Drone pilots refuse to be grounded by The Villages FL

[jwilson]

This doesn't seem right.

As you may not be aware, there are laws prohibiting the use of drones to take videos or photographs of private property without the owner’s permission.

 

[Don Wiley]

The case is very weak. I’ve battled with the developer several times before and come out pretty good. The 2 big sections of Florida law in play or 935.50(3)(b) and 330.41(3)(b).
The lawyers can send all the letters their clients are willing to pay for. Until a judge rules on the issue or the FAA steps in the letters have less value than toilet paper. I’ve spoken with an FAA representative already, they see nothing wrong on our part.

 

[mavic3usa]

The case is very weak. I’ve battled with the developer several times before and come out pretty good. The 2 big sections of Florida law in play or 935.50(3)(b) and 330.41(3)(b).
The lawyers can send all the letters their clients are willing to pay for. Until a judge rules on the issue or the FAA steps in the letters have less value than toilet paper. I’ve spoken with an FAA representative already, they see nothing wrong on our part.

That's the problem, we all know there IS a judge somewhere in FL willing to rule on this and side against the drone flyers. We shouldn't have to fight our battles in the circuits courts and the appeals courts in every state in every jurisdiction and until SCOTUS finally rules....rinse and repeat year after year.

 

[tstr14]

They put up a no Drone sign LOL! I have a must pay 100 dollars to pass this sign sign in my yard But people still walk by for free.

You need to hire a Karen to collect the fees. Tell her she can keep half of everything she collects.

 

[hank970]

The case is very weak. I’ve battled with the developer several times before and come out pretty good. The 2 big sections of Florida law in play or 935.50(3)(b) and 330.41(3)(b).
The lawyers can send all the letters their clients are willing to pay for. Until a judge rules on the issue or the FAA steps in the letters have less value than toilet paper. I’ve spoken with an FAA representative already, they see nothing wrong on our part.

Poor analogy. Under the right circumstances, the lack of toilet paper might be considered a substantial deficit.

 

[moldorf]

Poor analogy. Under the right circumstances, the lack of toilet paper might be considered a substantial deficit.

well, it certainly was in the dark days of Covid. Toilet paper was more valuable than silver and people were scrambling to find any.

it was insane...Covid was a respiratory illness and there was a shortage of toilet paper? If the next pandemic is a lower abdominal illness there will probably be a shortage of nasal spray

 

[timskins]

This doesn't seem right.

As you may not be aware, there are laws prohibiting the use of drones to take videos or photographs of private property without the owner’s permission.

This is the problem. Law enforcement can fly over anything while enroute to whatever they are doing. They cant fly to private property and look for something with out a warrant. They can search a property while in "hot pursuit". They can also try and articulate a "fruits of the poisonous tree" find if they observe something without intentionally looking for it. Either way this is complicated.

 

[tstr14]

This is the problem. Law enforcement can fly over anything while enroute to whatever they are doing. They cant fly to private property and look for something with out a warrant. They can search a property while in "hot pursuit". They can also try and articulate a "fruits of the poisonous tree" find if they observe something without intentionally looking for it. Either way this is complicated.

The person you were replying to was (I believe) referring to a private person operating a drone, as he had recently posted he like flying over buildings and beaches and filming women.

That aside, I am not sure what you say is true or has been tested in court. If a police officer is driving down a street and sees something illegal happening on private property, he is within the law to respond accordingly. Why would flying a drone be any different? NOTE: I'm not supporting the notion, just questioning the legality.

Pertinent Legal Decisions:

In Oliver v. US (1984), the Court ruled “Police may lawfully survey open fields from the air, including any unoccupied or undeveloped area outside of the curtilage.” (Curtilage essentially refers to any area immediately surrounding a residence, including back and front yards.)

California v. Ciraolo (1986) affirmed that the Fourth Amendment was not violated by warrantless observation and photography of defendant’s fenced-in backyard by manned surveillance from a fixed-wing aircraft. The Court ruled that the officers observations of the defendant’s backyard were from a public vantage point where the officers “have the right to be.”

Florida v. Riley (1989) confirmed that lower altitude, camera-equipped drone flight over private property does not constitute an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. Ultimately, the defendant “must bear the burden of proving his expectation of privacy was a reasonable one.”

 

[mavic3usa]

The person you were replying to was (I believe) referring to a private person operating a drone, as he had recently posted he like flying over buildings and beaches and filming women.

