sense?

 

[ac0j]

The case from 1989 might be handled different with some of the new Regs you posted.
Plus, we are talking 400 feet. I dont think the public would even notice the drone at 400' so it shouldn't be an issue until we are talking less than 100' with a drone. No one will complain about what they dont know is happening.