DJI Mavic, Air and Mini Drones
Friendly, Helpful & Knowledgeable Community
Join Us Now

How flying a drone led to an arrest....

Sounds a lot like the dufus who gets stopped on the road. " I am not driving, I am traveling. I am a sovereign citizen"
In the Army we called them chit house lawyers.
Treat people with respect as you want to be treated and the guy would have walked away. Easy peasey.
Exactly! He was intentionally looking for confrontation, and got it.
 
Florida University Police are Campus Police Officers, and separate and distinct from the local City Police. They clearly need better training, and screening out of racist, punitive cops, and their sadistic superiors, who don't like their authority challenged.

Fortunately, University Police jurisdiction in FL is limited to 1000 feet outside the campus boundaries. Fly from more than 1000 feet away from campus, and you can avoid them completely.
It is likely the campus police officers are true peace officers which means in the grand scheme of things, they have peace officer powers statewide. Perhaps they can't write traffic tickets in other places but there's nothing stopping them from detaining someone and questioning someone and maybe calling the local police anywhere in the entire states.

As to the authority of the campus cops to ask for his ID, it appears they do. Refusal comes with legal consequences.
Absolutely the police can demand your ID when "In these states, including Florida, police can ask for your ID if they reasonably suspect you may be involved in criminal activity." Just please keep that last part in mind since many people seem to believe "stop and ID" means stopping someone and demanding ID even if you don't suspect them. At a minimum, you have to at least suspect there is a crime and yes it's a low bar but you need to reasonably believe there's some sort of crime or violation and then you have the right to detain and demand ID. In no state can you demand ID with no RAS. And....in some states like TX, you can only demand ID after arrest. Meaning if you believe a crime has occurred and you detain someone while investigating, you cannot demand their ID unless and until you arrest them. This happened in FL so as soon as the officers legally detained him (which they did NOT) only then officers are within their rights to demand ID. Everywhere, you can ASK for ID and gain consent voluntarily which is most people who will give up their ID when asked by police.
 
How flying a drone lead to an arrest

This thread might be more accurately titled, "How flying a drone in restricted airspace without federally-required documentation enabled someone who wanted to get arrested actually be arrested, but not without a lot of effort in antagonizing the responding officers and behaving like a jackass."
 
No ID. Not a responsible idea. Then, he starts arguing continuously and teaching the COPs. Could have very easily “be on your way” as the officer said repeatedly. The things more regulations are made of. Do it the easy way or the hard way. Cop an attitude and continue with the argumentative attitude; do it the HARD way.
I honestly think he may had his ID but didn't want to show it. When you refuse to show your ID, the police have a way of figuring out how to charge you with breaking the "show your ID" law by refusing. Since no one is required to carry ID cards with them in America, a better answer is to say "I don't have ID with me." The police cannot charge you for failure to carry your ID cards. Instead, they usually go to "Ok, what's your name and date of birth and address...."

[in my opinion] FL police demanding the pilot show his FL ID for flying a drone, absent of RAS or a lawful detention, is likely a 4th amendment violation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JAW
Sounds a lot like the dufus who gets stopped on the road. " I am not driving, I am traveling. I am a sovereign citizen"
In the Army we called them chit house lawyers.
Treat people with respect as you want to be treated and the guy would have walked away. Easy peasey.
I think he was started out that way and he was trying to walk away.....before he got jumped.
 
Exactly! He was intentionally looking for confrontation, and got it.
You think he flew his drone right before the TFR went into effect just to have a confrontation with the police? I heard him say he got pictures of the stadium and the crowd, you honestly think he didn't care about that and as a part 107 pilot, he got LAANC and started flying hoping to tangle with the university police officers?
 
