Captured unusual activity with my drone

[Joe Blow]

I have to agree with the guy noting the operator panned right to center the shot before there was anyway of knowing what was going on or what the guy was going to do, I call set up FAKE.

 

[bentbrent]

In reply to OldGoatMTB: When you are out in public, by law, you have no right to any expectation of privacy.

 

[PhoebeSnow]

Finally, something a little more interesting then many posts. Kudos to you for being at the right place at the right time.

 

[Chip]

I'm sure some people will want to attack me for posting the following question (those people can STFU) but it what you did "surveilling" someone, and technically illegal?

I think it depends on the law where you live. Some states (including Texas) do in fact limit private use of UAV to conduct "surveillance" or targeted as opposed to incidental image capture of people on ground. Taking and then giving such images to the police and publicly disseminating them online as proof of a felony crime may be risky for other reasons as well.

 

[Chip]

In reply to OldGoatMTB: When you are out in public, by law, you have no right to any expectation of privacy.

This is incorrect as a blanket, open ended statement. Best to check your state law for limits on using UAVs to record people on the ground.

 

[Chip]

Texas Law

Sec. 423.003. OFFENSE: ILLEGAL USE OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT TO CAPTURE IMAGE. (a) A person commits an offense if the person 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.

(b) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor.

(c) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the person destroyed the image:

(1) as soon as the person had knowledge that the image was captured in violation of this section; and

(2) without disclosing, displaying, or distributing the image to a third party.
(d) In this section, "intent" has the meaning assigned by Section 6.03, of the Penal Code.

 

[maelstrom]

with the intent to conduct surveillance

I think that's the relevant part. A definition of surveillance I've just found is "Systematic ongoing collection, collation, and analysis of data and the timely dissemination of information to those who need to know so that action can be taken". This is more by chance with no planned intent rather than systematic.

 

[lookout]

My guess is that he is a store employee, taking merchandise out the back door. Then he stashes it during his break or lunch time and goes back for it after work. A quick check of the closest Lowes store, for which employee drives a car that matches that description, should quickly identify the culprit. While you may not have gotten a highly detailed image, you captured enough info to bluff a confession out of him/her, or simply maintain surveillance of the culprit, and catch him/her red-handed next time. I wrote Lowes because the OP did. Perhaps there were tags on the washer that indicated that it came from Lowes.

Nobody's ever tried that before...

 

[reaganbp]

I was careful not to move the drone so there wouldn't be any audible changes in the sound that might alert him. I'm thinking it was far enough away and small enough that he thought it was just ambient noise from the woods.

Sneaky/Stealthy, and quick thinking.

 

[reaganbp]

Nobody's ever tried that before...

That, my friend, is a completely different type of honesty.

 

[Chip]

I think that's the relevant part. A definition of surveillance I've just found is "Systematic ongoing collection, collation, and analysis of data and the timely dissemination of information to those who need to know so that action can be taken". This is more by chance with no planned intent rather than systematic.

The definition of "surveillance" that controls is the one given in the state UAV statute. No matter how you slice it, though, I would say the two videos of alleged criminal transactions posted on this thread were clearly targeted as opposed to incidental image capture. Not that I care personally one way or the other. I am simply saying its prudent to know what state or other laws may limit your right to photo or record people or property from a UAV. Texas UAV law is an interesting piece of legislation and is currently being challenged by drone journalists in federal court there.

 

[maelstrom]

No matter how you slice it, though, I would say the two videos of alleged criminal transactions posted on this thread were clearly targeted as opposed to incidental image capture.

The state statute says "with the intent to conduct surveillance". As far as I can see, there was no intent to get airborne for the purpose of surveillance in this case.

 

[Chip]

The state statute says "with the intent to conduct surveillance". As far as I can see, there was no intent to get airborne for the purpose of surveillance in this case.

Please understand that I am not accusing anyone of violating the UAV law. I am responding to the question above about whether the pressure washer video could possibly be considered "surveillance." My thinking is that everyone should check their own state laws to make sure because several limit aerial image capture or bar "surveillance" which are terms that may be defined under state law or interpreted by the courts in different ways.

As far as I can see, there was no intent to get airborne for the purpose of surveillance in this case.

Your intention at take-off regarding image capture may be relevant to whether flight was commercial but I do not see how or why it would immunize you from any and all potential liability for image capture during the flight just because an opportunity presented itself to focus attention on a particular person or property and you took it.

