AZ bill to make flying drones over houses a felony

[Krrr]

I thought this would be the TOPIC.

AZ bill to make flying drones over houses a felony - Google Search

 

[Looking Down On You]

Another Arizona Lawmaker trying to protect us from something he hasn't a clue about. We have wingbats down here on both sides of the fence.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

A couple of similar stories now on the forum re states going down this line.
Hopefully @Vic Moss or others with some contacts / influence might be onto such matters as if one or two get by unopposed, there could be a landslide of other states doing this.
Even though Federal law will trump it, not many have the time or $ to take up a big fight, even one they can probably win.

 

[WanderLost]

In Canada here, the regs state to keep 100' above structures. And it's prudent to be passing over and not lingering over private property. Are the proposed regs going to stop planes from passing over people's homes as well?

 

[Walleye Hunter]

Out of respect to homeowners, I fly well above their properties and when I can, I avoid going over their houses at all. On most flights, I fly at 400' to reduce any static.

 

[orionshooter]

This particular wingbat already sees the problem with this trash legislation. Read the final two paragraphs of the news article to see his latest position on adjusting the proposed bill.

 

[Ol' Sparky]

So it's OK to fly a manned aircraft over the Senators' home and take pictures of him in his backyard in his underwear, but not an unmanned aircraft. If the government points the high-res, ultra zoom camera on one of its unmanned satellites at the senators house...would that be a felony too?

 

[WanderLost]

So it's OK to fly a manned aircraft over the Senators' home and take pictures of him in his backyard in his underwear, but not an unmanned aircraft. If the government points the high-res, ultra zoom camera on one of its unmanned satellites at the senators house...would that be a felony too?

I wonder. Those of us who just want to enjoy our hobby and stick to the rules find it frustrating when the goal posts keep moving every time the winds blow in another direction.

 

[TonyPHX]

The FAA had better start making this crystal clear.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

The FAA had better start making this crystal clear.

It seems what the AZ legislators (and this Senator is talking about) are trying to do is impose privacy type protection.
I feel if someone made a report and says you're flying too close, too low, close enough to actually be invading someones privacy, then it would be up to courts to decide if the pilot was hovering too long or low etc to actually be flying mischievously or nefariously.
The onus would be on the states to prove this, though a pilot in their defense could submit a flight log, footage etc that would support privacy invasion wasn't present.
If this or other states tried to make it blanket to ban flying UAVs over homes / private property, then the legislation could easily be made redundant as federal FAA legislation overrides state law.

edit typo

 

[Chip]

It seems what the AZ legislators (and this Senator is talking about) are trying to do is impose privacy type protection. I feel if someone mad a report and says you're flying too close, too low, close enough to actually be invading someones privacy, then it would be up to courts to decide if the pilot was hovering too long or low etc to actually be flying mischievously or nefariously.

Yes, I think you are right. It is up to a state legislature to determine what shall be considered an invasion of privacy within the state and then up to a state or federal court to determine if it is legal under state or federal constituition.

The onus would be on the states to prove this, though a pilot in their defense could submit a flight log, footage etc that would support privacy invasion wasn't present.

Yes, it would be up to the state or county prosecutor to prove a crime but many of the states give right to pursue private civil action to property owner.

If this or other states tried to make it blanket to ban flying UAVs over homes / private property, then the legislation could easily be made redundant as federal FAA legislation overrides state law.

I think you are right that a federal court would likely strike down a blanket prohibition against any drone flying under 400 feet over private property as preempted by federal law. But, it would be far more challenging to get a federal court to strike down a state law banning the use of a drone to "surveil" private property at low altitude as an inavsion of privacy. One federal court in Texas did just that, however, on First Amendment grounds in 2022 (see article linked below). But, as we have discussed here before, the Texas law was a so-called AG-GAG law (for Agriculture related Gag on Free Speech). The Texas drone law at issue in that case was enacted in part to protect slaughterhouses which got terrible press coverage after a local drone pilot spotted "a river of blood" in 2012.