How flying a drone lead to an arrest

This thread might be more accurately titled, "How flying a drone in restricted airspace without federally-required documentation enabled someone who wanted to get arrested actually be arrested, but not without a lot of effort in antagonizing the responding officers and behaving like a jackass."
I thought about using the title from the video but I realize it isn't quite accurate. Although the video consists mostly of police body camera video, as with any video you don't already get the full story or the full context. Ultimately we should rely on the final judgment from someone who gets all the facts and you can read the letter the prosecutor published and take it for what it's worth.

I decided a title of "How flying a drone led to an arrest....for obstruction?" was most appropriate because I wanted to point out something I've said for a long, long time in other posts in previous years. I don't disagree there were problems on both side and I've said as much; this wasn't a perfect stop. Imagine if you were doing nothing wrong and the police approached you while flying a drone and asked to see your TRUST and you gave it to him. It's a piece of paper with your name printed on it. My question is if the police demanded your ID so he can make sure the TRUST paper belongs to you (the names matched) and you refuse to show your ID (because it's not required by the FAA and you don't want your name to be run thru the system), can you be arrested for obstruction? That's my title.
 
These LEOs need further training on drone regulations and laws.
Looking at the LAANC approval he was approved as a Part 107.
The next statement from the LEO should have been, "I see here that you are a Part 107. Please show me your Part 107 certificate, and show me a picture ID that shows your name that matches the Part 107 certificate."
Next, "Show me your drone registration and where the drone registration number is on your drone."
If you refuse or are unable to provide those items, then simply state, "You are under arrest for flying an aircraft without a pilot certificate and you were flying an unregistered drone."

The pilot also needs further training so he knows
1) when the LEO says you are free to go, say "Thank you, officer, have a nice day", and get the hell out of there. Any other response is just STUPID.
2) Always have your pilot certificate, picture ID, and drone registration available for LEO. Not having it, or refusing to produce it is cause for the LEO to assume that you don't have the required documentation. This guy really wanted to get arrested or he is really STUPID.
 
How flying a drone lead to an arrest
....., "You are under arrest for flying an aircraft without a pilot certificate and you were flying an unregistered drone."
Even if his drone was actually registered and he had a certificate legally issued to him by the FAA, you would arrest for simply not showing it and carrying their papers on them? These documents are void until carried by the pilot?

What happened to the right to be secure in your papers against unreasonable search and seizure?
Honestly even motorists don't get arrest for not carrying their DL in their wallet.

I don't agree with drone violations being subject to arrest in the classic sense (yes there are exceptions). Tickets, fines, even summons are acceptable but this is what happens when state and local officials get ahold of the process: violent arrests become part of the equation. I am almost sure he didn't want to give him name and address for them to later come to his house after getting an arrest warrant.

I welcome anyone to show me the legal FL state statute or the city or county ordinance or even the University code that would support these charges. What will they book him for in the country jail; for violation of CFR 107.....

There are no peace officers on that scene that could make an arrest for violating the federal laws and they knew it which is why they tried to turn it into obstruction; but the DA didn't go along with it. And now that they are on notice, I bet they won't do that again (i.e. further training).

To be fair, I should also acknowledge the pilot issues. Personally I would provide the TRUST and/or certificate but I would have take issue with providing ID and allowing them to handle the drone; however, ultimately under threat of arrest, I would probably give in, depends on the situation. From what I see, he tried to leave but they detained him before he could get away. If he is free to go then he's free to stay.
 
These LEOs need further training on drone regulations and laws.
Looking at the LAANC approval he was approved as a Part 107.
The next statement from the LEO should have been, "I see here that you are a Part 107. Please show me your Part 107 certificate, and show me a picture ID that shows your name that matches the Part 107 certificate."
Next, "Show me your drone registration and where the drone registration number is on your drone."
If you refuse or are unable to provide those items, then simply state, "You are under arrest for flying an aircraft without a pilot certificate and you were flying an unregistered drone."

