Drones Flying Over State Fair in TN Seized

[High_Order1]

Crackdown on illegal drones at Wilson County-Tennessee State Fair

"If you choose to fly a drone over the fair, our officers will track you down, seize your drone, and issue you a citation," said LPD in a social media post.

Be interesting to see how this plays out.

 

[mavic3usa]

Crackdown on illegal drones at Wilson County-Tennessee State Fair



Be interesting to see how this plays out.

This definitely needs to be challenged when the police are seizing drones for simply flying in the airspace without determining intent of the flight or whether there is any surveillance going on according to the law. Unless there is a TFR, not sure how this is illegal.

Earlier I said any such law that is based on "intent to surveil" will be enforced against any drone that flies with a camera and then you will be detained but it's worse than that when the police will simply detain any drone that flies.

If this law stands, what stops the state from expanding it to other areas at other times for other reasons?

 

[jpmcdo]

This definitely needs to be challenged when the police are seizing drones for simply flying in the airspace without determining intent of the flight or whether there is any surveillance going on according to the law. Unless there is a TFR, not sure how this is illegal.

Earlier I said any such law that is based on "intent to surveil" will be enforced against any drone that flies with a camera and then you will be detained but it's worse than that when the police will simply detain any drone that flies.

If this law stands, what stops the state from expanding it to other areas at other times for other reasons?

Challenged? At what point does safety come into play. Flying over large groups of people is risky and just asking for a tragedy. If you have your part 107 license, the rules say you only fly over a group that knows or has an understanding that this might occur. Drones flyin* over people is one of the main reasons the FAA has come down on hobbyists.

 

[mavic3usa]

Challenged? At what point does safety come into play. Flying over large groups of people is risky and just asking for a tragedy. If you have your part 107 license, the rules say you only fly over a group that knows or has an understanding that this might occur. Drones flyin* over people is one of the main reasons the FAA has come down on hobbyists.

We all believe in and know that safety is paramount when it comes to drones; however, the FAA is the only organization that should be able to regulate the safety of drone flights. We don't want, we don't need a TN statute to dictate what is considered safe drone flight....it's beyond their purview and out of their jurisdiction. The FAA already offers all the safety we need for drones in the NAS and since they have exclusive rights in that domain, the state and local governments should not interfere by passing laws that often are not constructive or consistent with FAA rules. We don't need the local police to "come down" on hobbyist for flying over people, it's not a crime.

 

[anotherlab]

This definitely needs to be challenged when the police are seizing drones for simply flying in the airspace without determining intent of the flight or whether there is any surveillance going on according to the law. Unless there is a TFR, not sure how this is illegal.

Earlier I said any such law that is based on "intent to surveil" will be enforced against any drone that flies with a camera and then you will be detained but it's worse than that when the police will simply detain any drone that flies.

You’re right that states can’t regulate the airspace itself, that’s strictly under FAA authority. What Tennessee is doing here is leaning on its state privacy statute: SURVEILLANCE BY UNMANNED AIRCRAFT (§39-13-903), which makes it unlawful to capture images with the intent to conduct surveillance. One part of that law specifically applies to events with 100+ ticketed attendees, like the fair.

So, from the state’s perspective, police aren’t seizing drones because they’re simply “in the air.” They’re acting under the assumption that a drone over a crowded event might be attempting surveillance, which gives them grounds under the statute.

Separately, FAA rules already prohibit flying over people without a waiver. That means both state law and federal regulations could come into play, LEOs can act under the TN law, and the FAA could still fine the operator.

If this law stands, what stops the state from expanding it to other areas at other times for other reasons?

What keeps any entity from expanding any law for any other reason? What you’re raising is a slippery slope concern, that if the state enforces this statute at the fair, it could open the door for broader restrictions later. If the legislature ever tried to expand it beyond that, it would have to go through the normal lawmaking process and would likely face legal challenges, especially if it conflicted with FAA jurisdiction.

 

[Cafguy]

If you are flying your Drone near or at the state fair. You are interfering with emergency services and they will for sure arrest you for that. If an air ambulance was needed it would not take off with your Drone fluttering about! Get permission or Don't fly.
Just think if someone on a ride got a face full of a Drone that you lost sight of or control over.

 

[mavic3usa]

You’re right that states can’t regulate the airspace itself, that’s strictly under FAA authority. What Tennessee is doing here is leaning on its state privacy statute: SURVEILLANCE BY UNMANNED AIRCRAFT (§39-13-903), which makes it unlawful to capture images with the intent to conduct surveillance. One part of that law specifically applies to events with 100+ ticketed attendees, like the fair.

So, from the state’s perspective, police aren’t seizing drones because they’re simply “in the air.” They’re acting under the assumption that a drone over a crowded event might be attempting surveillance, which gives them grounds under the statute.