That aside, I am not sure what you say is true or has been tested in court. If a police officer is driving down a street and sees something illegal happening on private property, he is within the law to respond accordingly. Why would flying a drone be any different? NOTE: I'm not supporting the notion, just questioning the legality.

Pertinent Legal Decisions:

In Oliver v. US (1984), the Court ruled “Police may lawfully survey open fields from the air, including any unoccupied or undeveloped area outside of the curtilage.” (Curtilage essentially refers to any area immediately surrounding a residence, including back and front yards.)

California v. Ciraolo (1986) affirmed that the Fourth Amendment was not violated by warrantless observation and photography of defendant’s fenced-in backyard by manned surveillance from a fixed-wing aircraft. The Court ruled that the officers observations of the defendant’s backyard were from a public vantage point where the officers “have the right to be.”

Florida v. Riley (1989) confirmed that lower altitude, camera-equipped drone flight over private property does not constitute an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. Ultimately, the defendant “must bear the burden of proving his expectation of privacy was a reasonable one.”

To be fair, he did say it was "complicated." No doubt there isn't really stopping the police from launching a drone and checking out whatever they can see from the air. Unless they have a policy, they'll probably do it. Never mind when they say they only respond to 911 calls or they only go to and from. It's just a matter of time before they start surveillance, tracking, and routine patrols on houses, cars, and individuals. You don't need RAS or PC to go poking around which is why I propose states and community should pass new laws to limit what police can do with drones. Fine you can drive around in a car on the street but a drone can see much more from the air. If all the police did was observe from the air, then no problem....observe from the air or the ground, no difference; maybe even take a few notes on what you can see or hear. My concern is with tracking and record keeping, videos and photos, face recognition, deploying IR techniques, FOIA and public records....to me, these start to open up 4th amendment concerns. I don't like it when drones are potentially deployed only in certain neighborhoods, I don't like it when drones are not used at violent felonies but against honest citizens who make mistakes (i.e. traffic), I don't like it when evidence from drone is handled differently than any other evidence....these need to be addressed before drones evolve and are widely deployed against the citizens.

Let's start with this: Domestic Drones | American Civil Liberties Union

 

[Etbrown4]

Appears there are two issues here.

Seems very clear that the FAA controls all US airspace and establishes every drone pilot's right to fly over private property. Not sure FAA mentions a right to video or take pictures.

I wonder if there might be a lawyer member among us who could share an opinion as to whether the Fl law barring private citizens from taking photos of private property or persons without permission, is valid and enforceable?

Florida v. Riley seems to be about police actions and what constitutes an unreasonable search.

 

[mavic3usa]

Appears there are two issues here.

Seems very clear that the FAA controls all US airspace and establishes every drone pilot's right to fly over private property. Not sure FAA mentions a right to video or take pictures.

I wonder if there might be a lawyer member among us who could share an opinion as to whether the Fl law barring private citizens from taking photos of private property or persons without permission, is valid and enforceable?

Florida v. Riley seems to be about police actions and what constitutes an unreasonable search.

IANAL but I can surmise the FAA will never push back against or fight alongside the drone pilot for the right to take videos and pictures. In fact, I don't want or need the FAA to give me those "rights." Drone pilots will need to rely on the First Amendment for that.

Unfortunately when FL passes such a law, they are permitted to use law enforcement to reasonably enforce those laws which would include using force and/or levy fines. The FAA is absent and the state is going to step in....every time. If the drone pilot disagrees, the court system is available.

 

[hank970]

Appears there are two issues here.

Seems very clear that the FAA controls all US airspace and establishes every drone pilot's right to fly over private property. Not sure FAA mentions a right to video or take pictures.

I wonder if there might be a lawyer member among us who could share an opinion as to whether the Fl law barring private citizens from taking photos of private property or persons without permission, is valid and enforceable?

Florida v. Riley seems to be about police actions and what constitutes an unreasonable search.

I'm not a lawyer, but I had a federal law enforcement commission for several decades. And I have questions:

Would it be possible to take a picture of a friend or family member on any residential street in Florida without including private residences somewhere in the background? Would it be reasonable to require that photographers get the permission of every such property owner before tripping the shutter? Do Florida law and The Villages prohibit photography of private residences at eye level or is it just the aerial perspective they're concerned about?

