Harassed in PA

[Droning on and on...]

If you disagree with what we are talking about

Let's be crystal clear about that. Your last post confuses me.

1. Are you talking about flying through openings and exploring the interior of obviously unused, abandoned private structures?

If this is what you're talking about, then we're on the same page, and i have no dispute with you.

2. Are you talking about flying through openings and exploring the interior of obviously in-use private structures?

If this is what you're talking about, then I do have a dispute with you.

Which is it? 1 or 2?

 

[Cafguy]

- 1 - . I would never fly in such a way as to maybe cause harm to anyone but myself .I said I might be tempted not that I would. That is also why I stated -Construction site on a sunday morning.- The point has always been about- what the LAW would do to you if you did it - Not that you should or I would do it. The only law, really that they can apply to you locally is Harassment. The officers at one of our R.C. club meetings explained it to us. For trespassing you have to be standing on the property. and to be arrested you have to refuse to leave or knowingly cause damage. Then you got criminal trespass. They will charge you with harassment for pissing off the guy you flew around.- Remember this is L.A. and they don't take kindly to Drones flying over fences and snapping pictures.
The Debate quickly turned too " well if your flying a drone you must be recording video"
That is just simply ridiculous and every Anti-Drone person I have met makes that same argument.

 

[Droning on and on...]

So, simple question, long complicated answer.

I conclude from your answer that you are only constrained by what you believe the law to be, and not by any social expectations. You will compromise another's privacy so long as you won't be risking punishment under the law.

Have I understood your position correctly?

 

[Torque]

The Debate quickly turned too " well if your flying a drone you must be recording video"

And now the debate, no, the accusation is, "well if you're flying over property you don't own, you must have an utter disregard for privacy"

I truly feel like I'm trying to defend against the local anti-drone Karen in my neighborhood's Next Door app.
Each time I or Cafguy post about FPV flying here, most often in agreement and support for privacy, the law, etc.,
we are countered with bombastic responses about our total disregard for the law, pretending to be stupid, having to agree to disagree, etc. This shouldn't be the place for these bait laden accusations IMO.

 

[mavic3usa]

And now the debate, no, the accusation is, "well if you're flying over property you don't own, you must have an utter disregard for privacy"

I truly feel like I'm trying to defend against the local anti-drone Karen in my neighborhood's Next Door app.
Each time I or Cafguy post about FPV flying here, most often in agreement and support for privacy, the law, etc.,
we are countered with bombastic responses about our total disregard for the law, pretending to be stupid, having to agree to disagree, etc. This shouldn't be the place for these bait laden accusations IMO.

Agreed, I've taken the position that when I fly FPV, nobody is going to like it or agree with it in general. Some won't have anything to say but no one will fully support the high-speed low flying tight turns and extreme noise from the sport. Even if you can't see the drone, just hearing it will cause you concern for your safety. Just the way you fly is enough for anyone to pull the safety card. LOL

Remember this?
youtu.be/CpM-sl3BO20

 

[Torque]

Agreed, I've taken the position that when I fly FPV, nobody is going to like it or agree with it in general. Some won't have anything to say but no one will fully support the high-speed low flying tight turns and extreme noise from the sport. Even if you can't see the drone, just hearing it will cause you concern for your safety. Just the way you fly is enough for anyone to pull the safety card. LOL

Remember this?
https: //youtu.be/CpM-sl3BO20

The link is not working.
Yes, the FPV drones (the 2 DJI models) are extremely loud. It is impossible to sneak about anyone's property when flying one of these drones.
Despite what some here apparently think about my flying style, I have NEVER been approached when flying FPV. I am so isolated when I fly these drones. Oh wait, my friend and I were flying gaps at the local elementary school's playground when a gentleman walking his dog stopped to and chatted, he thought the drones were fantastic.
And before anyone drones on about the legality of flying on a school ground: School is out for the summer. School grounds here are open to the public when school is not in session, including playground equipment, sports courts, tracks, etc., and lastly, the buddy I fly with is a school teacher. Oh, and there were no children, nor adults present on the playground.
Anyway, I'm tempted to go fly through some barns today - apparently they are a hot bed for finding naked people, from FansOnly studios, to innocent schoolmarms changing their clothes, the barn is the place to disrobe!

 

[Cafguy]

You will compromise another's privacy so long as you won't be risking punishment under the law.

