Harassed in PA

[mavic3usa]

Sorry to hear this; I feel for you since at a minimum it is a total distraction and you certainly don't deserve this. Good luck to you and I hope you eventually find justice in a system that is designed to work against you. Please let us know the outcome if you can and keep your chin up.

 

[shb]

Update .... I received a call from Trooper Lewis today and he told me that he will be filing 'unlawful use of an unmanned aircraft' and 'disorderly conduct 'charges against me. The disorderly conduct charge especially blows my mind. I asked him why and he said that it was because 2 other officers had warned me. I never received any warnings from these officers either verbal or written. With my wife battling breast cancer and heart problems this frivolous lawsuit is the last thing I need.

Sorry to hear they are doing this. They have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Sounds like that will be very difficult for them. Just having to get a lawyer and go to court is a pain in the ***, specially with your other problems. Hope you fight it since you did nothing wrong. I don't understand the disorderly conduct charge at all.

 

[Droning on and on...]

Flying above someone's barn would be OK...whether the property owner likes it or not....

(Rereading this thread because it was updated)

I don't know about that. While this may be true as far as the law goes, I'm of a mind to be friendly and cooperative with others regarding their property. If they don't want me flying over it, I generally respect that. There are countless other places to fly.

Funny thing is, that attitude has always got me permission to fly. Especially if I ask first. Go figure. Hasn't failed yet, even just this last weekend buzzing around a vinyard with the Avata. That was a gas!

 

[Droning on and on...]

It isn't illegal to fly through the window of a home. BUT without permission, It is harassment,

Isn't harassment illegal?

Regardless, the legal landscape is hardly simple and clear. There is a tapestry of local and state privacy laws that I'm certain flights like that will trigger, and whether or not they're legitimate will be determined before a judge, not by the investigating officer.

My life experience informs me that in local courts, drone pilots will lose most of the time when charged with privacy violations in circumstances like above, regardless whether ultimately correct. Local judges, prosecutors and juries are going to take the side of the local neighbor being "spied on". The FAA will not send an attorney to defend the pilot even if they're right.

So, appeal. And maybe appeal again. The case would have to get to a level in the court system where the government parties are concerned with protecting their legal jurisdiction, not the happiness of a fellow community member.

 

[MARK (LI)]

I agree with and act in accordance with your way of doing things ( after all who could argue with a fellow pug person?) ....Just mentioning that the law allows it...common courtesy is another story View attachment 170942

 

[mavic3usa]

I agree with the part about you will lose in court which is my main concern when it comes to the event that usually happen before you end up in court starting with the law enforcement contact. If these were only civil matters (as in the FAA), I think we stand a good chance of getting a reasonable outcome but the recreational flying a drone could end up being a criminal matter which is a different situation.

 

[Droning on and on...]

I agree with and act in accordance with your way of doing things ( after all who could argue with a fellow pug person?) ....Just mentioning that the law allows it...common courtesy is another story View attachment 170942View attachment 170942

What a beautiful pug face. Pugnacious like all, I'm sure.

I can see a lot of love, play, and pure rascaliness worn on that old face... Pugs are the best!!

 

[Droning on and on...]

I agree with the part about you will lose in court which is my main concern when it comes to the event that usually happen before you end up in court starting with the law enforcement contact. If these were only civil matters (as in the FAA), I think we stand a good chance of getting a reasonable outcome but the recreational flying a drone could end up being a criminal matter which is a different situation.

Seems very easy to avoid.

Don't go hovering around people's windows. Don't fly through their structures without permission. And similar close proximity intrusions.

If you want to, be a friendly neighbor and ask permission.

Simple things that will keep a pilot out of "spying on me" trouble. It really comes down to one simple thing: Respect. Show it to others, and amazingly you get it back.

Same rule applies to disrespect.

 

[FlySkyJumper]

A lot of writing for no reason.

My take on how this scenario plays out: You are PIC and have descended into someone else's yard, and are hovering 12" from a window, camera clearly pointed straight inside. Occupant calls the police. RID allows them to catch you.

Regardless of your protestations, LEOs are not going to spend a bunch of time reviewing logs they don't understand on the spot. That's what court proceedings are for. You will be cited and charged.

You will then have an opportunity in court to defend yourself, making your case as you have attempted to here. First in an arraignment, where you can try to convince a judge, and when that predictably fails, you can have a jury trial if you want to push it that far, but I predict your success there will be highly unlikely.

What you seem to keep missing in this endless back and forth is you live in a society with other people, and their views count every bit as much as yours.

And when it comes to drones hovering outside their windows, I really don't think the general public sees this anywhere close to the way you do.

