Drone court battle, I fought the law...

[Lapeer20m]

Michigan Coalition of Drone Operators announces:

MCDO v Genesee County

Complaint was filed yesterday in Michigan’s 7th circuit asking a judge to order Genesee County to cease enforcement of their unlawful drone ordinance.

This is likely the first such case in the country.


Michigan has a strong uas preemption law which prohibits local units of government from enacting or enforcing any rules regarding unmanned aircraft. Genesee County has chosen to enact an unlawful drone ordinance, arrest individual(s) for operating drones over park property, and has gone to great lengths to prevent drone flights.

gcprcfinal.PDF

Shared with Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

 

[Thomas B]

Just the case that has been needed. Arizona law reserves the right to control TO and landing point restrictions to the state... but still the towns try.

 

[dawgpilot]

It's very frustrating that even when you have a state law that makes it clear that such action is preempted, you still have localities trying this stuff. Meanwhile the park and town get to rely on a taxpayer-funded legal team to defend their ridiculous ordinance, whereas the plaintiffs have to spend their own money to try to enforce their rights.

Good luck with the lawsuit and keep us updated!

 

[PhantomFandom]

Michigan Coalition of Drone Operators announces:

MCDO v Genesee County

Complaint was filed yesterday in Michigan’s 7th circuit asking a judge to order Genesee County to cease enforcement of their unlawful drone ordinance.

This is likely the first such case in the country.


Michigan has a strong uas preemption law which prohibits local units of government from enacting or enforcing any rules regarding unmanned aircraft. Genesee County has chosen to enact an unlawful drone ordinance, arrest individual(s) for operating drones over park property, and has gone to great lengths to prevent drone flights.

gcprcfinal.PDF

Shared with Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

FINALLY !!!

It is great to see someone taking on the local authorities who decide to pass and enforce illegal statutes. They somehow feel that they are above the law or that no one will challenge them. Unfortunately it does take time and MONEY to make a challenge of this sort, so you are to be congratulated. It looks very straight forward and I don't see what their defense could possibly be. Rest assured that they will still try to defend their actions.

Please let us all know as more information is available. Looking forward to the final verdict.

 

[Lapeer20m]

FINALLY !!!

It is great to see someone taking on the local authorities who decide to pass and enforce illegal statutes. They somehow feel that they are above the law or that no one will challenge them. Unfortunately it does take time and MONEY to make a challenge of this sort, so you are to be congratulated. It looks very straight forward and I don't see what their defense could possibly be. Rest assured that they will still try to defend their actions.

Please let us all know as more information is available. Looking forward to the final verdict.

With a bit of luck the county will appeal the decision. Cannot set a precedent unless we make it to the appellate level.

This case is on the radar of some large uas companies who have a legitimate interest in making sure this goes the right way.

 

[JAW]

Have you considered asking the FAA file an amicus brief in support of your lawsuit?

I applaud your fortitude!

 

[deleted member 877]

With a bit of luck the county will appeal the decision. Cannot set a precedent unless we make it to the appellate level.

This case is on the radar of some large uas companies who have a legitimate interest in making sure this goes the right way.

I have been watching and supporting your valiant efforts since your first post reporting the incident. Hopefully, you won't have to throw too much of your own money at this. In that regard have you considered setting up a GoFundMe initiative?

I note your mention of the interest of large UAS companies and also the chance that the county will appeal the decision if necessary. In any case, I am sure that the global drone flying community is standing steadfastly behind you.

It goes without saying that a win, unlikely as it would seem, for the defendant would set a disastrous precedent with world-wide ramifications.

 

[AnzacJack]

Here is an interesting read about similar court action here in Australia

It Could be Time to Say Bye to Drone By-laws - IALPG

PDFThere will be a battle in the High Court of Australia later this year between two Northern Territory entities, the Government’s Work Health Authority, and a hot air ballooning company, the result of which may have inadvertent consequences for drone users.[1] Under Commonwealth law, drone...

www.ialpg.com

 

[Simmo]

Didn't @msinger do a similar thing a few years ago?

 

[Lapeer20m]

Didn't @msinger do a similar thing a few years ago?

Is msinger the Singer v. City of Newton guy?

 

[Mavic Mac]

Is msinger the Singer v. City of Newton guy?

From info on his Bio msinger is from PA. The Singer from Singer vs City of Newton is Michael Singer, a physician and inventor who lives in Newton, MA. He may have moved.