The pilot also needs further training so he knows
1) when the LEO says you are free to go, say "Thank you, officer, have a nice day", and get the hell out of there. Any other response is just STUPID.
2) Always have your pilot certificate, picture ID, and drone registration available for LEO. Not having it, or refusing to produce it is cause for the LEO to assume that you don't have the required documentation. This guy really wanted to get arrested or he is really STUPID.
I don't believe that campus police have the authority or the jurisdiction to arrest someone for breaking a FAA regulation.
 
Even if his drone was actually registered and he had a certificate legally issued to him by the FAA, you would arrest for simply not showing it and carrying their papers on them? These documents are void until carried by the pilot?

What happened to the right to be secure in your papers against unreasonable search and seizure?
Honestly even motorists don't get arrest for not carrying their DL in their wallet.

I don't agree with drone violations being subject to arrest in the classic sense (yes there are exceptions). Tickets, fines, even summons are acceptable but this is what happens when state and local officials get ahold of the process: violent arrests become part of the equation. I am almost sure he didn't want to give him name and address for them to later come to his house after getting an arrest warrant.

I welcome anyone to show me the legal FL state statute or the city or county ordinance or even the University code that would support these charges. What will they book him for in the country jail; for violation of CFR 107.....

There are no peace officers on that scene that could make an arrest for violating the federal laws and they knew it which is why they tried to turn it into obstruction; but the DA didn't go along with it. And now that they are on notice, I bet they won't do that again (i.e. further training).

To be fair, I should also acknowledge the pilot issues. Personally I would provide the TRUST and/or certificate but I would have take issue with providing ID and allowing them to handle the drone; however, ultimately under threat of arrest, I would probably give in, depends on the situation. From what I see, he tried to leave but they detained him before he could get away. If he is free to go then he's free to stay.
He did try to leave but the cop that was in contempt of cop mode would not allow him to leave.
 
I don’t think going to trial and losing would have created a greater liability risk. In fact, the admission implied by dropping the criminal matter creates far greater exposure. This prosecutor threw these cop(s) under the bus by dismissing.
Funny thing about flying a Drone period is the fact that they’re scared, they don’t understand it and they want to see what you’re doing! My number one rule is to never let them see you take off! I would highly resist the giving up my ID as well but I would be videotaping the whole interaction as well!
 
Mavic3usa said, "I welcome anyone to show me the legal FL state statute or the city or county ordinance or even the University code that would support these charges.

Ok.....
Gadgetguy gave it to us...

Florida Statutes § 901.151.
Florida Stop and Frisk Law.
" Whenever any law enforcement officer of this state encounters any person under circumstances which reasonably indicate that such person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a violation of the criminal laws of this state or the criminal ordinances of any municipality or county, the officer may temporarily detain such person for the purpose of ascertaining the identity of the person...... "

He didn't get arrested for flying his drone. He was arrested for refusing to provide ID. Whether we like it or not (and I don't), it's the law in most states, though maybe not in Idaho, Montana and a few others.

Much as i hate it, you generally have to provide ID, and generally have to obey the commands of an officer, or you'll get arrested, and none of that has anything to with drones!
 
  • Like
Reactions: msinger
Mavic3usa said, "I welcome anyone to show me the legal FL state statute or the city or county ordinance or even the University code that would support these charges.

Ok.....
Gadgetguy gave it to us...

Florida Statutes § 901.151.
Florida Stop and Frisk Law.
" Whenever any law enforcement officer of this state encounters any person under circumstances which reasonably indicate that such person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a violation of the criminal laws of this state or the criminal ordinances of any municipality or county, the officer may temporarily detain such person for the purpose of ascertaining the identity of the person...... "

He didn't get arrested for flying his drone. He was arrested for refusing to provide ID. Whether we like it or not (and I don't), it's the law in most states, though maybe not in Idaho, Montana and a few others.

