Flying drones over private property is illegal in California?

[06-Hammerhead]

Can someone clear this up for me? Apparently there was a law passed in CA in 2015 making it illegal to fly a drone over someone else's private property. I know there are privacy laws and I know the FAA took over in 2018 and things changed but I am confused. On other websites I have read that the FAA only controls 500 feet and above and therefore anything below that is private.

So my question is, in theory, if I am in an unrestricted zone in a big city, could I take off from my backyard, fly over a bunch of houses to another area without being in violation of California law? Assuming I don't hover in one spot like spying on someone?

 

[06-Hammerhead]

I call tell you with substantial confidence. There is no such law in California.

 

[PompousWindbag]

Last summer, I took some hyperlapse footage of traffic streaking around in my general vicinity after dark *with the Firehouse arc-v strobing atop my drone. I was flying just under 400'. As you know, the drone can move quite slowly in that mode, and my shoot took about 15 minutes to complete. In that time, it was long enough for someone to freak out and follow my drone back to my home point, which was in fact, my HOME, in a gated community, and filed a complaint with the sheriff, who showed up on my doorstep a few days later. Nothing came of it, as I was doing absolutely nothing wrong and there is nothing BUT private property around here. So, I wouldn't worry about it unless you're flying low and/or lingering over private yards and so forth.

 

[kjonyou]

Here is the actual law, it seems more about invasion of privacy, it was written in 2015:

Bill Text - AB-856 Invasion of privacy.

 

[Tim40]

Good example. But does that mean that if he only flies his small helicopter indoors then the FAA has no authority to regulate?

The FAA doesn't even try to regulate indoor airspace (wonder of wonders). They do however, regulate other non-navigable to full scale airspace, such as under a forest canopy - even on your own property. Lovin that FAA - oh yeah.

 

[PompousWindbag]

Here is the actual law, it seems more about invasion of privacy, it was written in 2015:

Bill Text - AB-856 Invasion of privacy.

(2) Fines collected pursuant to this subdivision shall be allocated, as follows:
(A) One-half shall be allocated to the prosecuting agency.
(B) One-half shall be deposited in the Arts and Entertainment Fund, which is hereby created in the State Treasury.

WTF?

 

[Chip]

(2) Fines collected pursuant to this subdivision shall be allocated, as follows:
(A) One-half shall be allocated to the prosecuting agency.
(B) One-half shall be deposited in the Arts and Entertainment Fund, which is hereby created in the State Treasury.

WTF?

I think the CA statute is a unique amalgamation of trespass/nuisance/invasion of privacy law which was specifically designed to deter and punish celebrity stalking paparazzi (and others) who go too far. So, in an egregious case, the photographer may be sued civilly by "victim" and by local prosecutor for additional fine that goes to government and A & E Fund which makes some sense given the original intent to protect Hollywood and other celebrities.

 

[Chip]

Technically the law only applies to actions that "occurs in a manner that is offensive to a reasonable person."

CA CC 1708.8 is pretty clear, and it doesn't involve regular flights. It's specific to actions that are offensive to reasonable people.

This is good point. The highly offensive to a reasonable person standard seems like high bar to meet. Flying drone high and quickly over property on way somewhere else with no targeted surveillance or recording of person for exploitive purpose, would not appear to be the problem described by Jen Garner which the law was apparently designed to address.

 

[kjonyou]

That's rich, Halle Berry not a "whiny celerity, just a mom" Um ok, well "mom" didnt you get busted for a hit and run many years ago on Sunset? What was your excuse? Oh yeah, you didn't want to stop because the publicity might ruin your career?

So it's ok to drive reclessly, but not fly a drone responsibly over your property, got it.

 

[Chip]

That's rich, Halle Berry not a "whiny celerity, just a mom" Um ok, well "mom" didnt you get busted for a hit and run many years ago on Sunset? What was your excuse? Oh yeah, you didn't want to stop because the publicity might ruin your career?

So it's ok to drive reclessly, but not fly a drone responsibly over your property, got it.

One thing to clarify. Jen and Halle were not speaking out against drones. They were speaking out against celebrity stalking paparazzi. There were actually two statutes passed, CA Civil Code Sections
1708.7 and 1708.8.

Section 1708.7 is premised on California’s anti-stalking law, and requires that victims provide evidence that they were followed, harassed, or placed under near constant surveillance, to the extent that they feared for their personal safety, the safety of their families, and suffered from emotional distress as a result. It also requires that the defendant has made a “credible threat” to the victim. The definition of “credible threat” includes such actions as following, monitoring, and surveilling the victim via verbal, written, or electronic communication.

Section 1708.8 (which is the one we had been discussing here) does not specifically mention the use of a drone, but it can be inferred because the law states:

a person is liable for constructive invasion of privacy when the defendant attempts to capture, in a manner that is offensive to a reasonable person, any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression of the plaintiff engaging in a private, personal, or familial activity under circumstances in which the plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy, through the use of
any device, regardless of whether there is a physical trespass, if this image, sound recording, or other physical impression could not have been achieved without a trespass unless the device was used.

When I jumped into this thread I mentioned that 1708.8 carries some harsh civil penalties including punitive damages for the most serious violations. While this is true, in looking at the big picture, violation of 1708.8 may be very hard to prove in the scenario described by OP in this thread, ie high flyover with no targeted surveillance or image capture. That is just not the scenario the law was intended to cover.

Reference:

• Restrictions Against Press and Paparazzi in California: Analysis of Sections 1708.8 and 1708.7 of the California Civil Code

 

[toadmeister2k]

Pro-tip: Have a legally-parked pickup to launch and recover out of the bed.

 

[sar104]

Pro-tip: Have a legally-parked pickup to launch and recover out of the bed.

Advanced pro tip: make sure that the pickup bed is not magnetized. If it is then you will likely end up with IMU/compass mismatch errors after takeoff.

 

[toadmeister2k]

Super-advanced pro tip: Aluminum-Body F150.
Or manually "call the ball" back into a soft bed.

 

[kjonyou]

Well, I reached out and got this reply already:

"Hi Vic,

Thank you for reaching out to our City Manager regarding drone regulations. Staff will look into the inquiry and follow-up with you.

Regards,

Danny Rivas
Acting Director of Public Works
City of West Hollywood
Phone: (323) XXX-XXXX"

I'll let you know what I hear. If you'd like, PM me your email address and I'll BCC you in the email exchange.

You should bug them again. Since they responded to you with a generic letter, you have proof they recived it. You have a right to have a question answered. They are supposed to be working for the people, that's who pays them. And they are a very small city, 2 mile stretch of land basically.

 

[Vic Moss]

You should bug them again. Since they responded to you with a generic letter, you have proof they recived it. You have a right to have a question answered. They are supposed to be working for the people, that's who pays them. And they are a very small city, 2 mile stretch of land basically.

I bugged them Sunday. Fingers crossed for a reply.