So arguing the technical details of flight logs, RTH, etc. may get some notice here, but in front of the drone-hostile public they don't care. What animates them is the fact you were looking inside their house without their consent.

And you will be convicted. My opinion.

So, better to not do that.

"yes lots of writing"

 

[skidrose]

You should be fine if you document and record every conversation with the police. You can also request the information of any complaints against you for your records.

It takes a lot to convict; the police and anyone making a complaint have to be able to document and prove everything.

If you can prove and document using an audio recorder to record each encounter with the officer, this will work in your favor.

The bottom line, is if you weren't doing anything wrong, the law will be on your side as long as you keep everything journalized and you can prove what was said is being said.

Your flight logs can debunk all their complaints. Furthermore, these people making the complaints have to have PROOF. As in videos, photos, pictures of you flying the alleged drone, your RID number (things like that) If they don't have any of this, they cannot charge you.

If it was not you, you have nothing to worry about.

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.

 

[MS Coast]

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.

May I suggest that you make multiple backups of your flight logs and any photographs you shot that day, and store a copy off-site with a friend or relative. I've accidentally deleted files in the past.

Best of luck to you.

 

[GrayHornet]

I would retain a lawyer asap. Attorney at a preliminary hearing is a big plus as he/she can present arguments that the prosecution has insufficient grounds to proceed. They also would obtain discovery info before the preliminary appearance to formulate your defense. Just saying based upon my 40 years experience. Good luck.

 

[skidrose]

The 2 drones that I flew on 7/14/23 were the DJI Mini 2 and Mini 3 Pro. I registered both of these drones with the FAA even though it is not required because both are under 250 mg's in weight. They are considered toys. I am being charged with conducting surveillance with a toy. The disorderly conduct charge with physical violence really stuns me as there was never a confrontation of any sort. The arresting officer, PSP trooper Andrew J. Lewis 13714, never even came to my house. All my interactions with him were over the phone.

 

[Droning on and on...]

I would suggest the status of the drone as a "toy" is completely irrelevant to what you've been charged with. The "crime" is illegal surveillance. You can be charged with that flying a nanodrone toy with a camera like one of these:

Your best defense are the flight logs, and critically the media recorded on the SD card. Not coincidentally, that would also be the prosecution's primary evidence as well, so you really need to get a copy, which you have a right to.

 

[skidrose]

I would suggest the status of the drone as a "toy" is completely irrelevant to what you've been charged with. The "crime" is illegal surveillance. You can be charged with that flying a nanodrone toy with a camera like one of these:

Your best defense are the flight logs, and critically the media recorded on the SD card. Not coincidentally, that would also be the prosecution's primary evidence as well, so you really need to get a copy, which you have a r

 

[skidrose]

Of course. I gotta stop being sarcastic I guess. They are charging me with an offense that occurred on 7/14. On 7/14 my logs indicate that I did not even fly the drone that they seized from me (air 2s) on 9/3 only my mini 2 and mini 3 pro. None of those flights were near any structures. The only sd card the cops have is in my air2s. There is no way they could provide any evidence against me other than hearsay because I absolutely know I didn't commit a crime.

 

[mavic3usa]

Has never happened to me and I don't expect it primarily because I don't fly from home; understand why you do since you live rural. Anyway, never talk to police when they come calling with questions. I guess it's ok to answer a few questions to dispel their fears but I would never offer to show my logs on site.

Not trying to be dramatic but just remember, the third time the police could get "fed up" and decide to arrest you and take your drone. Anything from trespassing to harassment to invasion of privacy to a stretch which is disorderly conduct or stalking or video voyerism. That's the world we drone pilots live in; I understand it's rare but it is a possibility. Any charge will likely be dropped but we shouldn't have to go thru all that.

Repeat of what I said in post #2

 

[bitsbytes]

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

WAC 172 applies only to the campus of Eastern Washington University, and even then it is questionable whether the code is permissible in the first place due to preemption. It does not apply whatsoever outside the campus.

 

[Torque]

WAC 172 applies only to the campus of Eastern Washington University, and even then it is questionable whether the code is permissible in the first place due to preemption. It does not apply whatsoever outside the campus.

I had to go back to see where this was posted in the thread. I forgot that this was used to argue that my flying over abandoned barns and open land in rural Washington on land that is not posted with no trespassing was illegal and an invasion of privacy...chuckle.

 

[Droning on and on...]

WAC 172 applies only to the campus of Eastern Washington University, and even then it is questionable whether the code is permissible in the first place due to preemption. It does not apply whatsoever outside the campus.

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.