FBI & Air Force OSI knocked on my door

[Droning on and on...]

Aeroscope. Which sort of penalizes the people who register their drones ironically.

I doubt registration makes any difference. While I can't say authoritatively, I suspect DJI would give up a customer by serial number if asked by the FBI. And they have that from Aeroscope (or RID).

What's curious to me is why it took so long to have a chat with you and clear it up.

And I'll be the first to say as scary and unpleasant as this was for you, and you have my sympathy, I'm glad it happened and believe it was how this should have gone down.

I'm assuming you didn't have LAANC clearance? Wasn't it required?

 

[GFields]

I'm assuming you didn't have LAANC clearance? Wasn't it required?

As stated previously, this was not an airspace issue at all, nor an FAA issue.

 

[Droning on and on...]

OP: you're under no obligation to speak to the police. There is ZERO benefit to you to engage.

I disagree. It depends.

In many cases, cooperating results in a cup of coffee at Starbucks and an interesting experience. Like this.

Resisting instead and exercising your rights to an extreme will cause magnitudes more headache to probably end eventually with the same result.

 

[Droning on and on...]

They broke the law in questioning you and They understood that under those conditions the photos would be obtained illegally.
Contact your Attorney!

How so? Isn't it perfectly legal foe an authority to contact a citizen to speak with them, and engage in conversation if the person voluntarily agrees to talk?

Isn't this how investigations are conducted? How information is gathered by detectives? I don't believe Miranda applies unless you are under suspicion of a crime and are a suspect. Witnesses are interviewed all the time without warrants, reading rights to them, etc.

Cops just introduce themselves, say why they're there, ask if you're willing to answer some questions, then engage.

Unless you say no.

 

[Droning on and on...]

The only reason they asked you questions was to gather additional evidence against you.

This simply is not true.

 

[Droning on and on...]

As stated previously, this was not an airspace issue at all, nor an FAA issue.

Yeah, working my way through the thread, hadn't gotten to your post yet. Gonna read to the end before I make any more redundant replies.

Then I'll make them

 

[mavic3usa]

Oh the irony.

Unless you say no.

Resisting instead and exercising your rights to an extreme will cause magnitudes more headache to probably end eventually with the same result.

Unfortunately, you are correct; this is how it usually goes down.

Your only saving grace is to be able to convince a judge or jury that you didn't feel free to say no, you felt that you were treated as a suspect, and/or you were somehow coerced to cooperate. That's usually doesn't work which is why you need to have a lawyer with you.

 

[Droning on and on...]

Just hate seeing you harassed by something that could have easily been handled over the phone not saying you handled it wrong I would have done it differently that's all I would have brought my Attorney.

That's where you and I have a very different attitude about this. I don't see it as harassment at all. Not even close.

Truly, I see this as ordinary, expected duties as a private citizen. Just as I wouldn't feel I was being "harassed" to be contacted and questioned by a detective if I was present I public when a crime was committed that I witnessed, I don't think it's harassment to follow up on National Security concerns either.

Arguably flying a drone on the boundaries of a military base is a legitimate NS concern. Suppose they had determined the pilot was a Chinese national on an expired visa, and did not respond when contacted but disappeared?

 

[Droning on and on...]

The Government has one goal...to gather evidence on a case. So if you are a suspect or even possibly a suspect, the purpose of the questioning will be to try and gather evidence to convict you at trial. That is it. They are not there to ask about your job or gather drone knowledge- or even get to know you. They are there for evidence to use against you..

This is just so not true.

Authorities, including those with the authority to arrest, talk to people all the time that are not suspects at all in any crime. They are not gathering information to build some case against who they're talking to.

Often, as in this case, their purpose is to make sure there isn't a case. The idea that his drone was detected there, and the FBI immediately opened a criminal case and started gathering evidence to that end is absurd.

This was purely National Security. The purpose was to verify it was innocuous. There was no criminal case. It's ironic that some here advise behavior that might have turned it into one.

This was never about nailing the OP. It was about finding out what that drone was doing. And rightly so. The more difficult you make that the more suspicious it looks.

 

[Cafguy]

Was the op read his Rights

Cops just introduce themselves, say why they're there, ask if you're willing to answer some questions, then engage.

If you are the Suspect they have to read them to you before they ask you question about that incident that may not be for a witness but if an officer is asking you questions that officer is detaining you and should let you Know that he is conducting an investigation against you before asking such questions

I don't see it as harassment at all. Not even close.

An FBI agent and an air force official sent out on a matter that could have been handled over the phone. I mean The FBI? and IF they called me They would certainly have to make it seem like a matter of national defense to get me into a Starbucks for questioning.
If the base is so secretive with these matters where are the restriction given to the pilot before he flew next to the area. I mean your not allowed to fly your drone near the Air force Bases in my area without permission from the Base commander Given Beforehand So the Base should have been aware? Seems like a huge waste of resources to investigate something that the air force official should have been aware of on the day the pilot filmed. If they are that picky about drones in the neighborhood.

 

[Harro]

So many conspiracies theorists.

 

[Droning on and on...]

Unfortunately, you are correct; this is how it usually goes down.

Gotta disagree. The situation the OP encountered usually goes down the way it did when the citizen handles it the way he did, in my life experience.

