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

[mavic3usa]

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.

Unfortunately the presumption will be if your drone is equipped with a camera, you will have the ability to take pictures and videos. There's no way to fly the drone without looking thru the camera and it isn't a stretch for a tyrannical government to including simply looking thru the camera at an object isn't much different than taking a photo or a video of it. After all, peeping toms only need to "see" their object (of desire) they don't have to snap a photo or record a video. You would be hearing this from the other side of the defendant's table as the government is talking about the "intent" of the law.

 

[mavic3usa]

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!!

Not yet disagreeing with you but please post the law or better reference to it; I'd like to read it myself.

What is "private activities?"

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.

Are you having a bad day?

The state government can violate your 4th amendment by requiring you to show them the pictures you take with your drone?

You know, just as me and everybody else, if the state and local government starts to over-regulate any of the typical drone activities (normally disguised as infringing) then we have a problem.

 

[Droning on and on...]

The state government can violate your 4th amendment by requiring you to show them the pictures you take with your drone?

Of course not.

However, if they have reasonable suspicion you have recorded images where it's prohibited to record them, then they can execute a reasonable search and siezure in compliance with the 4th Amendment.

Twice before you've hovered over your neighbor's pool taking pictures of their model-gorgeous 16 year old daughter, and posted them to your website, "teen babes of 90210".

Your prior violations would, under the law, constitute a reasonable predicate for siezing your drone and searching the captured images.

Sadly, my fictitious example isn't extraordinary.

 

[Droning on and on...]

Unfortunately the presumption will be if your drone is equipped with a camera, you will have the ability to take pictures and videos.

The ability to take pictures and videos has not been outlawed, so this can not serve as a reasonable basis for a search.

It is sufficient to question you and ask you what you're doing.

 

[qwerty53]

Ok thanks guys. Let me summarize and sharpen my question.
1. I need answers from the "field". FL RECREATIONAL pilots.
2. The answer is to the question "can I recreationaly orbit my house few times when I KNOW that it's inevitable I am going to capture parts of neighbors's fenced backyards which would violate the record part of the statue (I have some trees around my property too).
3. Iam not looking to beat the state in supreme (it is supreme but it just sucks) court. All I am looking for is to avoid the 'ride' and fines. Thus #1.

Thanks

 

[mavic3usa]

Of course not.

However, if they have reasonable suspicion you have recorded images where it's prohibited to record them, then they can execute a reasonable search and siezure in compliance with the 4th Amendment.

You need probable cause, not reasonable suspicion, the seize my recordings without my consent. You will need to get a search warrant which requires PC. That means for sure you know I have almost likely have committed a crime. No judge would issue a search warrant just for you to check my microSD to see if there there is any footage on my drone camera that would be considered "illicit."

Twice before you've hovered over your neighbor's pool taking pictures of their model-gorgeous 16 year old daughter, and posted them to your website, "teen babes of 90210".

Oh great, you had to point to a website that makes it appear I'm doing something wrong. Why didn't you say it was posted on NBCnews.com about a couple of teen suspected bank robbers hiding out by the pool? Does that change anything? It changes nothing. The law says there has to be a reasonable expectation of privacy, right? Do you believe she has a reasonable expectation of privacy while laying out next to the outdoor pool in full view of a drone that could fly overhead which he is partially clothed? Is this one of those "private activities" covered by the law? LOL

You mentioned hovering. Please help me understand how hover has anything to do with this law?

Your prior violations would, under the law, constitute a reasonable predicate for siezing your drone and searching the captured images.

My prior violations? Are you suggesting that I've been caught and convicted several times before and I'm still up to no good? Wow, way to set that up. Ok then, if this is my first time, does that make a difference meaning you can't seize the drone and search for images? Look, I don't care how many times, you have a 4th amendment right unless you have lost them; there is no "prior violations" ridiculousness. No offense but that's why I mentioned having a bad day, anytime I see the word "predicate"....he's flying a drone therefore [fill in your prediction here].

I suggest you give the 4th amendment a good read and then study what it means when it comes to government intrusion. I'm a big fan of the 4th, it's like in my top 10 when it comes to amendments.

 

[Vic Moss]

Ok thanks guys. Let me summarize and sharpen my question.
1. I need answers from the "field". FL RECREATIONAL pilots.
2. The answer is to the question "can I recreationaly orbit my house few times when I KNOW that it's inevitable I am going to capture parts of neighbors's fenced backyards which would violate the record part of the statue (I have some trees around my property too).
3. Iam not looking to beat the state in supreme (it is supreme but it just sucks) court. All I am looking for is to avoid the 'ride' and fines. Thus #1.

