Got a visit while flying near Denver Broncos stadium today at 5:40am

[mavic3usa]

....

Whether something is legal or not, how the law is interpreted, has more to do with if a party has power, and the resources, to successfully enforce their interpretation.

Joe Dronie generally does not. A state does. So if the FAA says that the entire NAS shall be interpreted to be a "public thoroughfare" as stated in the SCOTUS ruling, and a state (Governor John Pinette ) says, "NAY NAY!", you're getting convicted under their code, and it's up to you to appeal that and get the SCOTUS to clarify.

And this is where the local law enforcement comes in, the troopers, the deputies, and the officers who swore their oath of allegiance to uphold the Constitution first and their state and local laws second. They don't obey the Governor, they obey the Constitution. When SCOTUS and the federal laws says so, the state cannot come in and contradict that and make up a law to override the FAA and tell their law enforcement to go out and arrest people and throw them into the legal system and let them work their way out if they can get a lawyer and get a hearing and get a favorable ruling. Luckily most police forces realize this and even more so, states and district attorneys and prosecutors and don't play those silly games any more because this used to work but not any longer, this is changing my friend.

 

[Droning on and on...]

And this is where the local law enforcement comes in, the troopers, the deputies, and the officers who swore their oath of allegiance to uphold the Constitution first and their state and local laws second. They don't obey the Governor, they obey the Constitution.

And it's not their job to decide what is and is not constitutional. Their job is to enforce the law in effect, the a priori presumption that it's constitutional, as determined by lawmakers, courts, and judges. Until a law is ruled unconstitutional as part of adjudicating an actual case, it is the LEOs duty to enforce it, within ordinary discretion afforded Law Enforcement at the point of suspicion.

 

[mavic3usa]

And it's not their job to decide what is and is not constitutional. Their job is to enforce the law in effect, the a priori presumption that it's constitutional, as determined by lawmakers, courts, and judges. Until a law is ruled unconstitutional as part of adjudicating an actual case, it is the LEOs duty to enforce it, within ordinary discretion afforded Law Enforcement at the point of suspicion.

Negative. Disagree. Law enforcement sworn an oath to defend the Constitution not their local city council. If you have been put on notice, it's your duties to not enforce an illegal law. And it absolutely is their job to know what is and isn't Constitutional. It's 2024, not 1964.

ETA: just wanted to clarify, I don't deny that government pass laws that are blatantly unconstitutional or they believe will pass muster or simply don't know one way or the other. I do agree there is a process to handle those and for every law, one size does not fit all. Obviously we can't expect every government (especially local one) to know all the details about this law even if they get legal advise. However, we must rely on our enforcer when it comes to civil rights and laws that have given notice, not every police officer has to know this but it goes by what the ordinary and reasonable officer should have known.

 

[Droning on and on...]

Negative. Disagree. Law enforcement sworn an oath to defend the Constitution not their local city council. If you have been put on notice, it's your duties to not enforce an illegal law. And it absolutely is their job to know what is and isn't Constitutional. It's 2024, not 1964.

So whether or not someone is arrested, in your view, rests on the opinion of each individual LEO as to whether or not a law – as applied to the situation before them – is constitutional? That is your understanding about how constitutionality is determined?

Do you not see the huge problem with that vis a vis equal treatment under the law?

 

[mavic3usa]

So whether or not someone is arrested, in your view, rests on the opinion of each individual LEO as to whether or not a law – as applied to the situation before them – is constitutional? That is your understanding about how constitutionality is determined?

Do you not see the huge problem with that vis a vis equal treatment under the law?

You arrest someone when you have probable cause that a crime has been committed. In this case, the standard is the reasonable objective standard what an ordinary police officer knows, or should have known, or would have known. It doesn't go by what the individual police knows or doesn't know. I'm quite sure there are officers who don't know all the laws and if they make a mistake, that's what QI is for. You have other officers and sergeants and chiefs available if the situation calls for it (and constitutional issues usually DO) so we don't need to rely on opinions.

