Flying any kind of drone or remote-control aircraft is prohibited in all city parks! - Griffith Observatory

[NightFlightAlright]

Reference, please.

??? Are you not an American?

Here's the canonical reference:

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-5/

 

[MS Coast]

??? Are you not an American?

Here's the canonical reference:

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-5/

I'm impressed that you can infer something about a person's nationality from a two-word sentence.



(For interested parties, here's a link to a copy of the Constitution without that annotations. Give a shout if you run across anything that addresses protection from conversations with law officers. Or videography.

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/)

 

[NightFlightAlright]

I'm impressed that you can infer something about a person's nationality from a two-word sentence.

I didn't infer anything, it was rhetorical

(For interested parties, here's a link to a copy of the Constitution without that annotations. Give a shout if you run across anything that addresses protection from conversations with law officers. Or videography.

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/)

The important and salient point is, the annotations are needed in order to have court interpretations which is what gives actual (functional and practical) meaning to the sparse framework of the constitution.

 

[MS Coast]

I didn't infer anything, it was rhetorical



The important and salient point is, the annotations are needed in order to have court interpretations which is what gives actual (functional and practical) meaning to the sparse framework of the constitution.

Give a shout if you run across anything that addresses protection from conversations with law officers.

 

[dronerdave]

They do have amateur astronomers bringing by a large portable telescopes on some nights, but still not particularly relevant there’s no way a itsy-bitsy little drone is going to somehow interfere with any of that.

Then you don't know anything about astrophotography. A drone passing a telescopes field of view will ruin a long term image. The real problems are more with full sized aircraft and satellites but compounding the problems with drones does not help the drone community at all. At least with most of the typical satellites, once out of the sun has set long enough to keep the satellites out of the light, they usually can't usually be seen passing. Not so with drones all lit up zipping around buggin all the astronomers trying to image.

 

[NightFlightAlright]

Give a shout if you run across anything that addresses protection from conversations with law officers.

I Already gave you the link, all you need to do is read it. If you're having difficulty understanding what was written, ask a specific question and I will answer.

 

[NightFlightAlright]

Then you don't know anything about astrophotography. A drone passing a telescopes field of view will ruin a long term image. The real problems are more with full sized aircraft .....

Then you don't understand what I was saying above. A drone passing a telescope's field of view is insignificant compared to the light pollution from the immediately adjacent city of Los Angeles which makes any kind of "actual" astronomy impossible from Griffith Park, which is partly why Griffith Park is a museum and not a functioning observatory.

 

[MS Coast]

I Already gave you the link, all you need to do is read it. If you're having difficulty understanding what was written, ask a specific question and I will answer.

I've read the Fifth Amendment a number of times during the past six decades. And a bit about the Supreme Court's interpretations and the resulting case law. But thank you for the offer.

I'm unable to find anything in the 5th that addresses conversations with a police officer.

Ref: Post #22. "Constitutionally, you never need to speak to the police."

 

[NightFlightAlright]

I've read the Fifth Amendment a number of times during the past six decades. And a bit about the Supreme Court's interpretations and the resulting case law. But thank you for the offer.

I'm unable to find anything in the 5th that addresses conversations with a police officer.

Ref: Post #22. "Constitutionally, you never need to speak to the police."

Then there must be a reading comprehension problem. There is a reason I gave you the annotated constitution. It is the law of the land.

You can read the links that I gave you, which very plainly say you are not required to speak to the police. The singular sole exception, also discussed in the annotated constitution, is for states that have a stop and ID law, you may be required to only verbally state your name pursuant to an investigation. California is not one of those States.

 

[MS Coast]

There's no need to be rude, or to question my literacy. I'm continuing this conversation because I've grown weary of people giving legal advice in public venues with statements that the topic is addressed in the Constitution.

I'll take you up on your offer to provide clarifying information. Please cite the specific section of the reference you provided that is germane to conversations a drone pilot might have when approached by a police officer. I've missed it despite your assurance: "very plainly say you are not required to speak to the police.\."

Might you be extrapolating from Amdt5.4.7.4 Custodial Interrogation Standard? If so, note that it's not relevant to the circumstances in post #22, because the pilot has not been taken into custody.

 

[NightFlightAlright]

There's no need to be rude, or to question my literacy.

Your tone with me has been accusatory and abrasive, in other words rude. You reap what you sow.