Thanks

SImple answer, yes you can. 100% legal according to the FAA.

Complicated answer, your neighbor can complain and file a civil suit. But that's very unlikely. And they wouldn't win. But it would still be a PITA for all involved. I wouldn't worry about it.

 

[mavic3usa]

The ability to take pictures and videos has not been outlawed, so this can not serve as a reasonable basis for a search.

It is sufficient to question you and ask you what you're doing.

Agreed, just pointing out to our fellow drone pilots not to let the authorities force this upon you.

 

[EricJT]

SImple answer, yes you can. 100% legal according to the FAA.

Complicated answer, your neighbor can complain and file a civil suit. But that's very unlikely. And they wouldn't win. But it would still be a PITA for all involved. I wouldn't worry about it.

I am unfamiliar with the US recreational pilot drone rules, but I do know that in Canada my recreational pilot's license does not allow me to fly over people and buildings....in the case of buildings I have to be at least 30 meters away from them.

Easy for me as I only fly in the countryside or cottage country away from buildings.

 

[mavic3usa]

I am unfamiliar with the US recreational pilot drone rules, but I do know that in Canada my recreational pilot's license does not allow me to fly over people and buildings....in the case of buildings I have to be at least 30 meters away from them.

Easy for me as I only fly in the countryside or cottage country away from buildings.

Apparently even the CAA authorities in the UK don't know the rules; I believe it is quite common elsewhere as well:

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

 

[DARKSeifer]

A new regulation was approved in Spain last month, and now you can't basically fly over private property (small houses, gardens, buildings, etc) without the owner's permit.

Get used to stupid overregulation like this, DJI ban in the US or the drones being banned altogether.

The drone panorama is getting worse and worse, and the only thing you can do about it is to keep flying and not comply. Pick a M3, hack it to not emit RID and enjoy the hobby, or just build your own.

 

[djwak59]

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.

lol, back to my point exactly.

 

[tstr14]

Twice before you've hovered over your neighbor's pool taking pictures of their model-gorgeous 16 year old daughter, and posted them to your website, "teen babes of 90210".

Do you happen to have a location? Asking for a friend.....

 

[MS Coast]

Ok thanks guys. Let me summarize and sharpen my question.
1. I need answers from the "field". FL RECREATIONAL pilots.
2. The answer is to the question "can I recreationaly orbit my house few times when I KNOW that it's inevitable I am going to capture parts of neighbors's fenced backyards which would violate the record part of the statue (I have some trees around my property too).
3. Iam not looking to beat the state in supreme (it is supreme but it just sucks) court. All I am looking for is to avoid the 'ride' and fines. Thus #1.

Thanks

See post #12.

And if you're worried that your neighbor might be upset by your drone, just walk next door and talk to them.

 

[MS Coast]

Do you happen to have a location? Asking for a friend.....

So, here in a public forum, you're hinting at an interest in using a drone to observe a 16-year old girl wearing a bathing suit in her own back yard?

In my neighborhood, such a thing would be considered downright creepy for an adult male to be doing.

 

[qwerty53]

See post #12.

And if you're worried that your neighbor might be upset by your drone, just walk next door and talk to them.

We hate each other

 

[Ticoviejo]

I’m so happy to hear the state is protecting me from nosy pilots. I walk to my OOL in my birth suit with on a towel on my shoulders, my phone, my P365, and a beer(or drink).
Let’s fly without bothering people, and high enough that they might not see or hear the bird.

 

[tstr14]

So, here in a public forum, you're hinting at an interest in using a drone to observe a 16-year old girl wearing a bathing suit in her own back yard?

In my neighborhood, such a thing would be considered downright creepy for an adult male to be doing.

Your neighborhood? I thought the age of consent in Mississippi was something like 12. By those standards, 16 would be an old maid.

 

[MS Coast]

Your neighborhood? I thought the age of consent in Mississippi was something like 12. By those standards, 16 would be an old maid.

You're on a downhill slide. You've gone from hinting at ogling little girls to slandering an entire state based on ignorance of state law in Mississippi and your home state of Michigan. The legal age for sexual consent is the same in both. You might want to hit the rewind button on your prejudicial view of Mississippi.

Also, your definition of an old maid is seriously flawed.

 

[tstr14]

You're on a downhill slide. You've gone from hinting at ogling little girls to slandering an entire state based on ignorance of state law in Mississippi and your home state of Michigan. The legal age for sexual consent is the same in both. You might want to hit the rewind button on your prejudicial view of Mississippi.

Also, your definition of an old maid is seriously flawed.

Sorry if the humor has escaped you. I'm done, go ahead and have the last word.