DJI Mavic, Air and Mini Drones
Friendly, Helpful & Knowledgeable Community
Join Us Now

2 men facing Federal Charges for stadium flyover

Is Aeroscope illegal? It's passive monitoring, not active countermeasures.

This says it could be an illegal wiretapping device. Unless you voluntarily agree to permit it, hence your permission is made mandatory by remote ID.

Advisory on the Application of Federal Laws to the Acquisition and Use of Technology to Detect and Mitigate Unmanned Aircraft Systems
 
  • Like
Reactions: LoudThunder
  • Like
Reactions: LoudThunder
does anyone know what happened?
Yes, DAILON DABNEY case is pending in U.S. DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DIST OHIO following a grand jury indictment for:

Count: 1 Citation: 49:46306.F Offense Level: 4

49:46306(b)(5)(A) - OPERATION OF UNREGISTERED DRONE

Count: 2 Citation: 49:46308.F Offense Level: 4


49:46307 AND 49:40103(b) - VIOLATION OF TEMPORARY FLIGHT RESTRICTION

Count: 3 Citation: 28:2461C.F Offense Level: 4


49:46306(d)(1) and 28:2461(c) - FORFEITURE ALLEGATION (This means that defendant forfeits his drone if convicted of crimes related to its use)

Defendant Custody Status: Released (terms or conditions of release are not public)

Trial Date (in Cincinnati): This case is scheduled for trial beginning:

December 12, at 9:00 AM
 
Excerpts From Grand Jury Felony Indictment

Case: 1:22-cr-00082-MWM Doc #: filed: 09/21/22

JANUARY 15, 2022

9. The defendant, DAILON DABNEY, is the owner of a UAS later identified as a Dll Mavic AIR 2 with serial number 3N3BHCA O 12025T (hereinafter "the Drone"). A video camera is affixed to the Drone. The Drone is not registered with the FAA.

10. The defendant, DAILON DABNEY, does not have an FAA 107 license to fly the Drone.

11. On January 15, 2022, the Cincinnati Bengals hosted an NFL playoff game at Paul Brown Stadium (now "Paycor Stadium") in Cincinnati, Ohio (the "Event").

12. Accordingly, the area in and around Paul Brown Stadium was subject to NOTAM 0/0367 Temporary Flight Restriction during the Event. Accordingly, no unauthorized drone could fly within that zone from one hour before the Event until one hour after the Event. During the Event, DAILON DABNEY flew the drone in the restricted flight area.

14. On January 15, 2022, during the Event, the defendant, DAILON DABNEY, flew the Drone into the bowl of the stadium and, at times, hovered over the players and portions of the stadium crowd while the game was being played.

15. The defendant, DAILON DABNEY, recorded his drone flight during the NFL game and posted the video on his social media sites after the Event, including a YouTube page called BrickByBrickProduction513." The recording shows that the drone hovered over portions of the players and the stadium crowd during the game.

COUNT 1

(Operation of Unregistered Drone)


16. Paragraphs 1 - 15 of the Indictment are incorporated and restated herein.

17. On or about January 15, 2022, the defendant, DAILON DABNEY, who owned an aircraft eligible for registration under section 44102, knowingly and willfully operated that aircraft when the aircraft was not registered under section 44103 . In violation of 49 U.S.C. § 46306(b)(5)(A).

COUNT 2

(Violation of a Temporary Flight Restriction)


18. Paragraphs 1 - 15 of the Indictment are incorporated and restated herein.

19. On or about January 15, 2022, in the Southern District of Ohio, DAILON DABNEY, while piloting an Unmanned Aircraft System, did knowingly, and without lawful authority, conduct aircraft operations in restricted airspace above Paul Brown Stadium (now Paycor Stadium), a stadium having a seating capacity of 30,000 or more where a National Football League game was occurring, in violation of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations,§ 99.7, a regulation prescribed under Title 49, United States Code, Section 40103(b)(3). In violation of 49 U.S.C. § 46307 and 40103(b ).

FORFEITURE ALLEGATION

Upon conviction of the offense set forth in Count 1 of this Indictment, the defendant, DAILON DABNEY, shall forfeit to the United States, pursuant 49 U.S.C. § 46306(d)(l) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), any aircraft whose use is related to the commission of such violation or to aiding or facilitating the commission of such violation, including but not limited to a DTI Mavic AIR 2 with serial number 3N3BHCA 012025T.
 
Figures that they didn't even register it (least of their worries I'm sure).

commission of such violation or to aiding or facilitating the commission of such violation, including but not limited to a DTI Mavic AIR 2 with serial number 3N3BHCA 012025T.
Little oopsie/typo in that (seems they did it twice, earlier with DII instead of DJI).
 
  • Like
Reactions: LoudThunder
Dji fly and go with all of misguided nfzs didn't stop at tfr. Just took right off.
The FlySafe database is only as up to date as the last time you sync'd it (and TFR are often short notice by their standard they never seem to make it in). But ultimately even without the DJI Nanny-Software preventing you from flying, you are ultimately responsible for flying within regulation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LoudThunder
Lol, don't remember seeing this. I thought the limit in Australia was 120m regardless, good to know its only controlled air spaces

Oh dear, yeah that is REALLY badly worded ! (Attachment post #12)
It’s ALL controlled airspace, so yes 120m wherever in Oz.
Controlled airports are another matter.
 