I'm continuing this conversation because I've grown weary of people giving legal advice in public venues with statements that the topic is addressed in the Constitution.

I have grown weary of people that don't read the references that I give them in answer to their questions which I'm nevertheless happy to answer as a former columnist on the subject of constitutional law.

I'll take you up on your offer to provide clarifying information. Please cite the specific section of the reference you provided that is germane to conversations a drone pilot might have when approached by a police officer. I've missed it despite your assurance: "very plainly say you are not required to speak to the police.\."

From the link I previously provided it states:

....The Court in recent years has also applied the privilege to situations, such as police interrogation of suspects, in which there is no legal compulsion to speak.....​

Police interrogation literally means anytime the police are talking to you.

More links for your reading pleasure:

• Know Your Rights | What To Do When Encountering Questions from Law Enforcement | American Civil Liberties Union
• Your Rights
• https://www.ohiobar.org/globalassets/law-facts/pamphlet-pdfs/lf_police_stop_pdf.pdf
• Top 10 Rights Police Don’t Want You to Know — #LadyJustice Speaks
• Atlanta Miranda Rights Attorney | Ross & Pines, LLC
• https://www.nlg.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/kyrpamphlet-Eng-May-2015-FINAL.pdf
• https://www.hennepinpublicdefender....fender/you-have-rights/you-have-rights_V4.pdf
• The Right to Silence for Criminal Suspects

You might also be interested to know about a very interesting website that is called "Google", and if you type in certain "search terms" such as "Constitutional right not to speak to cops" this so-called Google website will provide you with links to a wealth of relevant information.

If you feel that I'm being sarcastically patronizing, it's only because of how you came at me, and regarding a topic that is the most fundamental, academic, basic-tidbit of civic-knowledge, that it's taught at the high school and the junior high school level.

Might you be extrapolating from Amdt5.4.7.4 Custodial Interrogation Standard? If so, note that it's not relevant to the circumstances in post #22, because the pilot has not been taken into custody.

No, I don't mean that at all.

Custodial interrogation refers to the requirement for law enforcement officers to inform someone of their Miranda rights. And custodial can mean anything such as being stopped by two officers with guns on their belt, where a reasonable person would believe they are not allowed to leave, that's all that's required for "custodial".

Also not the relevant doctrine, the relevant doctrine there is the requirement for law-enforcement to inform someone of their rights.

Those rights exist with or without the custodial setting, moreover those rights exist with or without a cop explaining them to you.

It is completely unreasonable to make any claims that you have less rights walking freely than when you are in a custodial setting, and if you have at least the same rights then therefore you have the right to remain silent which means very literally you have the right to not speak to the police, with the very narrow exceptions that I've already mentioned.

If you're not free to leave then you are in a custodial setting.
If you are free to leave then you're obviously also free not to say anything.

---
Today's little civics lesson was brought to you by "I read Goldstein's book and it was double-plus good"

 

[MS Coast]

Your tone with me has been accusatory and abrasive, in other words rude. You reap what you sow.

Your tone with me has been accusatory and abrasive, in other words rude. You reap what you sow.



I have grown weary of people that don't read the references that I give them in answer to their questions which I'm nevertheless happy to answer as a former columnist on the subject of constitutional law.




From the link I previously provided it states:

....The Court in recent years has also applied the privilege to situations, such as police interrogation of suspects, in which there is no legal compulsion to speak.....​

Police interrogation literally means anytime the police are talking to you.

More links for your reading pleasure:

• Know Your Rights | What To Do When Encountering Questions from Law Enforcement | American Civil Liberties Union
• Your Rights
• https://www.ohiobar.org/globalassets/law-facts/pamphlet-pdfs/lf_police_stop_pdf.pdf
• Top 10 Rights Police Don’t Want You to Know — #LadyJustice Speaks
• Atlanta Miranda Rights Attorney | Ross & Pines, LLC
• https://www.nlg.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/kyrpamphlet-Eng-May-2015-FINAL.pdf
• https://www.hennepinpublicdefender....fender/you-have-rights/you-have-rights_V4.pdf
• The Right to Silence for Criminal Suspects

You might also be interested to know about a very interesting website that is called "Google", and if you type in certain "search terms" such as "Constitutional right not to speak to cops" this so-called Google website will provide you with links to a wealth of relevant information.