In the state of TN, the citizens have due process. If they are suspected of committing a crime, the state needs to have reasonable articulable suspicion that they are about to commit the crime of surveillance. Simply flying in a particular geographic location, or simply flying over a particular event, or simply flying a drone with a camera isn't enough to suspect someone is breaking the law such that you can seize their equipment and start an investigation. You need something more like "the drone was flying during a TFR" or" "the drone was flying in circles over a particular sensitive spot" or "a witness reported seeing the flyer hovering and staring at the screen"....something that would cause you to detain and investigate further to see if there is a crime. That's not happening here. Fly a drone, we confiscate it, you get arrested....is what's happening here. If your drone didn't have a camera you would still be prosecuted. Intent to surveil is a rouse. If you drive a Tesla near the state fair entrance, can they seize your Tesla because the cameras are recording or is this for drones only? Law enforcement can't take action based on an assumptions; are you suggesting if they discovered your drone was not recording or taking photos, they would let you go?

In TN and every other state in the country, you have the right to capture images especially in the public where there is no expectation of privacy and you have a right to be (in the NAS). Adding specifics like large events or the fact that people have purchased tickets is not a factor when it comes to airspace. It's a bad law.

Separately, FAA rules already prohibit flying over people without a waiver. That means both state law and federal regulations could come into play, LEOs can act under the TN law, and the FAA could still fine the operator.

State law cannot enforce FAA rules prohibit flying over people without a waiver. if a police officer saw a drone flying over a family at the fair grounds and they located the flyer, they cannot demand to see the FAA waiver or else arrest him for something like obstruction or interference or disorderly. If there is a TN law that proscribes fines for drone operators for flying over people without a waiver, we have a problem.

What keeps any entity from expanding any law for any other reason? What you’re raising is a slippery slope concern, that if the state enforces this statute at the fair, it could open the door for broader restrictions later. If the legislature ever tried to expand it beyond that, it would have to go through the normal lawmaking process and would likely face legal challenges, especially if it conflicted with FAA jurisdiction.

If we allow this law to stand, what's to stop the law from being amended to include legislators while they are in the course of their duties at city hall; no drone flights over city hall from May to December? My point is we accept this law, there will be no good reason why to reject the inevitable broader restrictions. As you mentioned, this law is about surveillance and physical aspects like crowd size. Someone picked 100, they could have easily picked 50, or even 2. How could you challenge that? This law is about intent to surveil, how is that even a thing? Do you need a part 107 to fly a drone with the intent to surveil?
There's no conflict with the FAA; the FAA only has safety and operations rules and regulations; and no criminal aspects. The state is all criminal so there's never going to be a conflict. This is a bad law and it needs to be repealed.

EDIT: Next thing you know, there will be a law against flying a drone at night with the intent to peep like tom.

If you are flying your Drone near or at the state fair. You are interfering with emergency services and they will for sure arrest you for that. If an air ambulance was needed it would not take off with your Drone fluttering about! Get permission or Don't fly.
Just think if someone on a ride got a face full of a Drone that you lost sight of or control over.

if it's a problem, get a TFR. Get permission from whom?

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[anotherlab]

In the state of TN, the citizens have due process. If they are suspected of committing a crime, the state needs to have reasonable articulable suspicion that they are about to commit the crime of surveillance....

It's not a state-granted right; that's defined in the 14th Amendment. If you are talking about the confiscation of the drones, LEO has the right to confiscate items used in a crime under the legal principle of asset forfeiture.

...In TN and every other state in the country, you have the right to capture images especially in the public where there is no expectation of privacy and you have a right to be (in the NAS). Adding specifics like large events or the fact that people have purchased tickets is not a factor when it comes to airspace. It's a bad law.

State law cannot enforce FAA rules prohibit flying over people without a waiver. if a police officer saw a drone flying over a family at the fair grounds and they located the flyer, they cannot demand to see the FAA waiver or else arrest him for something like obstruction or interference or disorderly. If there is a TN law that proscribes fines for drone operators for flying over people without a waiver, we have a problem....

Local LEO can not enforce FAA regulations, but if a local crime is committed, they can take action. FAA rules do not have precedence over privacy laws.

Whether or not 39-13-903 is a bad law, it's on the books, and it covers more than public events. TN LEO can use it to confiscate drones. You typically have a diminished expectation of privacy in a public place, but that doesn't take away from a state's constitutional protection in granting greater privacy protections in public places

Flying a drone over a state fair without authorization is such a bad idea, it's hard to believe the pilots are going to get sympathy in court.

I'm not in favor of using a law like this. A TFR would have made more sense.

 

[tstr14]

It's not a state-granted right; that's defined in the 14th Amendment. If you are talking about the confiscation of the drones, LEO has the right to confiscate items used in a crime under the legal principle of asset forfeiture.



Local LEO can not enforce FAA regulations, but if a local crime is committed, they can take action. FAA rules do not have precedence over privacy laws.

Whether or not 39-13-903 is a bad law, it's on the books, and it covers more than public events. TN LEO can use it to confiscate drones. You typically have a diminished expectation of privacy in a public place, but that doesn't take away from a state's constitutional protection in granting greater privacy protections in public places

Flying a drone over a state fair without authorization is such a bad idea, it's hard to believe the pilots are going to get sympathy in court.