Where in any part of this debate have I said that?
In fact I have just stated the opposite MANY times. As far as my interpretation of the LAW? NO I follow the LAW itself - My interpretations are based on LEGAL facts- not someones position or feelings. If the law says its not illegal weather I do it or not, is MY own morality and good sense. Just because it may be, or sound invasive or immoral to some individuals -does not not make it the ilegal. Heck Legally I can place a speaker on my drone and Blast Insane Clown Posse all over the neighborhood from 9am-10 pm BUT I don't do it.
We are talking about the Federal regulation when it comes to AIRSPACE and weather some believe it an invasion of privacy or not.
1. You cannot trespass on another property with an OBJECT. You must be a physical Person.
2. Drone Cameras do not record video the moment you place a battery in them. YOU ( The PILOT ) must activate that camera to record.
3. Morality Does not make LAW - so the answer to your question is while I myself would not fly thru an occupied barn ( as stated gosh knows how many times). Believe it or not , or like it or not, I would only be breaking the LAW of -Harassment- NOTHING More.
This has been what I have stated from the first time and Sorry I mentioned that I would be Tempted BUT I never said anytime someone leaves there window open I would be coming on in.
The law is the law and I respect the law what I do MORALY is a choice and I think I have made that more than clear
LASTLY !! I Invite anyone to grab a TINY ! Drone and some goggles and get out here and experience the ride for yourself ! Legally of course
Thanks Torgue You should come to our area sometime. LOTS of cool ABANDONED stuff to FPV here !

 

[rjwmorrell]

Just a note, here in Canada at least, a trespass tort does not require a person to be on someone else's land. It is enough to throw or place an object on another person's land. There is not a lot of law covering overflglight, but it's clear that if a drone were to land or crash on someone's private land the tort of trespass could be created. A defense could be lack of knowledge or negligence. Not a lawyer. Like I said theblaw isn't clear.

Personally, I wouldn't go flying through someone old barn without checking with the landowner first and getting permission.

 

[mavic3usa]

I did not post the hot link because it is unlisted but it's an FPV flight that I have no issues with but certainly others did: youtu.be/CpM-sl3BO20

 

[Torque]

Washington State:
"A person who enters or remains upon unimproved and apparently unused land, which is neither fenced nor otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders, does so with license and privilege unless notice against trespass is personally communicated to him or her by the owner of the land or some other authorized person, or unless notice is given by posting in a conspicuous manner.

Washington Trespassing Laws: What You Need to Know - Survival Sullivan

Washington: Fast Facts on Trespassing Trespass Law Covers: Buildings, dwellings, structures, land. Crime Class: Misdemeanor. Fencing Required?: No.

www.survivalsullivan.com

 

[Droning on and on...]

Guys, let's reset here, this seems to have gotten a little heated.

Did a little Googling. I'd appreciate anyone who was willing to read the following article, and comment on it, especially @Torque an @Cafguy.

The Growing Legal Controversy About Drone Trespass

From the Regulatory Transparency Project

 

[Droning on and on...]

Washington State:
"A person who enters or remains upon unimproved and apparently unused land, which is neither fenced nor otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders, does so with license and privilege unless notice against trespass is personally communicated to him or her by the owner of the land or some other authorized person, or unless notice is given by posting in a conspicuous manner.

Washington Trespassing Laws: What You Need to Know - Survival Sullivan

Washington: Fast Facts on Trespassing Trespass Law Covers: Buildings, dwellings, structures, land. Crime Class: Misdemeanor. Fencing Required?: No.

www.survivalsullivan.com

Washington Administrative Code (WAC) — Regulations of executive branch agencies are issued by authority of statutes. Like legislation and the Constitution, regulations are a source of primary law in Washington State.

 

[mavic3usa]

Washington State:
"A person who enters or remains upon unimproved and apparently unused land, which is neither fenced nor otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders, does so with license and privilege unless notice against trespass is personally communicated to him or her by the owner of the land or some other authorized person, or unless notice is given by posting in a conspicuous manner.

Washington Trespassing Laws: What You Need to Know - Survival Sullivan

Washington: Fast Facts on Trespassing Trespass Law Covers: Buildings, dwellings, structures, land. Crime Class: Misdemeanor. Fencing Required?: No.

www.survivalsullivan.com

I was going to say we need to also look to relevant case law to see how drone issues are being handled as these incursions are handled at the judicial level. There are laws and legislation but we also need to understand the appropriate case laws and how these laws are being interpreted. Something tells me it's not exactly a slam dunk.

 

[Cafguy]

Define REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY good luck.
It says you live in California What does a Washington State law have to do with you- A law we are NOT breaking anyway.
and what does HIPA law have to do with Drones.
Man I would suggest you sell your drone before you get yourself into a lot of" Perceived" trouble.
Again you are just spitting arguments made by the Anti-Drone lobby Nothing illegal is happening and thousands of people like me fly FPV all legally.
IN the state of CALIFORNIA abandoned buildings are considered state jurisdiction and the state says as long as I do not commit a crime there it is my right to use the abandoned property in anyway I see fit.- just like public land..
You realize that my camera isn't recording until I tell it too right?

 

[Droning on and on...]

I was going to say we need to also look to relevant case law to see how drone issues are being handled as these incursions are handled at the judicial level. There are laws and legislation but we also need to understand the appropriate case laws and how these laws are being interpreted. Something tells me it's not exactly a slam dunk.

I agree. Have skimmed the issue, and that's why I'm arguing as hard here as I am... it's anything but clear. That was my point in an apparently poorly worded, provocative post #63.