If you feel that I'm being sarcastically patronizing, it's only because of how you came at me, and regarding a topic that is the most fundamental, academic, basic-tidbit of civic-knowledge, that it's taught at the high school and the junior high school level.



No, I don't mean that at all.

Custodial interrogation refers to the requirement for law enforcement officers to inform someone of their Miranda rights. And custodial can mean anything such as being stopped by two officers with guns on their belt, where a reasonable person would believe they are not allowed to leave, that's all that's required for "custodial".

Also not the relevant doctrine, the relevant doctrine there is the requirement for law-enforcement to inform someone of their rights.

Those rights exist with or without the custodial setting, moreover those rights exist with or without a cop explaining them to you.

It is completely unreasonable to make any claims that you have less rights walking freely than when you are in a custodial setting, and if you have at least the same rights then therefore you have the right to remain silent which means very literally you have the right to not speak to the police, with the very narrow exceptions that I've already mentioned.

If you're not free to leave then you are in a custodial setting.
If you are free to leave then you're obviously also free not to say anything.

---
Today's little civics lesson was brought to you by "I read Goldstein's book and it was double-plus good"

Your tone with me has been accusatory and abrasive, in other words rude.

Yes, I see now that "Reference, please." (post #40) might be taken by some as accusatory, abrasive, and rude.

The Google website you mentioned sounds quite interesting. I'll check it out. Thank you for the suggestion.

---
Regarding the civics lesson sponsor:
But it was alright, everything was alright, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself.”

 

[dronerdave]

Then you don't understand what I was saying above. A drone passing a telescope's field of view is insignificant compared to the light pollution from the immediately adjacent city of Los Angeles which makes any kind of "actual" astronomy impossible from Griffith Park, which is partly why Griffith Park is a museum and not a functioning observatory.

If anybody is setting up a scope in light polluted skies, there is a better chance of them using a larger portable scope or an imaging set up. There are many who only image from light polluted skies. Maybe it's hard for you to understand but when you image, the scope is open to the sky for several minutes. Flying anything through that field of view will usually ruin the image. I will admit I know nothing about what folks setting up their equipment at that particular site are operating, but more than likely if there are people with telescopes there, someones probably imaging. So I'll say it again, if your are disrupting someone using the facility for astronomical purposes, you should find out first before you fly there or select a proper flight path that doesn't interfere. It's as simple as that.

 

[Skyryder]

Are you guys kidding? Have you ever been to Griffith? There are tones of planes, helicopters, buzzing that hill every day. More people go up there to see the city lights than actually look at the stars. Not to mention the people pointing lasers up in the sky to show where some planet is or where to look. A drone is the least of their light problems.

 

[NightFlightAlright]

Are you guys kidding? Have you ever been to Griffith? There are tones of planes, helicopters, buzzing that hill every day. More people go up there to see the city lights than actually look at the stars. Not to mention the people pointing lasers up in the sky to show where some planet is or where to look. A drone is the least of their light problems.

Thank you, this right here is the point I was trying to make...

 

[JeremyMls]

If anybody is setting up a scope in light polluted skies, there is a better chance of them using a larger portable scope or an imaging set up. There are many who only image from light polluted skies. Maybe it's hard for you to understand but when you image, the scope is open to the sky for several minutes. Flying anything through that field of view will usually ruin the image. I will admit I know nothing about what folks setting up their equipment at that particular site are operating, but more than likely if there are people with telescopes there, someones probably imaging. So I'll say it again, if your are disrupting someone using the facility for astronomical purposes, you should find out first before you fly there or select a proper flight path that doesn't interfere. It's as simple as that.

I agree with you. Before a flight, I will double-check so that this does not cause discomfort for someone, but, as practice shows, the majority only consider their interests. The idea that you are bothering someone - is very difficult for most people

 

[pftarch]

They do have amateur astronomers bringing by a large portable telescopes on some nights, but still not particularly relevant there’s no way a itsy-bitsy little drone is going to somehow interfere with any of that.

My other mid life crisis (besides drones) is astronomy.

An amateur astronomer that's seriously into photography will do exposures that could last for hours on a tracking mount. Fly ANYTHING, big or small with ANY light on it through their field of view and you will create a giant streak right through the middle of the photo. The astronomer will then be sad, then angry, then start complaining to local officials about the horrors of drone flights.

As a courtesy, I would avoid flying around the observatory on clear evenings/nights whether it is legal or not.

Peter T