Much as i hate it, you generally have to provide ID, and generally have to obey the commands of an officer, or you'll get arrested, and none of that has anything to with drones!
Why are we bring this up again? I'm shocked that your profile says you are in your 70s and you don't know this already. Talk to your lawyer if you don't believe me: in no state in this country (with rare exceptions in some areas) do you have to provide ID unless you are suspected of committing a crime. Like many others, you are confused and no disrespect, I'd rather not re-argue something that is widely settled. I honestly don't think it takes a lawyer to figure out what this means but in 2025 in America....so maybe it does.

He refused to provide ID because he wasn't lawfully detained at the time when the police demanded he show his ID. The police told him he was free to go and then another officer uttered the words "You are detained" which doesn't make it so. You just can't speak the words, you need to have reasonable articulable suspicion that the pilot has broken the law or is about to break the law. What law does the officer who shouted "you are detained" believe the pilot has broken in order to place him under investigative detention? Is it likely he said the word because he is used to shouting commands and then acting on them.

"Whenever any law enforcement officer of this state encounters any person under circumstances which reasonably indicate that such person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a violation of the criminal laws of this state or the criminal ordinances of any municipality or county, the officer may temporarily detain..."

Note that it does not say Federal. Show me the [non-Federal] law that the officer believes may have been broken so that he is legally allowed to first detain, and then second....demand ID. A police officer cannot legally detain a drone flyer from breaking an FAA rule which means he cannot legally demand ID from a drone flyer for breaking an FAA rule (in FL). Also note the situation was over and resolved when the investigating officer basically said he was free to go and "have a nice day." No demands for ID are valid after that.

The DA know this, I know this, the pilot and his lawyer knows this. That's all that matters, it really doesn't matter if you or the police or the bystanders or the general public knows this because the expectation that it is known or followed is very low. Too many agencies believe the term "stop and frisk" means just walk up to someone stop them and then frisk for weapons and demand ID.

In my opinion, there's only 3 ways to stop this nonsense: Education (which doesn't work) because some police officers reject it (in this instance all police officer seem to recognize except one) and the public (like you) don't care as long as it doesn't happen to you and will ignore it and make excuses why you should just consent regardless and just do as your told. And second, prosecution for those who willfully break the law and won't comply and need to be told by a judge to stop it and my choice and the drone pilots choice would be thirdly, resistance/pushing back and possible civil litigation. The pilot decided not to cave it (because providing an ID would have led to a summon a month or two later or an arrest warrant that he would only find out about on his job or getting expelled from the university since the police have his details and with no criminal case, they would go to the dean). If you go this route, it is possible you get arrested; we know this already. Ultimately if you are damaged and you have a claim and it's a civil rights violations, the city, the university, and maybe even the officer and the chief could be responsible and liable. Nobody wants to go that route, all we are looking for is honesty and integrity in policing and if the 2nd officer has said "no you are not being detained" this would all be different. Until then, it is dangerous to the hobby to allow state, county, city, local, and university officers to enforce drone rules and regulations and I encourage drone pilots to say no whenever asked.

This is what you will end up with:

[not me, not my video]
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
.... pour obstruction ? Je ne suis pas sûr des frais exacts.

Bien sûr, Google ne pouvait pas attendre pour m’alerter à ce sujet alors... C’est parti! Je n’ai pas besoin d’ajouter mon opinion, je pense que ce que je ressens est bien connu, mais seulement pour dire que j’ai des inquiétudes quant au fait de permettre aux responsables de la loi de l’État et des collectivités locales d’appliquer les règles et règlements sur les drones. De toute évidence, il y a certaines circonstances urgentes qui sont flagrantes et/ou exceptionnelles qui nécessitent une action immédiate pour éviter que de mauvaises choses ne se produisent, mais je préférerais des conseils très limités de la FAA, qui sont non seulement juridiques, mais définissent également clairement les limites et les processus afin de protéger les droits des pilotes de drones.

