Florida making stricter drone laws - proposed SB 1422

[mavictk]

The best place to view the changes are at this website because the additions are shown in green and deletions in red: SB 1422

Operating over critical infrastructure is now a felony:
A person who violates paragraph (a) commits a felony of
88 the third misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as
89 provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. A person who commits a
90 second or subsequent violation commits a misdemeanor of the
91 first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s.
92 775.083.

A person who has a reasonable expectation of privacy on
157 his or her privately owned real property may use reasonable
158 force to prohibit a drone from conducting surveillance in
159 violation of this paragraph, if such drone is operating under
160 500 feet over such property.

What does reasonable force mean. Assault and battery on the drone pilot?

 

[msinger]

What does reasonable force mean. Assault and battery on the drone pilot?

It likely refers to the amount of force a reasonable person would deem necessary under the circumstances to prevent an intrusion or threat, without causing excessive harm. In other words, it depends on the specific situation.

That said, in most cases, a drone could be stopped without needing to confront or physically harm the person operating it.

 

[Cafguy]

You can already be charged with a Felony for flying your Drone over some areas deemed critical infrastructure. Hoover dam is a good example.
In California we have some pretty restrictive Drone laws. If you see a Drone "lingering" over your property you can seek Law enforcement help and the pilot could be charged. So one must be careful about who's property you are flying over and how long you "linger" there.
What you CANNOT do is take matters into your own hands and become a vigilante! You cannot violate a Federal law to stop the Drone pilot, You can only contact the police.
It would seem to me that in this case "reasonable force" would be to simply step inside.
Whats next Florida. Can I run outside and assault someone who is walking by because I think their phone is pointed in my direction?

 

[Lets Fly]

You can already be charged with a Felony for flying your Drone over some areas deemed critical infrastructure. Hoover dam is a good example.
In California we have some pretty restrictive Drone laws. If you see a Drone "lingering" over your property you can seek Law enforcement help and the pilot could be charged. So one must be careful about who's property you are flying over and how long you "linger" there.
What you CANNOT do is take matters into your own hands and become a vigilante! You cannot violate a Federal law to stop the Drone pilot, You can only contact the police.
It would seem to me that in this case "reasonable force" would be to simply step inside.
Whats next Florida. Can I run outside and assault someone who is walking by because I think their phone is pointed in my direction?

Cell phones, exactly my thought.

 

[mavic3usa]

Whats next Florida. Can I run outside and assault someone who is walking by because I think their phone is pointed in my direction?

Cell phones, exactly my thought.

There's a difference and unfortunately we don't have leg to stand on. The drone community has enabled the government to "infringe" on our ability to freely fly our drones in an otherwise legal manner by placing restrictions not on flying the drone but on manipulating the controls.

Yes you can fly your drone.
No you cannot operate the remote controller.
No you cannot stand here when you fly the drone.
No you cannot take off or land the drone here.

This basically turns into a defacto ban on the flight particularly when you combine it with VLOS.

Imagine the following:

Yes you can take video and photos with your mobile phone camera.
No you cannot use your mobile phone here, or
No you cannot press the record button here, or
No you cannot hold your phone in your hand or on a tripod (or similar) here, or
No you cannot have a mobile phone visible to the public here, etc.

And if that doesn't work, the extremes are:
No you cannot operate a device in the wifi or cellular mode (to prevent live streaming)
No you cannot use airplane mode

So you can record videos and take photos, you just can't [do these things].....which has to be done in order to "record videos and take photos."

That's a stretch but that's the angle for opposing flying drones in the FAA NAS:
New laws have to do with personal property rights and privacy rights....not with drone flight, drone safety, or drone commerce:

No you cannot take pictures and record video
No you cannot take off and land or operate a drones....

Instead of:
No you cannot take off and land in an unsafe manner
No you cannot take pictures or record video contrary to existing laws

My opinion, by allowing state and local governments to infringe on the rights of drone pilots to "legally" fly, we have opened ourselves to the creativity and the flexibility that will certainly be taken advantage of. I realize the FAA has expressed concerns closely tied to drone regulations as it relates to commerce but that doesn't go far enough. I understand private property rights but on public property, unless you are breaking the law (not the newly created "drone" laws) then I can't see how this is sustainable. Take off and landing a drone is so closely tied to drone flight that I personally believe only rules and regulations related to safety should be allowed in this narrow area. The ability to control where a drone takes off and lands and to control what the operator does with respect to using the remote controller is more than half the battle we've lost already. If you don't believe me, wait and see. Please ask if you need more examples....

