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

Arrested?? This is a bad rap, and we need to help.

Personally I would NOT fly a drone over a protest, but if for some odd reason decided to try it, would have gone and applied for a special permit first. Most likely it would have been denied, and thus my not doing it. Seems like a terrible idea in my opinion.
 
You really should hear his explanation of the events before posting an opinion. Please watch the video. He did not fly OVER the protest. And informed police at the scene BEFORE he launched. Really bad rap here.
 
You really should hear his explanation of the events before posting an opinion. Please watch the video. He did not fly OVER the protest. And informed police at the scene BEFORE he launched. Really bad rap here.
OK, that's his side. What's the police version of events?
 
You really should hear his explanation of the events before posting an opinion. Please watch the video. He did not fly OVER the protest. And informed police at the scene BEFORE he launched. Really bad rap here.

I saw the video, I would have stayed away.
I'm entitled to my opinion, just like you're entitled to have an opinion.
 
The FAA rules our never going to matter, as the Law Enforcement Officer has the right to make a decision based on his discretion.

Now if that guy would have been flying much lower and in front of his business and said I was hoping to deter my business from being set on fire, the result may have been slightly different.

We talk about it all the time , you have to be prepared as to what your going to say and not : Quote the Shakespeare of the FAA song and dance. . Keep the human element, keep it smart and if your going to do it , dont do it at 90ft do it blatantly so it does not look like your sneaking around and make it worth your risk...

Phantomrain.org
Gear to fly in and out of the Storm.
Coal
 
I saw the video, I would have stayed away.
I'm entitled to my opinion, just like you're entitled to have an opinion.
That is correct .
Guys let me say this now as this mess going on is a touchy subject.
If it gets political in anyway no matter what side i will shut it down.
@MavicMike55 or anyone else before you post such as i removed do read our guidelines.
Have a issue with our guidelines message me do not post it.
 
They will never get trespassing to stick. Not sure why they are rambling on about over people, or FAA rules it's clickbait.
Has nothing to do with airspace or anything like it. So far the FAA has not charge him so let's not go there.

If I was in his shoes I would not even hire a lawyer until I talked to the judge. If he goes and and cites the state trespass laws it will be dropped. I've done that and if it is totally obvious that the law does not apply, the judge will just drop it.
You aren't trespassing in downtown Nashville.

I am surprised they did not charge him under the Tennessee drone laws:

39-13-903. Unlawful capture of image with intent to conduct surveillance a misdemeanor offense -Defense.
(a) Subject to the exceptions set forth in § 39-13-902(a), a person commits an offense if the person:

(1) Uses an unmanned aircraft to capture an image of an individual or privately owned real property in this state with the intent to conduct surveillance on the individual or property captured in the image;

You can argue it was not surveillance and I did not find the Tennessee's definition but this is how Florida defines it :

(e) “Surveillance” means:

  1. With respect to an owner, tenant, occupant, invitee, or licensee of privately owned real property, the observation of such persons with sufficient visual clarity to be able to obtain information about their identity, habits, conduct, movements, or whereabouts; or
  2. With respect to privately owned real property, the observation of such property’s physical improvements with sufficient visual clarity to be able to determine unique identifying features or its occupancy by one or more persons.
But then understandably the average cop is not going to be familiar with law like this,
 
Subject to the exceptions set forth in § 39-13-902(a)
one of which is:
(13) Of public real property or a person on that property;
 
  • Like
Reactions: dawgpilot
Subject to the exceptions set forth in § 39-13-902(a)
one of which is:
(13) Of public real property or a person on that property;
I'm not a lawyer or a judge so I can't say how it may have been used.

Maybe you could defend it until there is precedence set it's hard to say how it would be interpreted but it sure is better than trespassing. You'd at least have something to argue in court. With trespassing it's a no brainer.

The lesson here is stay away from police operations - it was really just because the police were annoyed. Anytime you annoy a cop this can happen and even if the charges are dropped is it really worth the trouble?
 
The FAA rules our never going to matter, as the Law Enforcement Officer has the right to make a decision based on his discretion.

Now if that guy would have been flying much lower and in front of his business and said I was hoping to deter my business from being set on fire, the result may have been slightly different.

We talk about it all the time , you have to be prepared as to what your going to say and not : Quote the Shakespeare of the FAA song and dance. . Keep the human element, keep it smart and if your going to do it , dont do it at 90ft do it blatantly so it does not look like your sneaking around and make it worth your risk...

Phantomrain.org
Gear to fly in and out of the Storm.
Coal
I would respectfully disagree and say that police need to follow the law and not their discretion. All they had to do is ask him to land it and then send him on his way. Unless he was a jerk to them but still they can just tell him to land it.
 
This guy got screwed, but we can help. Let's show him support.