 

[drone_video]

I shared this thread with Steve Lehto who has a quickly rising YouTube channel. He is from Michigan also and has a great mind for the law. Hopefully he will feature his view on this matter!

You can find his channel here...

Steve Lehto

I am a Michigan attorney who has practiced in the fields of Lemon Law and Consumer Protection for 29 years. I have written extensively on a variety of topics...

www.youtube.com

Not sure if he will engage in this topic but he is a cool and very smart guy with the law and presents well in camera etc. Fingers crossed.

 

[pmshop]

Texas revoked ANY municipality's drone ordinances and stated if they want to re-enact them they must go through an FAA approval process.

 

[tcope]

It's very frustrating that even when you have a state law that makes it clear that such action is preempted, you still have localities trying this stuff. Meanwhile the park and town get to rely on a taxpayer-funded legal team to defend their ridiculous ordinance, whereas the plaintiffs have to spend their own money to try to enforce their rights.

Question and answer. They do it because 1) they can and 2) because there are no repercussions if it does not work. What will also happen is they know the law is illegal but they will use it as a threat (the fine for the violation). When told the action is "illegal" and may result in a huge fine, most people will simply stop and move on. If they ever do issue a citation, the person will either just pay it or take up more of their resources to fight it. If they fight it, the prosecutor will simply drop the charges.

 

[tcope]

Didn't @msinger do a similar thing a few years ago?

No. Someone asked if they were the same person and msinger pointed out that he was not.

 

[bushie]

Here is an interesting read about similar court action here in Australia

The workplace Health and Safety won the case I believe.

 

[mtb.arizona]

Just the case that has been needed. Arizona law reserves the right to control TO and landing point restrictions to the state... but still the towns try.

Got any ARS links to reference? My understanding was that the state did require municipalities to more or less allow flight in at least one of their parks (more to it than that, but general concept) and that that's about all there is on the books. Both Phoenix and Scottsdale seem to operate under the above. Phoenix allows flight in ~6 city parks explicitly, and denies it elsewhere. Scottsdale allows in all parks, but then excludes takeoff/landing in certain parks (McDowell Sonoran preserve, Pinnacle Peak, etc.)

At least with Scottsdale, the wording allows for takeoff and landing outside of the park, but flight over it. I'm pretty sure Phoenix prohibits even fly-over except in the six allowed parks.

I've gone to battle with Phoenix parks and rec (and Scottsdale) in the past over their failure to follow state law (regarding firearms) so I'd be happy to be a thorn in their side again if there's state law supporting us. =)

 

[Deleted member 94307]

They should allow drones in parks when there are few or no people present.. this would make everyone safer because rangers could check out Reg. And if we are following laws. It would prevent people from flying over homes and streets. Parks are not only pretty places to take pictures, they are the safest places to fly drones when they are barely occupied.. and a place where park rangers, unlike police , actually could make the time to check up on drone users.

I requested permission ( according to NJ STATE LAW) to fly out of Liberty State Park at 6:30am on a weekday (with visual observer present) and was told only if I pay $2500 for permit and have insurance. (The law doesn’t say anything about that as far as I read) then the Assistant Commissioner told me “yeah it’s getting harder to find places to fly drones” I explained to him that’s not the case and that I was well aware of what airspace I could fly in. The problem is finding places to fly from where you don’t need to worry about being robbed while you fly. I finally managed to find a place to get pictures of the city and flew right up to the park in vlos to get some pictures too..

Politicians and people should be more worried about drugs and guns and stop complaining about drones. Authorities should actually read up on and start enforcing the drone laws that already exist.

Let drones in unoccupied parks ...ALL PARKS.

 

[pmshop]

only if I pay $2500 for permit and have insurance.

I would ask for that in writing.
Don't see anything restricting drones in Liberty State Park according to their website.
Sounds like a Drone hater to me.

Just like I am trying to get this jerk, WHO IS PART OF THE FAA, thrown out on his ear for his anti-drone views:
"If drones did not exist, you would be delighted to spend time with your family in Las Vegas and it would never have occurred to you that aerial photos would have made it better. Please enjoy yourselves there and don't let this spoil your vacation."

 

[Deleted member 94307]

It’s a state law.. no drones in state parks.. doesn’t say anything about over them like national parks.

It’s really ridiculous in Jersey. All of the safe places to fly are parks.. county park law is you can only fly in one per county where “model aircraft” fly.. they include drones as model aircraft. You go to one of those parks and are told you have to pay to register or for permit $15 I think.. then you get to fly 15-20 min at a time and fixed wing aircraft have priority!