I would also say that posting a video on a forum like this with anonymity is one thing. But when you take your drone and your video to the police for purposes of accusing someone of a crime it would be good to know the nuances of your state UAV law and consider what you are possibly getting yourself into.

 

[fguthrie]

Maybe he was hiding a geocache lol

As an avid Geocacher, I was wondering the same thing ... but then after watching the video, I think not.

 

[Brockrock]

Please understand that I am not accusing anyone of violating the UAV law. I am responding to the question above about whether the pressure washer video could possibly be considered "surveillance." My thinking is that everyone should check their own state laws to make sure because several limit aerial image capture or bar "surveillance" which are terms that may be defined under state law or interpreted by the courts in different ways.

As far as I can see, there was no intent to get airborne for the purpose of surveillance in this case.

Your intention at take-off regarding image capture may be relevant to whether flight was commercial but I do not see how or why it would immunize you from any and all potential liability for image capture during the flight just because an opportunity presented itself to focus attention on a particular person or property and you took it.

I would also say that posting a video on a forum like this with anonymity is one thing. But when you take your drone and your video to the police for purposes of accusing someone of a crime it would be good to know the nuances of your state UAV law and consider what you are possibly getting yourself into.

In Connecticut, and I would guess this to be universally the case in most States, for crimes not considered those against society in general, the court will only entertain prosecution if there is a victim. In this case, I doubt the ‘victim’ of possible surveillance is going to come out of the murky depths where he lurks, and if he did, he too would have some serious questions to answer...

 

[Chip]

In Connecticut, and I would guess this to be universally the case in most States, for crimes not considered those against society in general, the court will only entertain prosecution if there is a victim. In this case, I doubt the ‘victim’ of possible surveillance is going to come out of the murky depths where he lurks, and if he did, he too would have some serious questions to answer...

Yes, you are probably right. But now you are shifting the discussion from whether the taking of this type of video and giving to police may implicate state UAV surveillance law to whether its a victimless crime. I repeat that people should check the exact language of their state UAV law because you may be surprised to see what is there.

The ironic thing about this conversation is that I have never once had a member of public come up to me and express concern that what I am doing endangers national airspace because a commercial jetliner could swoop down below 400 feet out of nowhere and ingest the drone. But many people have asked me are you taking pictures of people on the ground, is that legal, is it invasion of privacy, what do you do with the photos or video etc.

 

[Chip]

I'm sure some people will want to attack me for posting the following question (those people can STFU) but it what you did "surveilling" someone, and technically illegal?

Conducting "surveillance" by UAV is banned in North Carolina (with exceptions). Here is excerpt from the NC statute:

Chapter 15A – Criminal Procedure
15A-300.1 Restrictions on use of UAS

No person, entity, or State agency shall use an unmanned aircraft system to do any of the following:

(1) Conduct surveillance of:

a. A person or a dwelling occupied by a person and that dwelling's curtilage without the person's consent,
b. Private real property without the consent of the owner, easement holder, or lessee of the property.

(2) Photograph an individual, without the individual's consent, for the purpose of publishing or otherwise publicly disseminating the photograph. This subdivision shall not apply to newsgathering, newsworthy events, or events or places to which the general public is invited.

 

[Chip]

Here is another example showing state's differing approaches to UAV image capture. You can see that taking images via drone is treated differently than by other type of camera. This excerpt from Florida actually does contain a definition of "surveillance" but many state laws do not.

FLA UAV LAW (excerpts):

(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.

(3) PROHIBITED USE OF DRONES.—

(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 as defined in s. 11.45 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.

 

[Garbage]

For my job, I work in retail Loss Prevention. This is behavior that is common in ORC (Organized Retail Crime). What happens is that a group targets a store. Let’s say they hit the store for power washers. They then drive off.
It’s possible this guy thought someone may have gotten his plate or car description, so he ditched the washer in a place just in case he gets stopped. Then he will probably come back when the heat dies down to pick it back up.

What makes me wonder though is that OPs drone was definitely low enough to be heard.

 

[maelstrom]

(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.

So, according to #1, every person you can see clearly in a video from your drone (even if you were just panning past them) would constitute surveillance. Same for #2, but for property. There must be parts of the particular State law before the section above that discuss surveillance and put it into context. If not, many of us would be breaking the law every time we flew our drones. Intent must be involved or the law would be almost unenforceable.