^Wow, so many weasel words in 935.50 from "surveillance" to "expectation of privacy" to "the individual *or* property" to "in violation of." The way this is worded, you can be arrested for simply "flying a drone."
Drone pilots refuse to be grounded by The Villages FL
- Thread starter Captain Spock
- Start date
Chip
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2017
- Messages
- 2,024
- Reactions
- 2,535
You could look at it that way. But, you could also see it as a a somewhat clever effort to balance privacy rights of property owners with drone pilot's regulated license to fly. My hunch is would be very difficult to prove intentional surveillance in most cases. Flights simply passing over private property to get somewhere else are not targeted surveillance. It may not be difficult to prove "surveillance" in this one case under discussion now, but that is mainly because the pilot concedes up front that is what he is doing. But our colleague still has the right to run the ball right up the gut if ever taken to court by arguing that an open air community building project like this is simply not a private or personal matter that warrants or deserves protection. Especially when the developer is itself publishing photos. Our colleague could also argue the FLA law is unconstitutional as applied to him because he is a legit community news reporter legitimately gathering news. These are some substantial arrows he has in his quiver!
FL will simply take a page from TX:
Texas Association of Broadcasters
Austin-based trade association representing the interests of Texas' 1,200+ free, over-the-air radio and television stations
www.tab.org
I'm not a lawyer and maybe I'm off track but it does seem that "with the intent to conduct surveillance" is a fairly significant part of the language of the law. "Intent" is always kind of tricky, legally...correct?
somebody recreational flying over property 300' in the air with his video recording the landscape & geography, including structures, might not be in violation of that law; especially is his intent isn't to surveil....no?
some people will say flying a drone up in the air with a camera attached to it is defacto "intent to surveil...." I don't agree with it but it follows that almost anytime someone sees a drone, it's looking at them whether it is pointing in their direction or regardless if it is recording or not.
Chip
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2017
- Messages
- 2,024
- Reactions
- 2,535
Yes, correct. Intent to surveil is critical element of the claim and it may be difficult to prove in case where drone is just flying over on its way to somewhere else. The flight records and video/photos of the flight would be important evidence obviously. Do not get me wrong. I would much rather fly a drone in a state without this kind of law. You have to fly more cautiously. But it may not be as one-sided as it seems especially if you plan, conduct, and document your flights with the law in mind.
Florida Statutes Title XLVII. Criminal Procedure and Corrections § 934.50. Searches and seizure using a drone (link to the full law section HERE)
(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 NOTE: No mention of intent.
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.
now that you know how FL defines "surveillance," read the next law section:
(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.
Final Score
Drone pilots--1
The Villages--0
High_Order1
Active Member
I don't think the FL definitions will hold water under proper scrutiny.
The concept and implementation of surveillance has been hashed out, fought against and is pretty well mature at the federal court level.
IF I were to run afoul of a FL case, I would ask if me with a 500mm f2 lens on the deck of my high rise hotel room on the beach was 'the conduct of surveillance'.
What about if I take a 1000mm stabilized lens and video camera on a tourist helicopter and ask them to orbit something that caught my eye?
I don't have a private investigator's license, nor a badge. Can I even conduct surveillance?
Surveillance typically is collection of evidence against a target. Was evidence collected? Is there a target file or other matters that demonstrate that evidence was collected to further a civil or criminal interest?
What is the difference between flying one mile tracks over a neighborhood and videoing the beauty of the land, vs flying a mission?
Does google conduct surveillance? I can see my house and backyard pretty good. Are they co-conspirators?
This is a really big can of worms that no side will benefit from by litigating it.
The concept and implementation of surveillance has been hashed out, fought against and is pretty well mature at the federal court level.
IF I were to run afoul of a FL case, I would ask if me with a 500mm f2 lens on the deck of my high rise hotel room on the beach was 'the conduct of surveillance'.
What about if I take a 1000mm stabilized lens and video camera on a tourist helicopter and ask them to orbit something that caught my eye?
I don't have a private investigator's license, nor a badge. Can I even conduct surveillance?
Surveillance typically is collection of evidence against a target. Was evidence collected? Is there a target file or other matters that demonstrate that evidence was collected to further a civil or criminal interest?
What is the difference between flying one mile tracks over a neighborhood and videoing the beauty of the land, vs flying a mission?
Does google conduct surveillance? I can see my house and backyard pretty good. Are they co-conspirators?
This is a really big can of worms that no side will benefit from by litigating it.
I disagree. This needs to be litigated in court at both the state and federal level. We need firm and solid legislation against similar laws designed to discourage us from flying our drones and we need it this year before the entire country adopts such laws or an unfortunate situation occurs and we lose what little public sentiment we already have; we need it now while we have the upper hand. Not trying to raise the alarm but.....we're in trouble if you can't tell; I know it doesn't feel like it but we are.