Most LEOs are just good, decent, nice people with a job. Treat them with respect as a person, respect for the hard job they have to do, and things will go smoothly. They always have for me, and while this is limited to moving violations.

The LEOs I'm talking about don't make the news. The few bad apples do. As a general rule, you will have a far more happy life cooperating with authorities than resisting them. Save that for when it really matters.

 

[Droning on and on...]

Was the op read his Rights

If you are the Suspect they have to read them to you before they ask you question

I agree.

The officials were not investigating a crime, nor was the OP a suspect in a crime.

Do you have evidence or facts that make you think so?

 

[Cafguy]

The officials were not investigating a crime, nor was the OP a suspect in a crime.

Do you have evidence or facts that make you think so?

Even more reason to wonder what the FBI was doing there don't you think? If no crime are they just curious about opening their own photography business and wanted some tips at Starbucks? and the last time Google street view checked it was perfectly legal to take a photo of an Air force base. As a Taxpayer I question the actions of the Air Force and the FBI and I have friends that work at the FBI. It seems like a lot of info to work to get about one person for simply flying a drone nearby a base that the op apparently did not need permission to fly next to in the first place.

 

[Droning on and on...]

An FBI agent and an air force official sent out on a matter that could have been handled over the phone.

Could you elaborate on how you know that? I dont have any insight into or information about the details from the govt side of this. I dont know what the body of information, circumstances, what was going on at the base at the time, etc. to judge what the appropriate response should be by the feds.

Would you mind sharing what you know that makes this visit unnecessary and therefore harassment?

In your opinion, are there, in theory, circumstances where a visit would be justified?

I mean The FBI? and IF they called me They would certainly have to make it seem like a matter of national defense to get me into a Starbucks for questioning.
If the base is so secretive with these matters where are the restriction given to the pilot before he flew next to the area. I mean your not allowed to fly your drone near the Air force Bases in my area without permission from the Base commander Given Beforehand So the Base should have been aware? Seems like a huge waste of resources to investigate something that the air force official should have been aware of on the day the pilot filmed. If they are that picky about drones in the neighborhood.

Why do you assume this is the response to any drone flown near the boundary of the base? What information do you have leading you to this conclusion? Would you share it with us?

For my part I think these sorts of visits are rare, and only occur when there is a good security reason that the feds did not share with the OP, and probably with good reason. The vast majority of similar incidences are ignored most of the time.

 

[mavic3usa]

Unfortunately, you are correct; this is how it usually goes down.

Gotta disagree. The situation the OP encountered usually goes down the way it did when the citizen handles it the way he did, in my life experience.

Wow, i can't even agree with you without you disagreeing.

I meant: Unfortunately, if you refuse or resist or you say no or you don't cooperate or you "exercise your rights" to an extreme, this:

Resisting instead and exercising your rights to an extreme will cause magnitudes more headache to probably end eventually with the same result.

You said it. I agree with you.

Which is why I try not to put myself in a position of having to "exercise" my rights.

 

[PAW]

Miranda requires both custody and interrogation. If you could reasonably describe a consensual meeting at Starbucks as being "in custody" and if questions were then asked, the Miranda warnings would need to be given for statements to be admissible in court (there are a couple of exceptions).

As for the voluntary giving of the photos to the agent... admissible. It is neither an in-custody statement nor a search.

 

[Droning on and on...]

Even more reason to wonder what the FBI was doing there don't you think?

Yes!

I also understand that things happen at military bases all the time that are sensitive, and that changes the security landscape dynamically.

This entire incident is consistent with something like that happening at the time the OP was flying, legally, so for security concerns they wanted to know who the pilot was, and what they were doing.

They found out, it wasn't any security concern, thank you for cooperating citizen, carry on.

Had he instead disappeared what happened next may have been quite different.

The important point is we have no idea what motivated this contact. Limited resources are part of what convince me there was a good reason we don't know, and will never have the clearance to know.

I'm certain, though, they do not send an FBI agent and AF Officer to visit every drone pilot that brushes the boundary of that, or any AF base.

 

[Droning on and on...]

Wow, i can't even agree with you without you disagreeing.

My bad, my knee just jerks in disagreement with you reflexively

Seriously, my bad, I just misread. 61 year old eyes. Posted my HonsVR insert prescription in another thread, you can see for yourself over there that it qualifies as beer glasses while sober

 

[mavic3usa]

Seems to me if you figure out the drone pilot was a Chinese nationalist on a visa then a visit would be warranted.

If you find out the drone pilot is an American citizen businessman, my thoughts are no visit should be necessary. I dunno.

But I get it, it's a drone and drones are bad juju. I once made a wrong turn while looking for the road up into the mountains in AK in a car full of weapons and I found myself unexpectantly looking at JBER. Ha, not a good idea so I turned around immediately and left quickly only later to keep thinking that one day these guys are going to seek me out for spoofing the gate or something. Years later, never happen but let's be honest....a decade later you can still be contacted.

They handed us a raw deal back on that awful day in 2001 and ever since then the American citizens are still paying for it. If consumer drones are an ongoing national security threat, the drone industry will go nowhere. For a hot minute, miniature cellphone cameras were the problem but that quickly got squashed. Hopefully we grow out of this.