(Mod Removed Go Fund Me..Guideline 11 )
Hi ? well done, last time I checked the USA Was still a democratic country! It’s not like you shot anyone and you did keep your employees safe and you also informed the authorities what you were doing!
 
I would respectfully disagree and say that police need to follow the law and not their discretion. All they had to do is ask him to land it and then send him on his way. Unless he was a jerk to them but still they can just tell him to land it.
It's well with in the law to arrest someone on suspicion weather guilty or not.
It's not up to the LEO to decide that.
That's why we have courts and judges to determine if you were guilty.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Motorcycle Rider
... this is how Florida defines it :

(e) “Surveillance” means:

  1. With respect to an owner, tenant, occupant, invitee, or licensee of privately owned real property, the observation of such persons with sufficient visual clarity to be able to obtain information about their identity, habits, conduct, movements, or whereabouts; or
  2. With respect to privately owned real property, the observation of such property’s physical improvements with sufficient visual clarity to be able to determine unique identifying features or its occupancy by one or more persons.

Good reminder to check the exact language of state law where you fly. This one from Tenn seems strict to me. You cannot capture image of someone standing on private property with sufficient clarity to identify. This will hopefully correct the common misperception that just because someone is standing outside they have no reasonable expectation of privacy and can be photographed or recorded at will. It actually depends on how your state law is written.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Motorcycle Rider
I was arrested 3 years ago, so was my daughter, and friend. We were in a restaurant, eating a meal, not bothering anyone, when an over zealous cop arrested us, for street racing. I told my daughter to simply comply with is orders, and let the judge sort it out. Apparently he was earlier in pursuit of some bikes driving at very high speed. When he saw 3 bikes outside of a restaurant, jumped to the wrong conclusion, and arrested us, thinking that he had got 3 of the 5. We were released about 4 hours later, and had a court date within a week. The judge found us not guilty in under an hour, and that was that. Getting all excited about it and freaking out, is the wrong way to go. We had no lawyers, and it went well, because we all remained calm, courteous, and simply waited for our chance to explain it to a judge. If people calmed down, relaxed more, and stopped jumping to worse case scenarios in their head, things would go a lot better for them, a lot less stress as well.
For the few who got very wound up over this simple arrest, I actually feel badly for you, that life has you so fired up. He will have his day in court, maybe, if the case isn't dismissed before then.
He wasn't beaten to a pulp, he was arrested, and not even on any serious charges. Those are misdemeanors is all, and will likely be dismissed before court, or by the judge when he has his chance to speak, if he stays calm. I was in Afghanistan, after doing 3 tours, unless someone dies, it's all small stuff in comparison.
 
Good reminder to check the exact language of state law where you fly. This one from Tenn seems strict to me. You cannot capture image of someone standing on private property with sufficient clarity to identify. This will hopefully correct the common misperception that just because someone is standing outside they have no reasonable expectation of privacy and can be photographed or recorded at will. It actually depends on how your state law is written.
The florida law says something to the effect if you could see them from the ground then it's ok.
Surprisingly the main purpose of the Florida law is to disallow warrantless surveillance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rmcolon and Chip
This guy got screwed, but we can help. Let's show him support.

(Mod Removed Go Fund Me..Guideline 11 )

So I have watched the video and read much of the commentary and my take is that the bottom line is that he was photographing a crowd and even though he says he was NOT over the crowd, the risk of the drone drifting over the crowd, injury, etc. was there. I, myself, would not have even been near a protest. Why take a chance that you will be attacked by an angry protestor, or something else. For me, it is best to fly away from any humans possible. Some things, you just cannot control- and if you don't have common sense not to fly near or over an angry group of people, you may suffer the consequences. Sorry to come down on the side of the police, but if we, the drone community, doesn't stand up for its rules, we will all suffer the restrictions that surely will be coming down the pike.

I now will be climbing down from my podium.
 
Last edited:
So I have watched the video and read much of the commentary and my take is that the bottom line is that he was photographing a crowd and even though he was over the crowd (as he says) the risk of the drone drifting over the crowd, injury, etc. was there. I, myself, would not have even been near a protest. Why take a chance that you will be attacked by an angry protestor, or something else. For me, it is best to fly away from any human possible.

I feel the same way, if I saw a protest starting somewhere that I was, my butt would be leaving the area. Sure as heck wouldn't intentionally go to one, and especially would NOT fly a drone over, or near a protest. Five miles away maybe, but preferably fifteen miles or more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dakarenduro
I wait to hear how the court date turns out for him.

I am on the side of - I wouldnt fly around/over/near a protest going on. I see it as just asking for trouble.
 
Lycus Tech Mavic Air 3 Case

DJI Drone Deals

New Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
130,600
Messages
1,554,279
Members
159,607
Latest member
Schmidteh121