 

[tstr14]

IIRC, drone rights were already upheld in NY, when NYC tried to ban them outright, unless you applied for and received approval, which entailed a non-refundable application fee. I believe the ruling said that NYC could limit take off landing from city property, but not from privately owned. The airspace, on the other hand belonged to FAA, not NYC. I don't recall where public property fell however as far as T.Os./Landings.

OK, scratch that. It seems NYC still requires you have a city issued permit and only allows pilots to take-off and land in designated areas. Furthermore, if the drone is capable of capturing images, video and/or sound, you must also notify the community board for the community district(s) (whatever in the heck that is) for all communities the drone will be operating in. Of note, it doesn't say you have to get approval, just that you have to notify them, but I suspect some scrutiny will be involved.

Unless and until these laws and ordinances are challenged in court, other communities will follow suit. As we have seen, typically the wealthy are first to complain. Some compromise may be workable, but generally, people do not want to compromise, so it will have be done via law makers, courts and lawyers, which means the wealthy will have the advantage. Nor will commonsense prevail since so few seem to have that quality now days.

 

[mavic3usa]

IIRC, drone rights were already upheld in NY, when NYC tried to ban them outright, unless you applied for and received approval, which entailed a non-refundable application fee. I believe the ruling said that NYC could limit take off landing from city property, but not from privately owned. The airspace, on the other hand belonged to FAA, not NYC. I don't recall where public property fell however as far as T.Os./Landings.

I think the point that I was making is when you permit such tight control over take off and landing rights, it tends to infringe on flight itself because of multiple reasons like VLOS, battery life, etc. How effective would these laws be if a drone has unlimited battery life/range and you are permitted to fly BVLOS? All of a sudden, where the drone takes off from and lands becomes irrelevant.

Unlike the automobile where it is natural for the city to dictate where and when and how you can drive your car on public property with appropriate rules and limitations whether safety related or basically even on a whim....but it doesn't impact your ability to drive. Imagine if the city rules limit where you can start-up and stop your car engine or where you can brake and come to a stop which seems to be going a bit too far especially if it's not safety related. If the city wants to say you cannot take off and land on the park benches or directly on the promenade where there is foot traffic or at night where you cannot see the unlit pavement or within 50 feet of the arena stage.....those make sense for safety reasons. But the entire park is off limits? Why? Especially when it's legal to fly in the park's airspace. My point is without a good reason, it shouldn't be allowed to indirectly control the drone's flight by exercising control over the current limits based on takeoff/landing. Currently in many place, it isn't allowed until someone comes up with a law that says.....it's allowed. Nowhere is it illegal to take off or land a drone until a law comes out that says "You cannot take off and land a drone." Or there is an existing RC drone ordinance and it's changed to read RC+drone. Why do they do this? Without the law, if you fly your drone in the park and you shouldn't be there, you get trespassed. With the law, if you fly a drone in the park and you shouldn't be there, you get arrested.

Because we all know the opposite is true: If the airspace is restricted/off-limits/zero/no-fly then it is also not legal to take-off or land there on the ground, right? Yeah, that's how closely they are tied.

 

[mavictk]

BTW here is the bill as it is proposed. The word felony sure is used frequently.

 

[mavic3usa]

BTW here is the bill as it is proposed. The word felony sure is used frequently.

Thanks for posting. That's how it is done, add as many felony crimes that you can so it ensures two things: 1) ability to arrest and punish by taking away your freedom (not just fines only) and 2) maximum deterrent for non-violent crimes that only severely impact honest citizens who could lose their jobs, their families, their savings, and/or their reputation should they make a mistake. Once the word gets out that flying a drone is now regulated by all kinds of felonies from the state which the federal government "never bothered to enforce" then who's going to want to fly?

Take a look at this section; what on earth makes them believe they should enforce this since RID is so tightly tied to FAA regulatory commerce and not exactly to criminal conduct as the context suggests:
Section 2. Section 330.411, Florida Statutes, is amended to read:

Unbelieveable.