Further, what expectation of privacy is a person entitled to in a public setting? Would it be possible to take a photo at Florida's Disney World or on a crowded Florida beach without inadvertently including multitudes of strangers in the background of the photo? Should they be polled to see whether or not they approve of having their pictures taken? How much space are such individuals entitled to before they feel their expectations of privacy are under assault? Do authorities distinguish between in-your-face photography and photography at less intrusive distances?

If someone's intent as a drone pilot is to fly over public beaches so they can film women, then that's voyeurism, and it's more than a bit creepy. I certainly wouldn't want my wife or daughter to be the subject of the pilot's fantasies.

I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I've seen drones aloft other than mine. At least where I live, the sky isn't full of them. Thinking back to the first time I saw one, it never occurred to me that it might be spying on me. I might have felt differently if it had zoomed up to me, invaded what I might perceive as my personal space, and then lingered for a while. Never having seen one before, I do recall being curious about what it was and what its capabilities were.

Have complaints about the intrusive behaviors of a few bad apples adversely affected those of us who have more respect for the rights of others and are willing to restrain ourselves accordingly? Absolutely.

 

[mavic3usa]

Since we are talking about it, let's see what the law says. In my opinion, a reasonable expectation of privacy must be involved and no one can ever expect privacy while laying out on a public beach. If you are on a private beach and nudity is allowed, you cannot expect that nobody from above will see you when *they* are in a place they have a right to be. There also has to be some sort of unlawful intent and it has to involve certain "aspects" whereas simply wearing a bathing suit won't qualify. As far as I'm concerned, the bathroom, a locker room, and maybe the bedroom at times is about all you have.

https://www.thefederalcriminalattorneys.com/video-voyeurism

 

[timskins]

The person you were replying to was (I believe) referring to a private person operating a drone, as he had recently posted he like flying over buildings and beaches and filming women.

That aside, I am not sure what you say is true or has been tested in court. If a police officer is driving down a street and sees something illegal happening on private property, he is within the law to respond accordingly. Why would flying a drone be any different? NOTE: I'm not supporting the notion, just questioning the legality.

Pertinent Legal Decisions:

In Oliver v. US (1984), the Court ruled “Police may lawfully survey open fields from the air, including any unoccupied or undeveloped area outside of the curtilage.” (Curtilage essentially refers to any area immediately surrounding a residence, including back and front yards.)

California v. Ciraolo (1986) affirmed that the Fourth Amendment was not violated by warrantless observation and photography of defendant’s fenced-in backyard by manned surveillance from a fixed-wing aircraft. The Court ruled that the officers observations of the defendant’s backyard were from a public vantage point where the officers “have the right to be.”

Florida v. Riley (1989) confirmed that lower altitude, camera-equipped drone flight over private property does not constitute an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. Ultimately, the defendant “must bear the burden of proving his expectation of privacy was a reasonable one.”

The example of an officer driving down a road and seeing something illegal is referred to as plain view and can most definitely be acted upon. Anything in view of everyone is game. My argument would have been a fenced yard not visible from a person standing on a street is not so private. An officer looking over a block wall would constitute an 4th amendment violation. This would extend to the air. However the California v. Ciraolo you refrenced goes against everything I have been taught in a 25+ yrs of law enforcement. Thank you for a detailed response and providing that info. That decision alone makes it very tough to argue against flying over private property.

 

[mavic3usa]

The example of an officer driving down a road and seeing something illegal is referred to as plain view and can most definitely be acted upon. Anything in view of everyone is game. My argument would have been a fenced yard not visible from a person standing on a street is not so private. An officer looking over a block wall would constitute an 4th amendment violation. This would extend to the air. However the California v. Ciraolo you refrenced goes against everything I have been taught in a 25+ yrs of law enforcement. Thank you for a detailed response and providing that info. That decision alone makes it very tough to argue against flying over private property.

This might help to explain Ciraolo which I happen to agree with the details and finding in that case: CALIFORNIA, Petitioner v. CIRAOLO.

And this might give it some context which is why I agreed it is "complicated" and at this time, we need clear and concise state and local laws as well as department policy to provide guidance on law enforcement use of drones:

https://www.cato.org/blog/does-4th-amendment-prohibit-warrantless-drone-surveillance

 

[Chip]

However the California v. Ciraolo you refrenced goes against everything I have been taught in a 25+ yrs of law enforcement. That decision alone makes it very tough to argue against flying over private property.

