Florida.... Cannot fly over people's houses? According to https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2015/0766

[qwerty53]

Drone Laws in Florida (2024) - UAV Coach

A list of drone regulations and links for people flying drones in Florida.

uavcoach.com

"This law prohibits the use of a drone to capture an image of privately owned property or the owner, tenant, or occupant of such property without consent if a reasonable expectation of privacy exists."

He??????

What if I need to orbit a property? What if I fly nearby and by mistake capture someone's private property?

FL pilots please help

 

[mavic3usa]

Another bogus drone law that is unneeded and mostly outdated.

 

[qwerty53]

Another bogus drone law that is unneeded and mostly outdated.

Yeh... then they wonder why people violate them.

 

[qwerty53]

I read the law. So basically if you are not 107 you cannot fly over private property in FL?

 

[mavic3usa]

I read the law. So basically if you are not 107 you cannot fly over private property in FL?

Sounds like it said you cannot do so without consent. However, the important piece that I read is only need to gain consent if there is an "expectation of privacy" exists. As far as I know, 99% of where anyone would want to fly a drone over private property, anyone standing on that private property has no expectation of privacy. In other words, you have the expectation of privacy if you feel you can undress completely and stand there naked and have some privacy against anyone looking. Seems to me your bedroom, bathroom, etc with windows/shades closed is about all I can think of that fits, roughly. However, it's Florida so I'm sure someone will claim there is an "expectation of privacy" from drone looking down on top of your while you are in your swimsuit in the lawn chair next to your pool in your own backyard surrounded by high fences. And I'm pretty sure FL LEO will handle the complaint appropriately...depending on who you are, of course.

 

[Chip]

Another bogus drone law that is unneeded and mostly outdated.

Do you believe you can fly your drone 1 inch off the ground in your neighbor's fenced backyard and take pictures as long as you fly or hover but do not land or take off?

 

[tstr14]

Do you believe you can fly your drone 1 inch off the ground in your neighbor's fenced backyard and take pictures as long as you fly or hover but do not land or take off?

From what I've read, the FAA regulates the use of airspace and states cannot supersede federal law, unless they can make a case for safety or qualified personal use of the air space by the property owner. Hasn't this already been established in court? Since property is "owned", the legal owner can regulate or even forbid take off or landing on said property but anything in the airspace above the property is the domain of FAA regulations.

There are regulations as to actions pilots can and cannot take when flying such as certain illegal activities, but outside those acts, I do not believe any state, can legally create laws in conflict with federal law. However it will be quite expensive to prove the state law invalid via the court system.

Regarding your question, flying one inch off the ground could be challenged as hazardous to pets, humans and property. Taking pictures depends on the subject of the picture. If it is of the house in general, the law says it's permissible. If it's of the occupants of the house in a situation where they should be able to expect privacy, then no, you are violating the law. Be advised that much of what you are asking is going on already by insurance companies examining client properties for potential conditions that could result in claims, such as undeclared trampolines or swimming pools. Townships and cities are doing the same to look for building violations. Whether such actions have been successfully challenged in court, I can't say for certain but I'm not aware of any rulings outlawing such flights.

 

[qwerty53]

From what I've read, the FAA regulates the use of airspace and states cannot supersede federal law, unless they can make a case for safety or qualified personal use of the air space by the property owner. Hasn't this already been established in court? Since property is "owned", the legal owner can regulate or even forbid take off or landing on said property but anything in the airspace above the property is the domain of FAA regulations.

There are regulations as to actions pilots can and cannot take when flying such as certain illegal activities, but outside those acts, I do not believe any state, can legally create laws in conflict with federal law. However it will be quite expensive to prove the state law invalid via the court system.

Regarding your question, flying one inch off the ground could be challenged as hazardous to pets, humans and property. Taking pictures depends on the subject of the picture. If it is of the house in general, the law says it's permissible. If it's of the occupants of the house in a situation where they should be able to expect privacy, then no, you are violating the law. Be advised that much of what you are asking is going on already by insurance companies examining client properties for potential conditions that could result in claims, such as undeclared trampolines or swimming pools. Townships and cities are doing the same to look for building violations. Whether such actions have been successfully challenged in court, I can't say for certain but I'm not aware of any rulings outlawing such flights.

You are right about FAA. But the local cops are not sworn to protect the constitution and the rule of law. They are sworn to protect their career and the local bosses.
Thus, if police are called I doubt that cops will listen to US congress. They will listen to local clueless "law" makers.
So I'll ask again. Can I orbit my house as recreational pilot for fun without dealing with local pests?

 

[Yorkshire_Pud]

Thus, if police are called I doubt that cops will listen to US congress. They will listen to local clueless "law" makers.

So I'll ask again. Can I orbit my house as recreational pilot for fun without dealing with local pests?

Doesn't the former answer the latter ?

 

[orionshooter]

Doesn't the former answer the latter ?

You are right about FAA. But the local cops are not sworn to protect the constitution and the rule of law. They are sworn to protect their career and the local bosses.
Thus, if police are called I doubt that cops will listen to US congress. They will listen to local clueless "law" makers.
So I'll ask again. Can I orbit my house as recreational pilot for fun without dealing with local pests?