High_Order1
Active Member
Severe, dire trouble. No question.
The problem I have seen personally with litigation, is... once it starts, you never really know where it's going to wind up.
ESPECIALLY with the full-court press currently against drones and the government and media fanning the flames.
No problem with the concept of defending the right to quiet enjoyment of a hobby, or the pursuit of happiness.
And, so I am clear, I have no problem butting heads with authorities when I am in the right.
The problem I see here, is, from reading the stuff, if people are flying drones inside the places as they are built, potentially causing issues for the trades people...
(shrugs)
my issue is invoking the fear of surveillance driving the end of recreational drone operations. Laws were authored way before any technology was basic, much less advanced.
Aerial curtilage has been increasingly protected. I am curious what will happen when the first guy in a flying car stops to pee?
I don't want further, mangled legislative action to occur in this arena. Honestly, I assumed people trespassing to fly whoops were going to be the catalyst.
We need public opinion in our favor, and the narrative framed differently.
The problem is, sometimes we don't help ourselves here. I am part of another hot button topic (newspapers literally have said relaxing those laws would cause the streets to run red with the blood of innocents), and so, for every person that just wants to quietly enjoy a thing, there are three that want to push a confrontation.
With respect to the instant florida case... I don't know how to fix that. You're essentially saying we will overfly you and you'll like it. Find a way to make that palatable to the general, uninterested public, and it will prevail.
I am curious to see the increasing use of drones in media butt heads with public safety and the public. There will probably be a lot of regulatory action there. (I've been watching, for instance, the california fires).
The only people who would conduct surveillance with their drones, would be police, government, private investigators and insurance companies. I don't know if any of you guys heard this, but insurance companies would fly over people's homes to see if their were any fire hazards or anything else that would give the insurance company cause to raise their rates. Maybe that's illegal, because it's definitely surveillance.
My question would be where did you purchase said lens? The fastest 500mm available is f2.8
High_Order1
Active Member
Chip
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2017
- Messages
- 2,024
- Reactions
- 2,535
The problem is that the statute specifically defines "surveillance." The first definition seems standard. But # 2 does not. It deviates from the standard privacy concern by referencing the observation of physical property improvements alone as opposed to the person or their actions. That part sounds like concession to special interest or political group designed to stop the kind of flights the OP is talking about.
(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.
You've all seen the videos by now. If someone has a large ranch or operating a facility and doing things on private property they don't want anyone on the outside knowing about (which is why they are far from the road) then they certainly don't want someone to send a drone over to take a peek.
This is probably illegal in FL:
[not me, not my video]
[video disclaimer, may be graphic]
This is probably illegal in FL:
[not me, not my video]
[video disclaimer, may be graphic]
I don't see anything wrong with taking this drone video, but look, people want the cheapest meat, eggs and milk. You're not gonna get that on a 10 acher farm with 2 cows. Don’t really know how to spell acher!
High_Order1
Active Member
I am sitting on a bench in sunny florida in front of a home. They are frolicking in their front yard, half naked.
This is where I take my break on my daily walk around the cul-de-sac.
Police do something called 'plain reading of the elements of the offense'. Using that benchmark, am I surveilling?
Law is vague and overbroad in my tubby, couchbound opinion.
High_Order1
Active Member
This is the age-old dilemma. One of the things entities do, is rely on the price of a tool to limit those who wield it. Every time an item gets a low bar to entry, it gets used in creative ways that no one foretells, and some of those aren't palatable to the general public.
For instance, the number of places that ban 'big lenses' on cameras.
Drones aren't just fun. They are a powerful tool in the hands of persons with ulterior goals in mind. Relatively cheap drones have features now that would have been classified on military units ten-fifteen years ago.
How much the government feels compelled to step in and regulate their use will be directly tied to the percentage of shrieky, naggy complainers being a thorn in their sides, not common sense or 'justice'.
According to FL law, a person does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy on their own property if they are observable at ground level by someone who is located in a place where they are allowed to be.
"...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."
So by Florida law you are good to gawk, assuming the bench is located in a place where anyone one can sit. BUT, we're talking about The Villages, a place with its own ideas about what's legal.
High_Order1
Active Member
That's pretty much how federal regulation and case law goes, as well.
That's why I am saying their definition is suspect.
That's why I am saying their definition is suspect.
Similar threads
DJI Drone Deals
New Threads
-
-
-
Air 3 Hodge Close Quarry, Coniston, Lake District- Started by AlbionDrones
- Replies: 3
-
Forum statistics