I'm not in favor of using a law like this. A TFR would have made more sense.

This law is in conflict with the FAA and will not stand a serious challenge in federal court. Do they do the same thing with cell phones? If I'm taking video of the fair will they confiscate my phone? Can you identify a person who's picture is taken from 200 feet away overhead and they aren't looking up? What if you fly over the fair before they open?

Just another decision by committee made by idiots with no working knowledge of the subject or federal regulations. Remember, you don't have to be intelligent to get elected, just get the most votes.

 

[mavic3usa]

It's not a state-granted right; that's defined in the 14th Amendment. If you are talking about the confiscation of the drones, LEO has the right to confiscate items used in a crime under the legal principle of asset forfeiture.



Local LEO can not enforce FAA regulations, but if a local crime is committed, they can take action. FAA rules do not have precedence over privacy laws.

Whether or not 39-13-903 is a bad law, it's on the books, and it covers more than public events. TN LEO can use it to confiscate drones. You typically have a diminished expectation of privacy in a public place, but that doesn't take away from a state's constitutional protection in granting greater privacy protections in public places

Flying a drone over a state fair without authorization is such a bad idea, it's hard to believe the pilots are going to get sympathy in court.

I'm not in favor of using a law like this. A TFR would have made more sense.

Sorry I had a long reply ready to go and I would love to debate this further I only have a bit left to say. The 4th amendment applies and the police need a warrant to seize your drone without your consent. Due process is general as in drone flyers should be above suspicion unless they are truly suspected of committing a crime, not just a hunch.

A pilot shouldn't have to gain sympathy in court as long as they obey the law and we all know the drone laws in general do not gain any sympathy from the public. Neither do the privacy laws. The government cannot grant greater privacy protections in public places, that's the problem. This has already been tried before. They need to stay in their lane. Can we please not try this again drones because they are an easy target?

There's nothing wrong with flying a drone in and around a high school football game or an amusement park or ski boats speeding around the lakes or the people having fun at the state fair or the courtyard full of yoga instructors with their clients or the neighborhood paddle ball courts hard at play or the vendors hard at work selling to folks at a crowded farmers market. Any where a DSLR camera can take photos from ground level, a drone should be able to take photos from 100 feet. The height being the only distance may create some safety issues so let's mitigate that with safety laws only and we should be good to go.

Yes it's a bad law and any time the state and local governments get involved, only bad things will happen. Most people don't understand the laws like you and I so they won't bother to even fly a drone for fear of being prosecuted for making a mistake. But I guess we don't have to worry much about that these days since shortly there won't be any drones left to fly to have this become a problem.

 

[High_Order1]

I think this will hinge, as I have said previously, on the application of a smart attorney pushing what the definition of 'surveillance' is.

Words have meaning, even here in Tennessee, and surveillance is one of those words.

Lest anyone think I am on the side of knuckleheads flying their toys over a crowd, especially not even attempting to coordinate with fair officials or security in case there is an emergent situation... I am not.

This however, if left unchallenged, will be the boilerplate for the entire country to finish off recreational toy airplanes and drones.

Imagine, the florida HOA situation if they could simply apply this law, because technically, gathering information for even amateur media reporting is a type of surveillance.

There is law already on the books to deal with this, it's called a TFR. It is longer and harder, and lacks the scare factor of having an officer take your item, but it is the right way.

Hope EFF or someone gets wind of this and helps those dumdums out, not for them, but for us.

 

[AMann]

You’re right that states can’t regulate the airspace itself, that’s strictly under FAA authority. What Tennessee is doing here is leaning on its state privacy statute: SURVEILLANCE BY UNMANNED AIRCRAFT (§39-13-903), which makes it unlawful to capture images with the intent to conduct surveillance. One part of that law specifically applies to events with 100+ ticketed attendees, like the fair.

So, from the state’s perspective, police aren’t seizing drones because they’re simply “in the air.” They’re acting under the assumption that a drone over a crowded event might be attempting surveillance, which gives them grounds under the statute.

Separately, FAA rules already prohibit flying over people without a waiver. That means both state law and federal regulations could come into play, LEOs can act under the TN law, and the FAA could still fine the operator.



What keeps any entity from expanding any law for any other reason? What you’re raising is a slippery slope concern, that if the state enforces this statute at the fair, it could open the door for broader restrictions later. If the legislature ever tried to expand it beyond that, it would have to go through the normal lawmaking process and would likely face legal challenges, especially if it conflicted with FAA jurisdiction.

I also do pole photography, meaning hoisting a camera up on a 20 foot high pole (not the dancing type!). I’ve used it at Disneyland during the parades to see over the crowds, and in National Park areas where I couldn’t use a drone. Might they also include this as surveillance? It certainly takes higher resolution photos than any drone I’ve ever seen.

 

[Torque]

if it's a problem, get a TFR. Get permission from whom?

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Umm, this is a NEWS drone, flying over an empty fairground before it was open to the public. A vast difference from flying over the fairgrounds when packed with fair goers.