Harassed in PA

[Torque]

Please provide a reference to where in the WAC this is limited to the campus of Eastern Washington University.

Regarding preemption, it's not germane to the point being discussed. While possibly valid, the point I was making is that states have privacy laws on the books that are invoked w.r.t. drone pilots. Whether or not it stands up in court is, well, something that will have to be decided in court.

A huge gray area in the law right now is the distinction between where you can fly (FAA) and what you can do with a camera on a drone (very muddy, lots of local laws).

The FAA has been anything but clear about this. There are invasion of privacy, surveillance, and other convictions on state and local law that stand today, and the FAA is not interested in stepping in.

We have a thread about exactly this right now. That's what this thread is about.

Chuckle chuckle The FAA may say you have a right to fly through someone's barn, and the locals say no. The locals will almost always prevail, at least initially.

And Chuckle chuckle, I am not having this argument with you again.

Chapter 172-141 WAC – Use of Outdoor Areas for First Amendment Activities – University Policy Administration

WAC 172-137: Use of University Facilities

www.thefire.org

Wash. Admin. Code § 172-137-015 - Scope

www.law.cornell.edu

Title 172 WAC:

And lastly, here are all of Washington's drone laws. Scroll down and you'll see that WAC 172 only applies to Eastern Washington University:

Drone Laws in Washington (2023) - Pilot Institute

pilotinstitute.com

 

[Droning on and on...]

And Chuckle chuckle, I am not having this argument with you again.

Geez. What is it with this place?

I've argued, consistently, that the tapestry of drone laws from local up to Federal are contradictory and Inconsistent. I've claimed that there are state and local laws, based in privacy concerns, that restrict drone usage. I found just such a law in WA State.

I was unaware it was limited to Eastern WA University. So what? Does that invalidate it somehow? Can you fly a drone there and violate those provisions?

The point I was making, and still am, is regardless of what a pilot may insist is only in the scope of authority of the FAA, the real world is not that cut-and-dried. Local ordinances may make it illegal to fly in ways that, should you want to spend the money, might be ultimately invalidated through legal procedure. However, don't count on the FAA to step in and help, even if you're right... They have limited resources, and must pick their battles.

Just what is it I have said here that you're arguing with?

 

[Torque]

Just what is it I have said here that you're arguing with?

Really? Let me see....I posted that I had just flown through a barn at the beginning of this post, and you spent the next 3 pages telling me how I was trespassing, breaking laws, and might end up in "steel bracelets (or was it cuffs?) for my flights.
You ignored the fact that the particular barn I was referencing was at Piano Ranch, an AMA sanctioned flying field mainly for FPV pilots.
You carried on as though I'd flown through Martha Stewart's barn during one of her "Barn Dinners". And you searched, found and posted WAC 172 to try and prove how illegal my flights were.
Posts #40, 51, 63, 71, 83, 91, and 92 might refresh your memory.
I didn't list the posts where you chastised CafeGuy for flying through a barn in California, just where you argued with me.

 

[bitsbytes]

Please provide a reference to where in the WAC this is limited to the campus of Eastern Washington University.

Regarding preemption, it's not germane to the point being discussed. While possibly valid, the point I was making is that states have privacy laws on the books that are invoked w.r.t. drone pilots. Whether or not it stands up in court is, well, something that will have to be decided in court.

A huge gray area in the law right now is the distinction between where you can fly (FAA) and what you can do with a camera on a drone (very muddy, lots of local laws).

The FAA has been anything but clear about this. There are invasion of privacy, surveillance, and other convictions on state and local law that stand today, and the FAA is not interested in stepping in.

We have a thread about exactly this right now. That's what this thread is about.

Chuckle chuckle The FAA may say you have a right to fly through someone's barn, and the locals say no. The locals will almost always prevail, at least initially.

Someone quoted WAC 172 as though it applied through the entire state of Washington, but that's not the case.
The code's title is "Eastern Washington University" and it contains other rules governing conduct of students of the university as well as conduct on the campus itself. It doesn't apply whatsoever outside those boundaries.

If you're asking where it says that you can see it here: WAC 172-06-020:

WAC 172-06-020​

Operations and procedures.​

(1) University rules are promulgated in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), chapter 34.05 RCW and approved by the board of trustees.