Maybe or maybe not. In Ciraolo, the court noted that from the airplane flying at 1,000 feet, the police could see the pot plants with their "naked eye." A drone does not fly at 1,000 feet and the pilot is viewing nothing with the naked eye. The pilot is placing an electronic eye with a zoom lens in the sky. When the airplane flies over the house it has a registration number you can see and use to determine ownership. Is that the case with a police drone?

 

[hank970]

Maybe or maybe not. In Ciraolo, the court noted that from the airplane flying at 1,000 feet, the police could see the pot plants with their "naked eye." A drone does not fly at 1,000 feet and the pilot is viewing nothing with the naked eye. The pilot is placing an electronic eye with a zoom lens in the sky. When the airplane flies over the house it has a registration number you can see and use to determine ownership. Is that the case with a police drone?

Why would that matter? When the prosecution submits evidence at trial, however it's obtained, the defense will routinely challenge its legitimacy. On the witness stand, the officer who made the observation would be obliged to testify how he or she obtained the evidence. If it were ascertained that the evidence was obtained in violation of the 4th Amendment, whether from observation on the ground or from the air, the court would rule it as inadmissible. Cops know this and are very careful, in most instances, to comply with constitutional constraints governing searches and seizures. Nobody wants to lose a case on a technicality or damage their credibility and reputation in the eyes of the court.

More than likely, a cop who claimed to have spotted marijuana plants growing on private property would use that observation to help persuade a judge to issue a search warrant rather than offering it only as direct testimony at trial. If a judge felt the officer's observations had merit (as always, logos, pathos, ethos) and a warrant were issued, then any direct observations and seizures of pot plants on-site wouldn't represent a violation of the property owner's constitutional rights.

 

[Etbrown4]

Unless I missed something, this thread isn't about police, pot, evidence in court, airplanes or looking over fences. Perhaps those issues can start a new thread.

It seems that OP is primarily saying that a Fl law barring drone operators from taking pics or videos of private citizens or private property without expressed permission is not legal. The second aspect was about whether Fl or the FAA controls airspace, and that answer seems obvious.

Does anyone know if the Fl law over pics has been tested in court, or if there's a lawyer out there can you give us your opinion on OPs chances in court.

 

[Chip]

Why would that matter? When the prosecution submits evidence at trial, however it's obtained, the defense will routinely challenge its legitimacy. On the witness stand, the officer who made the observation would be obliged to testify how he or she obtained the evidence. If it were ascertained that the evidence was obtained in violation of the 4th Amendment, whether from observation on the ground or from the air, the court would rule it as inadmissible. Cops know this and are very careful, in most instances, to comply with constitutional constraints governing searches and seizures. Nobody wants to lose a case on a technicality or damage their credibility and reputation in the eyes of the court.

More than likely, a cop who claimed to have spotted marijuana plants growing on private property would use that observation to help persuade a judge to issue a search warrant rather than offering it only as direct testimony at trial. If a judge felt the officer's observations had merit (as always, logos, pathos, ethos) and a warrant were issued, then any direct observations and seizures of pot plants on-site wouldn't represent a violation of the property owner's constitutional rights.

It may matter because when you are flying a drone over someone's house you are not using your naked eye to observe anything.

Unless I missed something, this thread isn't about police, pot, evidence in court, airplanes or looking over fences. Perhaps those issues can start a new thread.

It actually is. I was responding to a post which suggested that the Ciraolo case from the 1980s (US Supreme Court) permitted the police or anyone to fly over people's houses with a drone and conduct surveillance. The FLA privacy law is similar to several others around the country and none have been ruled void yet as far as I know. This idea that the US Supreme Court determines what is a reasonable expectation of privacy for everyone in the country is inaccurate in the sense that state constitutions and laws may provide greater privacy protection than the 4th Amendment which provides a floor but not a ceiling.

 

[Chip]

The case is very weak. I’ve battled with the developer several times before and come out pretty good. The 2 big sections of Florida law in play or 935.50(3)(b) and 330.41(3)(b).
The lawyers can send all the letters their clients are willing to pay for. Until a judge rules on the issue or the FAA steps in the letters have less value than toilet paper. I’ve spoken with an FAA representative already, they see nothing wrong on our part.

935.50(3)(b) says:
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.

This should make clear why Ciraolo is relevant to the discussion. The FLA legislature rejected the reasoning in Ciraolo which they can do. The FAA has zero legal authority, interest, or competence in regulating anyone's right to privacy under state law. This FLA law gives the drone pilot the right to argue no intent to conduct surveillance and/or no actual privacy violation.