Seems he's deleted to video from his YouTube channel (or at least made it private). Still has one of him chasing a small kid with his drone…

(In Canada that would be another violation, as it's obviously closer than the minimum separation from bystanders — not to mention harassment. Don't know about America.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: LoudThunder
Seems he's deleted to video from his YouTube channel (or at least made it private). Still has one of him chasing a small kid with his drone…

(In Canada that would be another violation, as it's obviously closer than the minimum separation from bystanders — not to mention harassment. Don't know about America.)
It seems 'alive' now.
I seem to remember that, for a while - early on, it was made private.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: LoudThunder
Probably got reported on Youtube and for whatever reason got it back up.
ahh well at least we can, hopefully, follow developments.
With regards to the forfeiture thing, other penalties aside does that mean that the prosecution is actively seeking confiscation of the drone if he is convicted?
 
  • Like
Reactions: LoudThunder
ahh well at least we can, hopefully, follow developments.
With regards to the forfeiture thing, other penalties aside does that mean that the prosecution is actively seeking confiscation of the drone if he is convicted?
From the wording it seems like he has to relinquish that Drone and any other aircraft he owns pending the outcome of his trial.

Probably because they would be evidence especially with the hard coded flight logs in the Drone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LoudThunder
With regards to the forfeiture thing, other penalties aside does that mean that the prosecution is actively seeking confiscation of the drone if he is convicted?
Yes, my assumption is the drone was confiscated and is now being held incommunicado as important evidence. If its owner is convicted, the drone is forfeited to the government as it was used to commit a crime. My guess is right now the poor drone, which was an unwitting participant in the crime, and was manipulated into it by radio signals beyond its control, is locked up in an evidence locker with drugs, and guns and a whole bunch of other riff raff under 24 hour guard. Far cry from the assiduously maintained, climate controlled, high class digs at home or in the Smatree carry case. The only good part is that when the battery was pulled or drained, the drone would no longer be sentient. In other words, it could not know that it may be permanently grounded through no fault of its own.
 
Yes, my assumption is the drone was confiscated and is now being held incommunicado as important evidence. If its owner is convicted, the drone is forfeited to the government as it was used to commit a crime. My guess is right now the poor drone, which was an unwitting participant in the crime, and was manipulated into it by radio signals beyond its control, is locked up in an evidence locker with drugs, and guns and a whole bunch of other riff raff under 24 hour guard. Far cry from the assiduously maintained, climate controlled, high class digs at home or in the Smatree carry case. The only good part is that when the battery was pulled or drained, the drone would no longer be sentient. In other words, it could not know that it may be permanently grounded through no fault of its own.
RIP battery.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LoudThunder
Ya know... As meticulous as DJI is in terms of making droning a pain in the festerus with their geofencing, you would think that something as simple as as including a leaflet in their boxes with the general rules of the road for droning. While it would be feasible to include country specific material to the countries they export to (possibly attached to the outside of the packaging) or even general rules that all countries pretty much follow on the inside.

Everyone in the hobby/business wants to keep the activity of droning in good stead with the public, but someone buying a drone for the first time might not even think about stuff like... not flying over Bengals stadium... or over people in general. Until they dial into a forum like this one, without the information which outlines the basic "rules of the road...err.. air" how would they know? When I started with my first drone I knew nothing but used common sense until I did, asking for permission to fly over buildings or property. Staying away from people. Staying fairly close to the ground until I learned of a general 400' ceiling.

Funny how DJI goes to greath lengths for some things and forgets another thing that is so basic, and yet so crucial.
I agree with you here. It might be draconian, but require proof of TRUST (US) to be entered into an outdoor drone’s software before it would fly. They won’t let me drive until I get a license first, nor a manned aircraft. It seems a reasonable ask. Then comes enforcement. How much money can agencies afford to spend on it? Societies will lurch and flounder thru until it’s right. I do wonder about 10 years from now, in a curious kind of way. I think it will still be fun/profitable to fly UAV‘s.

Those two stadium drone guys knew it was wrong, illegal or both. Now caught, I would like to hear the “why“ from them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LoudThunder
I agree with you here. It might be draconian, but require proof of TRUST (US) to be entered into an outdoor drone’s software before it would fly. They won’t let me drive until I get a license first, nor a manned aircraft. It seems a reasonable ask. Then comes enforcement. How much money can agencies afford to spend on it? Societies will lurch and flounder thru until it’s right. I do wonder about 10 years from now, in a curious kind of way. I think it will still be fun/profitable to fly UAV‘s.

Those two stadium drone guys knew it was wrong, illegal or both. Now caught, I would like to hear the “why“ from them.
Maybe because sports programming is the only reason you have a cable bill?
 
Those two stadium drone guys knew it was wrong, illegal or both. Now caught, I would like to hear the “why“ from them.
Given that one of his videos is "I hate the pigs" I suspect that it being wrong was a reason it was done, to **** a snook at The Man. That and views on social media.
 
Lycus Tech Mavic Air 3 Case

DJI Drone Deals

New Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
131,125
Messages
1,560,105
Members
160,099
Latest member
tflys78