Flying drones over private property is illegal in California?

[Vic Moss]

Is it a bit odd that the DPW guy responded?

The original email was sent via their website contact form. He may be the guy that answers those.

 

[VegasDronePilot]

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?

Hi, I just read that civil code and here's my take on it as a former police officer in CA: First off, this is a CIVIL CODE which means that this is not a criminal code violation, it's more or less a law that gives people the right to sue you if you violate that law. It's not part of the CA Penal Code which regulates criminal actions in CA. Also, just like any law, you have to have some type of intent to violate that law in the first place. This civil law is pretty clear that you would knowingly have to violate someone's privacy when privacy is expected. Also, Federal Law trumps State Law. The FAA rules everything in the air space, not CA. CA has a law for toilet paper at this point meaning that they have so many laws it's beyond absurd. I'm not an attorney and I'm not giving you legal advice, but looking at this from a law enforcement standard I would say you have to do something very specific for you to violate another law that would be criminal in nature. Nothing in this law makes it a criminal offense. Once again this is the CIVIL CODE of CA which has no jail time or prison time attached to it which only makes it a fine but the courts would have to fine you for a clear violation of that law if someone sues you and can prove to the court that you viloated that law...hope this helps.

 

[DoomMeister]

Hi, I just read that civil code and here's my take on it as a former police officer in CA: First off, this is a CIVIL CODE which means that this is not a criminal code violation, it's more or less a law that gives people the right to sue you if you violate that law. It's not part of the CA Penal Code which regulates criminal actions in CA. Also, just like any law, you have to have some type of intent to violate that law in the first place. This civil law is pretty clear that you would knowingly have to violate someone's privacy when privacy is expected. Also, Federal Law trumps State Law. The FAA rules everything in the air space, not CA. CA has a law for toilet paper at this point meaning that they have so many laws it's beyond absurd. I'm not an attorney and I'm not giving you legal advice, but looking at this from a law enforcement standard I would say you have to do something very specific for you to violate another law that would be criminal in nature. Nothing in this law makes it a criminal offense. Once again this is the CIVIL CODE of CA which has no jail time or prison time attached to it which only makes it a fine but the courts would have to fine you for a clear violation of that law if someone sues you and can prove to the court that you viloated that law...hope this helps.

Thank you for giving us your take on this.

What I have an issue with is when laws are written like this that are preempting the right of someone to use the NAS in a legal manner by adding to the federal regulations already in place.

I shake my head in disbelief of people that go on and on about privacy from drones, but don’t think twice about neighbors with a cell phone taking photos/videos from a second story window.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

Actually, that was 83'.

I think that was the altitude the bombers were flying over his land, no wonder the animals played up, it is a bit low.

Luckily the work of the NCCUSL (I've never heard of them) didn't go anywhere.

Hmm, yeah, uniform rules don't always work for the best, usually aim for lowest common denominator, or expect the worst scenarios / behaviour.
Sometimes it does add clarity to multiple jurisdictions and safer (financially wise) for the public, like motor vehicle road laws, the differences here between our states and territories can be a costly when travelling by road.

The NCCUSL is still out there, but hopefully no longer interested in airspace and landowners privacy.
The whole subject is generally not a major issue still, and there are enough laws to stop nefarious folk in most developed countries.

 

[Rich QR]

On other websites I have read that the FAA only controls 500 feet and above and therefore anything below that is private.

Great! So as long as I keep my altitude under 499 ft (which I was doing anyway), there's no more need to register my drone, no 55 lb weight limit, no speed limit, no need to get authorization to fly into controlled airspace, no need for a license for commercial use, no need to maintain VLOS, no prohibition against flying over sports stadiums full of people, basically no rules! Excuse me, I'm headed over to LAX to fly my drone a hundred feet over the runways -- the perspective of the aerial shots I'll be able to get now is going to be great!

I heard that someone read it on a website, so it's gotta be true!

(for the sarcasm-impaired, I realize that perhaps the FAA might claim some jurisdiction below 500')

 

[John Locke]

I'm also not a fan of trying to be stealth. If someone has a problem, I want them to find me

In California there are Karens everywhere that have no clue about aviation regulations. They always have a problem, and want to be offended. Engaging with these emotional basket cases is a total waste of time. This is why I always fly stealth, to avoid idiots, reducing conflict, saving time and hassle.