Texas District Court Strikes Down State Drone Law on First Amendment Grounds April 1, 2022​

Texas District Court Strikes Down State Drone Law on First Amendment Grounds | JD Supra

On March 28, the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas found that a Texas law restricting drone use ran afoul of the First...

www.jdsupra.com

Drone plane spots a river of blood flowing from the back of a Dallas meat packing plant​

Drone plane spots a river of blood flowing from the back of a Dallas meat packing plant

A Texan man got pictures using a personal drone plane of a bright red creek just behind an old meat packing plant that was funnelling pigs blood into a nearby river.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

Yes, it would be up to the state or county prosecutor to prove a crime but many of the states give right to pursue private civil action to property owner.

As mentioned here in many posts, the down side of being right, is there is still a lot of time and $ to go through court action, even if you are sure to win.
Sometimes in some cases it'd be best to be flexible in reconciling such things (and remain sane, unstressed, etc).

The world is getting a lot more litigious in general, and I guess the USA has a reputation for legal recourse being taken quite liberally at times.

I think if a flight was proven to be under FAA guidelines, and a state court case ruled a flight didn't impede on anyone's privacy, it'd have to be a bit of an uphill battle for someone to pursue and prove such in a civil case, but then a lot of people are wronged by courts in such cases, and of course the same cost to a defendant in time and $ is still present.

 

[Felix le Chat]

In Canada here, the regs state to keep 100' above structures. And it's prudent to be passing over and not lingering over private property. Are the proposed regs going to stop planes from passing over people's homes as well?

**** good question. I'll hazard a wild guess that "official" use for surveillance purposes is perfectly kosher, for example: a couple of years back, French authorities used drones fielding facial recognition software to monitor demonstrations against their then-new security bill. But Gods forbid a private owner overflies anyone's garden in case someone might be sunning themselves like a hippo.

ADDENDUM

Is this comment likely to be deleted because it suggests political bias in policy introduction? the last time I looked, I was British, living in Britain, so commenting on French policy is fair game.... And it might be considered polite for the individual who deleted a perfectly legitimate statement to send me a message to explain their reasoning

 

[lookout]

As mentioned here in many posts, the down side of being right, is there is still a lot of time and $ to go through court action, even if you are sure to win.
Sometimes in some cases it'd be best to be flexible in reconciling such things (and remain sane, unstressed, etc).

The world is getting a lot more litigious in general, and I guess the USA has a reputation for legal recourse being taken quite liberally at times.

I think if a flight was proven to be under FAA guidelines, and a state court case ruled a flight didn't impede on anyone's privacy, it'd have to be a bit of an uphill battle for someone to pursue and prove such in a civil case, but then a lot of people are wronged by courts in such cases, and of course the same cost to a defendant in time and $ is still present.

Maybe all of this is convenient for some law firm. But they tend to do that anyways.

 

[lookout]

Arizona bill to make peeping by drone a felony advances

SB 1277 would make it a felony to intentionally photograph, record or otherwise observe someone else in a private place where a "reasonable expectation of privacy" is expected.

tucson.com

Still advancing on the bill.

 

[lookout]

Maybe the remote ID thing would be more beneficial for cases of peepy tom something that is already in local code, instead of using the local fuzz to try to be the faas proxy man power of enforcement over drones. But in any case I think the whole remote id thing is completely misled.

 

[TonyPHX]

Do not get too worked up on the bill in Arizona. It has been ammended and includes language now about "in futherance of a crime" so realistically no net impact on legitimate drone operations.

 

[CactusJackSlade]

So it's OK to fly a manned aircraft over the Senators' home and take pictures of him in his backyard in his underwear, but not an unmanned aircraft. If the government points the high-res, ultra zoom camera on one of its unmanned satellites at the senators house...would that be a felony too?

EXACTLY!

 

[JDubyaM]

I wrote the AZ legislator ( Senator Kern) and voiced my opposition to the creation of additional legislation that would most likely be challenged by the FAA unless modified. I also forwarded the 51Drones YT video by Russ on this subject and included a link to the White paper mentioned in said video.
Hopefully cooler heads will prevail, we'll see.....

 

[TonyPHX]

I wrote the AZ legislator ( Senator Kern) and voiced my opposition to the creation of additional legislation that would most likely be challenged by the FAA unless modified. I also forwarded the 51Drones YT video by Russ on this subject and included a link to the White paper mentioned in said video.
Hopefully cooler heads will prevail, we'll see.....

Yep. I actually spoke with him about this. I knew him when he was a code enforcement officer in a small west valley city. Made it a point to tell him this legislation did not seem like his style at all. Reading the current amendments to the bill though, it is clear it has been self-neutered.