Again, I believe there are areas of the law where it isn't always clear and there is not a lot of good information such as drone laws etc but when it comes to Constitutional issues, there isn't a lot of room. As a law enforcement officer, you need to be trained and well-informed so that you don't become liable should a violation occur. You won't be able to say my Governor told me it was ok to [do this] or the sergeant in the morning meeting told us go out and [do this]. We have a city ordinance that says panhandling or asking for money is a crime even though SCOTUS has said soliciting funds is free speech. We have a city ordinance which says using curse words in a police officer's presence is a crime even though SCOTUS says it's free speech, if you like that and you go out and act on it....you need to prepare yourself for the fallout which is going to be different than if you enforce a rogue drone law.

So yes, I absolutely believe every single warrantless arrest made by a police officer he needs to make sure he has probable cause and it is Constitutionally legal. It is up to each and every sworn law enforcement officer to uphold and obey the Constitutional before anything else while they are carrying out their duties. It's not a perfect system and mistakes will be made but you won't get a pass if you fail in this area because there have been prior rulings that cover this. You misunderstand the "equal protection" since the 14th Amendment protects the citizens from "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens..." and that's not the same as go ahead and make the law and let the victims fight for to get their rights back in court. Police cannot enforce illegal laws and there are some laws (not all) that are illegal the second they are passed.

 

[rjwmorrell]

I am assuming my RID popped up on whatever app/device they were monitoring.

It may even be less technological than that. They may have been monitoring their exterior CCTV and saw you launch from a nearby site.

 

[Dmcvey]

I would expect a visit from a security team doing their job. What if you were actually someone doing a test flight for bad intentions? "Yeah boss, we saw a drone but didn't check it out." I would fire them. You may have a right to fly someplace but security and such have a right and responsibility to at least check out what is going on.

 

[mavic3usa]

I would expect a visit from a security team doing their job. What if you were actually someone doing a test flight for bad intentions? "Yeah boss, we saw a drone but didn't check it out." I would fire them. You may have a right to fly someplace but security and such have a right and responsibility to at least check out what is going on.

I agree the owners will decide exactly where and when their hired security shall perform. What I don't agree is when law enforcement gets involved. Or when security is concerned with activity off the property but sometimes the nature of their business may involve in and around the private property, to and from the property, etc. Unfortunately this is what we have to deal with these days, freedom is scary and just about anyone can be seen as "up to no good." I also don't like it when these so-called laws are made up in an attempt to intimidate someone: "The stadium is a critical infrastructure so you are violating the law by taking pictures....delete your photos!"

 

[GFields]

Nice shot and you handled yourself very well.

 

[Brian360]

Went out this morning to capture the 5:40am sunrise. I was flying near Empower Field at Mile High in Denver CO. I did not launch from or physically was on the stadium's property. There were no applicable TFRs and AirHub Portal said I was good to go. Also, given the next Broncos game is over 2200 hours away, I was well within the one hour before/after the FAA/NFL game no fly regulation Security truck pulled up and the security guard asked me if I was flying a drone. I told him that yes, I was flying a drone. He said that they picked up my drone and that I could not fly over the stadium. I told him I was not flying over the stadium, nor do I plan to, and that I was a FAA Part 107 certified remote pilot. He instantly backed off and said that I was OK as long as I wasn't flying directly over the stadium and left as I gave him the thumbs up. I fly a lot around Denver as I enjoy aerial photography, but this was the first time ever that anyone questioned my flying. I have taken lots of captures on this stadium over the years, however never directly over it as I typically frame my shots with the downtown skyline in the backdrop nor do I wish to push the envelope. All that being said, had I been flying directly over a 100% empty NFL stadium at 5:40am, with no TFRs in place and 2200+ hours before the next event, would I be breaking any FAA regulations? Based on my understanding, the answer is, no I would not be. What are your thoughts? BTW, the sunrise wasn't a good one.

View attachment 175216

Really awesome picture!!

 

[HoozierDroneDaddy]

Great Photo. What were you flying?

 

[Chip]

Great photo and well handled. This is a good example of what I was saying in another thread that empty NFL stadiums are well protected with no expense spared but US Navy bases housing multi billion dollar strategic assets including nuclear weapons not so much. My recollection is the FAA convened a special committee to study protection of critical national infrastructure and packed it with NFL executives so this is what we got.