 

[thispilothere]

In California there are Karens everywhere that have no clue about aviation regulations. They always have a problem, and want to be offended. Engaging with these emotional basket cases is a total waste of time. This is why I always fly stealth, to avoid idiots, reducing conflict, saving time and hassle.

Absolutely right. People don't understand how bad it's gotten in parts of CA. Women "offended" by your drone will try to grab the controller from you, then attack you, then the drone when it lands, then your car as you leave. If you defend yourself at all (or usually even if you don't), you're the one going to jail. And, as already mentioned, LA county isn't a fun place.

Or, you can avoid it all by being a little stealthy.

 

[Chip]

In 2015, the FAA published a document stating that "laws traditionally related to state and local police power—including land use, zoning, privacy, trespass, and law enforcement operations—generally are not subject to federal regulation." Nothing has changed, the document has never been rescinded, although the FAA dropped the word "trespass" in certain public statements on the subject beginning in 2018.

At the DC appellate court hearing regarding Remote ID in December 2021, the FAA lawyer was asked what is justification for remote ID? Listen to the hearing and confirm for yourself the FAA lawyer said because we have to be able to catch aerial trespassers. He was very clearly referring to people flying their drone over someone else's property line. So, is there such a thing as aerial trespass?

In March 2021, the Michigan court of appeals said this in Long Lake Township v Maxon:

Although the United States Supreme Court rejected the ancient understanding that land
ownership extended upwards forever, landowners are still entitled to ownership of some airspace
above their properties, such that intrusions into that airspace will constitute a trespass no different
from an intrusion upon the land itself. United States v Causby, 328 US 256, 260-265; 66 S Ct
1062; 90 L Ed 1206 (1946). Drones fly below what is usually considered public or navigable
airspace. Consequently, flying them at legal altitudes over another person’s property without
permission or a warrant would reasonably be expected to constitute a trespass.

We decide this matter based upon defendants’ reasonable expectation of privacy—critical to which is that any reasonable person would have expected a low altitude drone overflight to be trespassory and exceptional, whether the drone flew as high as a football-field length or flew directly up to an open bathroom window.

 

[Chip]

Hi, I just read that civil code and here's my take on it as a former police officer in CA: First off, this is a CIVIL CODE which means that this is not a criminal code violation, it's more or less a law that gives people the right to sue you if you violate that law. It's not part of the CA Penal Code which regulates criminal actions in CA. Also, just like any law, you have to have some type of intent to violate that law in the first place. This civil law is pretty clear that you would knowingly have to violate someone's privacy when privacy is expected. Also, Federal Law trumps State Law. The FAA rules everything in the air space, not CA. CA has a law for toilet paper at this point meaning that they have so many laws it's beyond absurd. I'm not an attorney and I'm not giving you legal advice, but looking at this from a law enforcement standard I would say you have to do something very specific for you to violate another law that would be criminal in nature. Nothing in this law makes it a criminal offense. Once again this is the CIVIL CODE of CA which has no jail time or prison time attached to it which only makes it a fine but the courts would have to fine you for a clear violation of that law if someone sues you and can prove to the court that you viloated that law...hope this helps.

The CA statute authorizes the award of treble damages and punitive damages (in the right case). Punitive damages are specifically designed to punish and make an example of you. In CA, evidence of your net worth may be admissable in court to help show just how much money it would take to cause you pain and deter you and everyone else from ever doing anything like it again.

 

[OkDrone]

FYI. In Oklahoma they formed rules and regulations for drone's, and allowed no flights over private property and allowed those owners to shoot the drone out of the sky. Which we all know would be the complete opposite of what the FAA says about doing such things. Someday that will be challenged I'm sure. The common average person has no clue of what restrictive rules we do follow as well as what is legal and not

 

[spudster]

FYI. In Oklahoma they formed rules and regulations for drone's, and allowed no flights over private property and allowed those owners to shoot the drone out of the sky. Which we all know would be the complete opposite of what the FAA says about doing such things. Someday that will be challenged I'm sure. The common average person has no clue of what restrictive rules we do follow as well as what is legal and not

Based on their findings, Oklahoma is ranked the third most drone-friendly state in the country, following North Dakota (1) and Arkansas (2).