There is an impossibly complex patchwork of local, county, and state laws that come in to play when someone believes they've been violated by you in some way with your drone. A confused, conflicting, varying, contradictory understanding is what's out there among cops, prosecutors, and judges.

My point was, and still is beware when you fly through that barn thinking you "know the law". I'm pretty sure you don't, because its never as simple as is being bandied about here, and are taking a risk. I'm saying that risk goes through the roof if someone thinks you're violating their privacy on their own private property.

 

[Droning on and on...]

Define REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY good luck.

Don't need to. If you get charged, it will first be defined by a prosecutor, and if you push it to trial, a jury.

This has been how it works for a very long time. Subjective "common understanding" terms are used all the time in laws, with the intent that the community provide the judgement.

This is very hard to accept for precision-oriented people (I'm one of them). However, it's the best we've come up with to deal with an important and necessary legal issue – privacy – that is inherently squishy.

Are you familiar with this quote?

"When Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart was asked to describe his test for obscenity in 1964, he responded: 'I know it when I see it.'" (link)​

 

[Cafguy]

Are you familiar with this quote?
"When Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart was asked to describe his test for obscenity in 1964, he responded: 'I know it when I see it.'" (link)

In the United States of America we do not allow one person to describe obscenity we allow a majority of people to decide that
Here in the U.S. you can purchase and do things that you may perceive as obscene- but a majority of Americans have said it is their right to purchase or do those things.
Courts in our country have tried with NO success to Define what someones EXPECTATIONS are and they will never be successful. so I don't think a jury will have any more luck.
ALSO if you wish to change a LAW - or the wording of that law. My suggestion would be to visit your nearest government office and protest. BUT Please do not protest your disagreement of the law by interfering with my rights.
you seem to be a member of the Anti-Drone community so anything I could say will not change your mind. thats fine

 

[Aerophile]

...And before anyone drones on about the legality of flying on a school ground: School is out for the summer. School grounds here are open to the public when school is not in session, including playground equipment, sports courts, tracks, etc., and lastly, the buddy I fly with is a school teacher. Oh, and there were no children, nor adults present on the playground...

I'm not calling you out nor calling you anything. I AM a resident of a nearby zipcode, so your assertion above (ie: when school is not in session, school properties are wide open) are of interest to me (I am initially surprised - and skeptical of that assertion - even though it would be an entirely reasonable position if it is in fact true).

Can you share what your basis is for this assertion? It runs counter to everything I've seen about local regulations. While I would be happy to find out it's true (it would open up some good spots for me just down the street), I remain a bit skeptical given the overt hostility that's ever-present in virtually all jurisdictions nearby (at least near me...if your local school district is different from mine, that might explain it; the large city to your north, where I live, is quite hostile to drones of any kind).

 

[Torque]

Washington Administrative Code (WAC) — Regulations of executive branch agencies are issued by authority of statutes. Like legislation and the Constitution, regulations are a source of primary law in Washington State.

View attachment 166844

Sigh....this is exactly what I am talking about. Ridiculous.
I post our state's law regarding trespass of unoccupied property: "A person who enters or remains upon unimproved and apparently unused land, which is neither fenced nor otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders..."

Your response? You quote my state laws on drone use in locker rooms, restrooms, dressing rooms, etc. as though you've just countered me and proven me wrong.
There is absolutely no comparison between the walking onto unoccupied land to fly a drone or RC plane, and flying inside a public building. What is your point?

Oh yeah...flying through the chapel during a funeral or some such imagined transgression...



Nobody, and I repeat nobody here has mentioned flying a drone INSIDE of an occupied building except you.
Show me that specific post.
You continue to try and argue how wrong that is. Who is saying we can fly through occupied buildings?
Show me that specific post.

 

[Torque]

I'm not calling you out nor calling you anything. I AM a resident of a nearby zipcode, so your assertion above (ie: when school is not in session, school properties are wide open) are of interest to me (I am initially surprised - and skeptical of that assertion - even though it would be an entirely reasonable position if it is in fact true).

Can you share what your basis is for this assertion? It runs counter to everything I've seen about local regulations. While I would be happy to find out it's true (it would open up some good spots for me just down the street), I remain a bit skeptical given the overt hostility that's ever-present in virtually all jurisdictions nearby (at least near me...if your local school district is different from mine, that might explain it; the large city to your north, where I live, is quite hostile to drones of any kind).

I thought this was well known in our state. You don't see folks jogging on the tracks in the evening? Kids utilizing the playgrounds on the weekend? You can even rent the facilities for private use (i.e. Church groups relay races, 4H club events, etc) If you are in Seattle, that is where I was first made aware of this law. I was once heavily involved in Greyhound rescue/rehoming, and we would use the school grounds as turn outs for hounds during transport, or for summer Meet and Greets with hounds up for adoption. Model rocket clubs often use school grounds on the weekends as do many RC park flyers, at least here in my neck of the woods:

Community Use of Public School Facilities - Washington | State Policy Database