 

[mavic3usa]

 

[Droning on and on...]

Really? Let me see....I posted that I had just flown through a barn at the beginning of this post, and you spent the next 3 pages telling me how I was trespassing, breaking laws, and might end up in "steel bracelets (or was it cuffs?) for my flights.
You ignored the fact that the particular barn I was referencing was at Piano Ranch, an AMA sanctioned flying field mainly for FPV pilots.
You carried on as though I'd flown through Martha Stewart's barn during one of her "Barn Dinners". And you searched, found and posted WAC 172 to try and prove how illegal my flights were.
Posts #40, 51, 63, 71, 83, 91, and 92 might refresh your memory.
I didn't list the posts where you chastised CafeGuy for flying through a barn in California, just where you argued with me.

Oh. Okay.

Never mind then.

 

[Droning on and on...]

Someone quoted WAC 172 as though it applied through the entire state of Washington, but that's not the case.
The code's title is "Eastern Washington University" and it contains other rules governing conduct of students of the university as well as conduct on the campus itself. It doesn't apply whatsoever outside those boundaries.

If you're asking where it says that you can see it here: WAC 172-06-020:

WAC 172-06-020​

Operations and procedures.​

(1) University rules are promulgated in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), chapter 34.05 RCW and approved by the board of trustees.

Got it.

I have been properly humbled in the tradition of mpdc. I'll hold my tongue.

 

[mavic3usa]

Not my video. Part 2 (watch the first 10 minutes)

removed Part 1

 

[BobaFut]

Update ...I haven't officially been served yet but I used an app called PaeDocket and looked up my name today. The charges were filed on 12/14 and they are 4 counts of 'unlawful use of an unmanned aircraft - conduct surveillance' and 1 count of 'disorderly conduct/physi off'. Fingerprints have also been ordered. The offense date is listed as 7/14/23 so it looks like there aren't any charges for the flight om 9/3 when they took my drone. I checked my remote and on 7/14 I made 6 flights using 2 of my drones. None of those flights were near any structures. These charges are so absurd I decided to wait until my pre-lim hearing on 1/29/24 to see if the Judge drops them on the spot if not then I will definitely retain a lawyer.

I am not a lawyer, but I would humbly suggest that if the police are accusing you of flying a drone on 7/14 and the drone they have as evidence was not flown on 7/14, you should not go on a public forum and admit that you were flying a different drone on 7/14.

 

[MS Coast]

Not my video. Part 1 and Part 2

Are you seriously suggesting that someone should spend more than an hour watching these videos?

What is the point that you're making?

 

[mavic3usa]

Are you seriously suggesting that someone should spend more than an hour watching these videos?

What is the point that you're making?

Hehe, there's a way to watch and skim thru YT videos to get the point quicker. Anyway, they're not my videos so I don't usually have any comment on the content. Part 1 you don't need to watch but I posted it anyway just in case someone thought the "whole story" was left out so as not to provide true context. Part 2 is the point and you only need to watch the first 10 minutes or so or until you lose interest.

 

[MS Coast]

Hehe, there's a way to watch and skim thru YT videos to get the point quicker. Anyway, they're not my videos so I don't usually have any comment on the content. Part 1 you don't need to watch but I posted it anyway just in case someone thought the "whole story" was left out so as not to provide true context. Part 2 is the point and you only need to watch the first 10 minutes or so or until you lose interest.

My loss of interest occurred after looking at the titles and preview image. But, I'm curious about what point you think the video makes relevant to the current thread. It's a courtesy to others to include such information rather than posting just a link.

 

[mavic3usa]

My loss of interest occurred after looking at the titles and preview image. But, I'm curious about what point you think the video makes relevant to the current thread. It's a courtesy to others to include such information rather than posting just a link.

I try to refrain from providing any of my biased comments directly on the video, I think it speaks for itself.

 

[MARK (LI)]

I lost interest after a minute on the 1st one...when I went to watch the 2nd one, I thought it was the same one again, so I shut it off right away...So...what the heck was the point of posting this here?

 

[mavic3usa]

I lost interest after a minute on the 1st one...when I went to watch the 2nd one, I thought it was the same one again, so I shut it off right away...So...what the heck was the point of posting this here?

No worries, I removed part 1. I am aware part 1 is uninteresting.