Oklahoma Ranks 3rd in Drone-Industry Readiness - Oklahoma Department of Commerce

A recent study by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University ranked all 50 U.S. states on preparedness for the drone industry. Based on their findings, Oklahoma is ranked the third most drone-friendly state in the country, following North Dakota (1) and Arkansas (2). “In the emerging...

www.okcommerce.gov

 

[Chip]

The FAA Fact Sheet on "State and Local Regulation of Unmanned Aircraft Systems," published on
December 17, 2015 said this:

"Laws traditionally related to state and local police power – including land use, zoning, privacy,
trespass, and law enforcement operations – generally are not subject to federal regulation."
https://www.faa.gov/uas/resources/policy_library/media/UAS_Fact_Sheet_Final.pdf

The FAA Statement on "Federal vs. Local Drone Authority," published on July 20, 2018 said this:

Laws traditionally related to state and local police power – including land use, zoning, privacy, and law enforcement operations – generally are not subject to federal regulation.
https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-statement-federal-vs-local-drone-authority

Did you notice what happened to "trespass?" Poof its gone like magic. I wonder what changed?

 

[DoomMeister]

Absolutely right. People don't understand how bad it's gotten in parts of CA. Women "offended" by your drone will try to grab the controller from you, then attack you, then the drone when it lands, then your car as you leave. If you defend yourself at all (or usually even if you don't), you're the one going to jail. And, as already mentioned, LA county isn't a fun place.

Or, you can avoid it all by being a little stealthy.

That would be assault and battery instigated by them. A 911 call would get them arrested not you. Are these instances covered up and not reported?

 

[Vic Moss]

FYI. In Oklahoma they formed rules and regulations for drone's, and allowed no flights over private property and allowed those owners to shoot the drone out of the sky. Which we all know would be the complete opposite of what the FAA says about doing such things. Someday that will be challenged I'm sure. The common average person has no clue of what restrictive rules we do follow as well as what is legal and not

Can you please send me the source for this.

 

[AVLJMA]

You have to remember. The FAA controls where we can fly also and we are not allowed to fly over 400 ft AGL. So they control from the ground up.

Excellent point. If they control our altitude maximum that means they control the air space from the ground up.

 

[muabg]

FAA Statement–Federal vs. Local Drone Authority.
For Immediate Release
July 20, 2018
Congress has provided the FAA with exclusive authority to regulate aviation safety, the efficiency of the navigable airspace, and air traffic control, among other things. State and local governments are not permitted to regulate any type of aircraft operations, such as flight paths or altitudes, or the navigable airspace.
Cities and municipalities are not permitted to have their own rules or regulations governing the operation of aircraft.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

FAA Statement–Federal vs. Local Drone Authority.
For Immediate Release
July 20, 2018
Congress has provided the FAA with exclusive authority to regulate aviation safety, the efficiency of the navigable airspace, and air traffic control, among other things. State and local governments are not permitted to regulate any type of aircraft operations, such as flight paths or altitudes, or the navigable airspace.
Cities and municipalities are not permitted to have their own rules or regulations governing the operation of aircraft.

The interesting word there is ‘navigable’.
And what the FAA refer to, manned flight or all aircraft including UAVs.
It can certainly be argued it would include the latter, as anything in the sky can be called an aircraft, it all comes down to definition and perspective.
‘Any type of aircraft operations’ is also prominent there.
A drone can have an effect on airspace safety, so that also leans towards all airspace, ground up.

 

[Greatfullded]

Unfortunately paranoid people on the ground noticing the drone wouldn't know this.
Keeping high over homes when transiting would be the best solution, not many would normally hear most drones at 400'.
This is a good reason to use MAS props, they really do take the sting out of the drones pitch.

 

[Greatfullded]

Yes. But the regulations do say that you can't fly over people or moving vehicles (at least not at the moment with any available drone). I'd guess if you fly over a bunch of houses you would have to take extra care to avoid the people and vehicles that tend to be around those houses.

 

[Greatfullded]

i agree just keep your drone at max alt at 394 ft, at that alt the mini 2 is only a dot and if someone on the ground sees it they would think its a eye floater or if someone knew a drone was overhead and stand and looked straight up for mins at a time and prolly they may find a dot but in general nobody sees it or hear it, plus i have stealth props.. which i think they cut the noise down a little.. If your thinking of flying beyond your property line then fly your drone straight up and go to 394ft then take a cruise but if you fly at treetop height then ya. your neighbors will get angry and bring out the shotgun and use your drone as a clay target and yell ( PULL !!!!! ) I personally cant wait for the 4th of july... neighbors down the street fire off illegal fireworks all night.. at 394 ft i can get some crazy nice shots...