Comme dans la plupart des circonstances, aucune situation n’est parfaite et le résultat ne peut pas toujours être idéal pour tout le monde. Que pensez-vous de ce qui s’est passé ici ? Est-ce ce qui se passera au fur et à mesure que de nouvelles lois sur les drones seront adoptées au niveau des États et au niveau local ?

(pas moi, pas ma vidéo)
 
107.7 Inspection, testing, and demonstration of compliance.

(a) A remote pilot in command, owner, or person manipulating the flight controls of a small unmanned aircraft system must—

(1) Have in that person's physical possession and readily accessible the remote pilot certificate with a small UAS rating and identification when exercising the privileges of that remote pilot certificate.

(2) Present his or her remote pilot certificate with a small UAS rating and identification that contains the information listed at § 107.67(b)(1) through (3) for inspection upon a request from—

(i) The Administrator;

(ii) An authorized representative of the National Transportation Safety Board;

(iii) Any Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer; or


(iv) An authorized representative of the Transportation Security Administration.

(3) Make available, upon request, to the Administrator any document, record, or report required to be kept under the regulations of this chapter.
 
107.7 Inspection, testing, and demonstration of compliance.

(a) A remote pilot in command, owner, or person manipulating the flight controls of a small unmanned aircraft system must—

(1) Have in that person's physical possession and readily accessible the remote pilot certificate with a small UAS rating and identification when exercising the privileges of that remote pilot certificate.

(2) Present his or her remote pilot certificate with a small UAS rating and identification that contains the information listed at § 107.67(b)(1) through (3) for inspection upon a request from—

(i) The Administrator;

(ii) An authorized representative of the National Transportation Safety Board;

(iii) Any Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer; or


(iv) An authorized representative of the Transportation Security Administration.

(3) Make available, upon request, to the Administrator any document, record, or report required to be kept under the regulations of this chapter.
I'll be brief. Part 107.7 is a federal law and cannot be enforced by a university police officer. I realize the FAA says this is what part 107 holders must do and if the FAA wants to hold the 107 pilot accountable for not doing so (when asked by police and not federal LEO), go ahead. But officers of the state and local law enforcement cannot adopt and obey this code because they get their instructions and directions from the Constitution (namely the 4th amendment) and not from the FAA and drone codes. Any officer that doesn't know this and starts taking their directions from the FAA, we're ready for that. If the officer does not legally detain you then you are free to go and you can leave and that means you are not obligation to show your certificate and anything else add to the list like IDs and retina scans and fingerprints and DNA swabs or anything else they want to come up with. However, you are free to consent. This is just my opinion and it's not legal advice but remember my comments:
it is dangerous to the hobby to allow state, county, city, local, and university officers to enforce drone rules and regulations....
 
Well the FAA does not have any reasonable ability to enforce drone regulations and uses law enforcement to help out. If you don't give ID, how can they possibly report you. Part 107 says you must present upon request an ID.
I think they only arrested him to ID him and inconvenience him. I also think they 100% reported him to the FAA.
The RPIC was incorrect on a lot of things and law enforcement was also.

Law enforcement should of explained and asked for:

A TFR is in effect and started @ ____, it is now _____ and you are in violation.
You are also in controlled air space, can you please provide your LAANC approval.
We will need a valid form of ID, your Part 107 certificate (Or TRUST) and your sUAS registration.
We need this information so that we may report you to the FAA (FSDO, LEAP, ROC)

LAANC distincly states the RPIC must know and abide by TFRs and Restricted and Prohibited air space. The video it seems on purpuse cuts out just below what is shown where it states this.
What app has the FAA sending you a message that a TFR started? I am assuming that he set up his LAANC approval times of operation to end when the TFR began. If this is so, he mistimed it.

The police did a horrible job with making sure he did not develop heat stroke. They are responsible for his well being.
 

DJI Drone Deals

New Threads

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
136,322
Messages
1,616,148
Members
164,915
Latest member
shilohvega
Want to Remove this Ad? Simply login or create a free account