I see two separate issues here. Legal entitlement vs. exercising the right.

A reasonable interpretation of applicable U.S. law strongly suggests this is not prohibited. However, that doesn’t mean you won’t be prevented from doing so by authorities exceeding their lawful authority.

A favorite refrain of policemen when confronted with a legal argument from an arrestee: “You may beat the rap but you won’t beat the ride.”

 

[djwak59]

It doesn’t surprise me at all that this is from a state like Florida. You figure it out. And, thanks to the un-supreme court now, they’ll over rule anything going forward. FAA rules be damned. Enjoy your flights while you can. Just my opinion.

 

[Vic Moss]

The key to this whole thing is found in the first paragraph of the statute. After defining who the statute covers, is then caveats the whole basis of the statute by including "if a reasonable expectation of privacy exists".

There are numerous SCOTUS and other Federal District cases (Ciraolo v. CA, Riley v. FL, etc.) that have shown that anything visible from a public thoroughfare does not enjoy the benefits of "reasonable expectation of privacy". This is no different than standing on the street in front of someone's home and taking photos of it. All perfectly legal. If someone happens to be unclothed in their front yard, or even standing in front of a plate glass front window in the same state of undress, they have no "reasonable expectation of privacy".

There have been millions of drone flights in Florida since 2015, when this idiocy was put on the books. To my knowledge, there has only been one instance of it being used in a citation. And that was thrown out.

Go ahead and fly in Florida without any concerns.

 

[Vic Moss]

Do you believe you can fly your drone 1 inch off the ground in your neighbor's fenced backyard and take pictures as long as you fly or hover but do not land or take off?

Technically, yes. That is legal, even if you hover. Is it a friendly way to fly? No. Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should.

 

[tstr14]

You are right about FAA. But the local cops are not sworn to protect the constitution and the rule of law. They are sworn to protect their career and the local bosses.
Thus, if police are called I doubt that cops will listen to US congress. They will listen to local clueless "law" makers.
So I'll ask again. Can I orbit my house as recreational pilot for fun without dealing with local pests?

You changed your question. Initially you asked if you could orbit a property. Now you are asking if you orbit your own house, which I believe the local law says yes since you are the owner and have given your consent. BUT... I don't see where you have stated what class of airspace you live in. If you are in restricted airspace, then this whole conversation is moot.

 

[HoozierDroneDaddy]

The other variable is the details of the flight. If you are up in altitude and orbiting for your job, you are not intentionally focusing in on one property or the parties on that property. However, if you close the gap and are hovering over/near the property and intentionally watching the parties on that property, then you could possibly be charged with stalking/voyeurism under a local ordinance. As with many violations, the intent and actions involved determine the response by authorities.

 

[orionshooter]

It doesn’t surprise me at all that this is from a state like Florida. You figure it out. And, thanks to the un-supreme court now, they’ll over rule anything going forward. FAA rules be damned. Enjoy your flights while you can. Just my opinion.

The fact that this is Florida provides a silver lining. Florida has a long tradition of conservativism and pro police rulings. I would advise anyone charged with a crime with the element of “reasonable expectation of privacy” to research how that term has been defined in criminal cases when defendants have unsuccessfully attempted to use it against law enforcement. I’d bet you my drone fleet there exists a veritable treasure trove of cases defining this term very “conservatively.”

Goose and gander come to mind.

 

[Cafguy]

In Los Angeles They enforce this: 858 prohibits the use of drones to capture images or recordings of individuals engaging in private activities without their consent. This law also restricts the dissemination or use of such images or recordings for certain purposes without authorization. To bust this you must "linger for an unreasonable amount of time" have at it lawers lol
Thanks TMZ!!

 

[Capt KO]

Fun is allowed in Florida but only if it brings in dollars for the state. Everything else is considered woke in DeSantis land. Nearly every drone flight and picture taken could be considered against the law if enforced. Now I fly over water whenever possible, but be extra careful not to harass the wildlife.. apparently they must not like their pictures taken either.
Sadly, I hardly recognize the state I've lived in for 70yrs. Can't blame my kids from leaving to raise their families elsewhere.

 

[Droning on and on...]

I read the law. So basically if you are not 107 you cannot fly over private property in FL?

I read it too. How did you get that idea?

It says nothing about where you can fly. It prohibits capturing imagery of private property or people on private property without their permission.

In my understanding of jurisdiction the state has ability to make such a prohibition. Taking pictures and video of things falls outside the FAA's jurisdiction.

So you can fly over private property, just don't record your video without permission.

 

[Droning on and on...]

In Los Angeles They enforce this: 858 prohibits the use of drones to capture images or recordings of individuals engaging in private activities without their consent. This law also restricts the dissemination or use of such images or recordings for certain purposes without authorization. To bust this you must "linger for an unreasonable amount of time" have at it lawers lol
Thanks TMZ!!

And this law is 100% constitutional, and outside the FAA's jurisdiction.

The FAA has sole jurisdiction over airspace. They do NOT have sole jurisdiction over what you can DO with a drone.

Every bit of legal authority a state or local entity has over what you can do with your Canon EOS they have over what you do with that camera mounted on your flying machine.