14 hours in jail for flying drone..

[CaveDrone]

http://deadspin.com/this-man-spent-all-day-in-lockup-for-flying-a-drone-too-1794886186/amp

 

[Top Hat]

Don't need/want to read the whole thing, I'll just assume that the guy is an idiot.

 

[Ulysses06]

I read the article. He did nothing wrong and was wrongly arrested. I hope this article gets more attention and brings to light that cops need to follow the law as well.

 

[Top Hat]

I read the article. He did nothing wrong and was wrongly arrested. I hope this article gets more attention and brings to light that cops need to follow the law as well.

If he didn't do anything idiotic then it's good for him.

 

[Lapeer20m]

He made two mistakes:

He spoke to the police who were investigating him.

He didn't ask for a lawyer.

I hope he finds a lawyer and gets paid.

 

[Robbyg]

Your Tax paying dollars hard at work!
If the guy is smart he will probably get another $10K of your Tax money for his troubles.

Rob

 

[vertigo235]

What a nice guy , if I was unlawfully detained and couldn't pick my kids up from daycare I would be angry.

 

[TheLightSpeed!]

Look like he was antagonizing the police to me. The article makes him sound like a professional movie maker. Yet he taunted the police. Dumb

 

[SeaComms]

Oh, I read the article and thought the opposite!

 

[erkme73]

Oh, I read the article and thought the opposite!

Me too. I think how one reads and interprets this article is based on their implicit bias towards or against law enforcement. For those that think highly of police practices, they're inclined to think the drone operator likely deserved it and was antagonizing. Those that think law enforcement is bordering on out-of-control with regard to personal liberties, we side with the drone operator.

His first mistake was being cooperative beyond the first contact. Nothing wrong with being civil and cordial. But when it's clear they don't know their butt from a hole in the ground, and they're fishing for any excuse to make an example out of you, it's time to lawyer up.

 

[erkme73]

Your Tax paying dollars hard at work!
If the guy is smart he will probably get another $10K of your Tax money for his troubles.

Rob

And that's the problem with stuff like this. Thanks to qualified immunity, and an ironclad police union, even when agents of .gov clearly do wrong, they personally are not liable - whether through significant disciplinary actions or fiscal liability. Each time an officer gets away with making up things, depriving individuals of their civil liberties (under the color of law), and ultimately no charges are filed (or they are dismissed), the bad officer can laugh it off "you may beat the charge, but you won't beat the ride".

In this case, not only was the guy physically detained and arrested (kidnapped by the state) for nothing illegal (no charges filed), but the stress and aggravation on him personally (never mind what his kids had to endure) are inexcusable. There SHOULD be consequences across the board for what happened to him. Unfortunately, those consequences will be limited to a) nothing at all, or b) the tax payer funding a payout. But the officers in question (or their supervisors) will receive NO heat - and nothing will change. If anything, the lack of consequence for their actions will likely embolden them to go even further with the next 'suspect'.

 

[dmitriy]

I do feel bad for the dude at some point he should have probably stood a bit firmer on the fact he/UAS was outside the sign zone they posted for the NFL thing, here is a link on FAA's take on this,:
https://www.faa.gov/uas/resources/law_enforcement/media/FAA_UAS-PO_LEA_Guidance.pdf

Other investigative methods also may prove useful, such as consensual examination of the UAS, equipment trailers, and documentation. However, other Law Enforcement processes, such as arrest and detention or non-consensual searches almost always fall outside of the allowable methods to pursue administrative enforcement actions by the FAA unless they are truly a by-product of a State criminal investigation. We do not mean to discourage use of these methods and procedures where there is an independent basis for law enforcement officers to use them under State or local law. We simply wish to emphasize that work products intended for FAA use generally should involve conventional administrative measures such as witness interviews, “stop and talk” sessions with suspected violators, consensual examination of vehicles and equipment, and other methods that do not involve court orders or the potential use of force by Law Enforcement personnel.

https://www.faa.gov/uas/resources/law_enforcement/media/FAA-UAS-DRONE-LE-ReferenceCard.pdf

In other news there is this guy....:
Pacifica: Drone operator arrested for interfering with helicopter rescue mission
In-depth: Disruptive drones could land you in jail

Looks like they are prosecuting him under PC 402a(2)

402. (a) Every person who goes to the scene of an emergency, or stops at the scene of an emergency, for the purpose of viewing the scene or the activities of police officers, firefighters, emergency medical, or other emergency personnel, or military personnel coping with the emergency in the course of their duties during the time it is necessary for emergency vehicles or those personnel to be at the scene of the emergency or to be moving to or from the scene of the emergency for the purpose of protecting lives or property, unless it is part of the duties of that person s employment to view that scene or activities, and thereby impedes police officers, firefighters, emergency medical, or other emergency personnel or military personnel, in the performance of their duties in coping with the emergency, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

 

[erkme73]

Even more telling than the how the article implies guilt, is the unanimous comments that blame the drone operator. Nothing like trying the guy in the court of public opinion.

So the ground crew saw the drone. How far was it from the helicopter? Was it approaching, was it 1500' away? Was it above, below, beside? Did it make any moves that would have indicated it was closing the gap?

There are always two sides to a story. And one thing is for certain... Emergency responders, whether paramedics or law enforcement, DO NOT like to be filmed while doing their job. That is PLENTY of motive to embellish their claims of 'close calls' and aborted mission. Their side most certainly has a dog in the hunt, and it's not just the 'fear' of drones. It's the 'fear' of cameras.

 

[dmitriy]

Oh I get that and I am sure the facts will come out in due time as he is fighting it in court however the following quote:

When first responders arrived they lowered a medic to the beach to check the person’s status and prepare him for a long-line rescue, according to police. When the CHP helicopter arrived, it shined a spotlight below on the man and medic. Police say at that point rescue crews noticed the drone’s presence, which flew close to the helicopter, according to police. Rescue crews on the ground notified the pilot, who suspended the rescue operation and gained altitude to avoid a collision.

Makes it seem the CHP helicopter was close enough for him to yield the way (and maybe he was doing it after he saw/heard it who knows). Maybe next time he will at least take the long way home with the phantom....

 

[erkme73]

I'm not saying the guy did no wrong - and in fact, he may well have been too close. But if you recall, there was a drone pilot who was charged in NYC for endangering an NYPD helicopter. After all the data was collected, the charges were dropped, as it turned out the officers' claims were totally false. The helicopter pursued the drone - and the drone pilot did everything possible (short of ditching it in the hudson) to yield.

The problem is, the sensational "drone nearly crashes police helicopter" headlines go on page 1. 6 months later (after all charges are dropped) the media either doesn't report, or does so on page 6, just after the obituaries and classifieds.

 

[dmitriy]

The problem is, the sensational "drone nearly crashes police helicopter" headlines go on page 1. 6 months later (after all charges are dropped) the media either doesn't report, or does so on page 6, just after the obituaries and classifieds.

Of course, especially followed/preceded by a piece: "a view of 'blah' by OUR quadcopter/drone/UAS, look at how beautiful it is..."

 

[dirkclod]

• Guys no more on the second incident .

Start another thread if you like but let's
keep this one On The Topic of the OP.

Thanks ​

 

[TheLightSpeed!]

The first incident, I think the guy was asking for it.

We all know flying over a sporting event with people in it is against the regulations. He may have been over onlookers and not known. That far away it can be deceptive.

Of course I am staying on "don't taunt the police you idiot"

 

[geigy]

Once the copter is in hearing distance and getting louder, I am landing my drone ASAP.