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

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

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.
The FAA cannot use law enforcement to help out and law enforcement should not break the law to help out the FAA.
If the police plan to report you to the FAA, I think they need to do it legally and if they let you know, the drone pilot is more likely to cooperate. Asking for a state ID and a date of birth feels like something other than reporting you to the FAA.
I would have to go back and look but I don't think they arrested him for failure to ID but for obstruction but yes, I agree they made the arrest so they could get this ID.
Agreed the RPIC was incorrect on a lot of things. As a recreational pilot, if I am stopped by police, it doesn't matter if I am detained or not, I would probably show my TRUST and show a registration card. Anything beyond that, I get suspicious if it's demanded and not requested especially if only drone violations are at issue. If the police believe you were flying recklessly or you were trespassing then....different story.
LEO doesn't seem to be trained in this particular case which is part of the problem. If you get consent, get as much info as you can. In any case, get as much info as you can except you gotta do it legally.
I think the video gave us enough detail to determine his flight during the TFR, not sure anyone questions that he needed to land and the incident was acknowledged by both sides and then after getting his LAANC.....you're free to go have a nice day.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: CadrePilot
Police need your ID like a crack addict needs their drugs. They hate people who want to protect their constitutional rights. This was an illegal arrest for no crime. he was arrested for not giving up his rights. He should sue!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: mavic3usa
IMHO, cop #2 has an authority complex. Looked like the situation had resolved until he stepped in to add the accelerant to a resolved situation. I hope FWB (thank you for your service) gets his drone upgrade courtesy of the Keystone.....I mean, campus cops and that cop #2 is now a Walmart greeter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CadrePilot
I don't know what the right answer is.

Try to look at it from the police perspective:

Few, if any, want to get in the middle of something they don't understand. It's too litigious a world.

The government is fanning the flames of the public, trying to terrify them about 'dem dronze'.

Whether it is warranted or not, the laws at the local level do not address a mechanism for investigating these activities, very similar to investigating a machine gun in many locales.

So, homeland security is telling the officer, those things can carry PAYLOADS. Or just kamikaze themselves into critical infrastructure or PEOPLE!

Large venues are not terrified of them so much as wanting to make people pay to play. So they don't want rogue UAS overflying.

So, in the back of their heads, the headline 'deadly drone terrorist not confronted by lazy cops' is playing. Having to get on the stand and say, 'yes, I saw an operator, but even in these climates I did not feel a crime that I could enforce was being committed until I heard the boom and the screams'.

So, they are in a pickle. The same government and populace want them to pay attention and make sure that flight isn't a dry run into a transformer substation, but don't really give them the law to take action.

If the government would come out and say, hey, those things are fine, then only very proactive police/security would interject and inspect.

But they aren't. They are doing the opposite, trying to pass legislation curtailing operation, and in one case, allowing people who feel aggrieved to physically shoot them out of the sky.

NOT saying this to engender any kind of sympathy for law enforcement. Just saying for your own planning, if you can address those concerns the odds of you baked like a potato in the back of a janky patrol car lessens.

I am BY NO MEANS suggesting bending the knee, either. At all.

I am saying that public sentiment is increasingly against us. I am saying that each RPIC is an ambassador. I am saying that they will absolutely use you as a way to further curtail the hobby/career.

So, I am suggesting that taking a couple extra seconds to frame it as, you aren't a bad guy, you are enjoying your legal rights. You are fully cooperating, you aren't giving up any of your legal rights, just tell me what you think is the problem and we can try to address it.

How you behave now, it's going to affect the next encounter.

Don't make police think all drone drivers are dicks with a google law degree?
 
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?
That was all to obvious from watching the video.
 
That was all to obvious from watching the video.
That’s probably why he got his part 107 too so when the cops grant him his wish and confront him, he can tell them he is professional and only answers to the FAA. We understand there are people (and cops) who don’t know much about the hobby and believe we only fly our drones to antagonize the people and the police and we can quickly recognize those who think that way within seconds of meeting them. It only escalates the situation but we are prepared for that and we won’t let that mindset interfere with our rights and cloud our true intentions. It’s a little bit inconvenient when such a karen is a cop but there are legal remedies for that situation, too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: msinger

Attachments

  • LE drone.JPG
    LE drone.JPG
    95.7 KB · Views: 5
That's some lovely government double-speak. /s
For sure. We’ll should just go by what the federal laws says and what the Constitution says and neither of them tell me I am legally required to hand over my details for inspection whenever local law enforcement asks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CadrePilot
What a bunch of crap. He did nothing wrong, and was extremely well behaved. My understanding is you don't have to give police ID if you've done nothing wrong. Probably when the police were wasting time with this guy, 20 people had their houses burglarized. Even flying by a stadium doesn't hurt anyone. There was a blimp in the background.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Beet
I don't see much ambiguity in "Failure to provide the document for inspection is unlawful..."

Here's the relevant section of the actual CFR that Part 107 pilots must abide by.


Sure, it is "unlawful" under federal law. Federal law that local law enforcement has no authority to enforce.

The Playbook previously referenced advises several times that local LE can ask for documentation, and other questions, but the only recourse specified is to “pass the information on to the FAA for investigation.” Neither the Playbook, nor the CFR, give the local LE any enforcement authority.

The Playbook and Part 107 do conflict on whether a pilot must provide anything to local LE, as the Playbook specifies “drone pilot IS NOT required by federal regulation to make their UAS FAA Remote Pilot Certificate available.” While the CFR says, “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 - Any Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer;”.

Regardless of the disparity, violation of the federal regulation is not subject to local LE authority. Local LEs have no authority to enforce it.

I acknowledge that puts the local LEs in an awkward position, but that’s what we have.





Larger quotes of the Playbook and CFR are below:

FAA Drone Response Playbook for Public Safety, September 2020, includes:

“If law enforcement comes in contact with a drone pilot/operator, they can:
* Ask the pilot/operator to see proof of registration of the aircraft
* Ask to see the waiver for drone operations within the TFR

While law enforcement can ask, a UAS or drone pilot IS NOT required by federal regulation to make their UAS FAA Remote Pilot Certificate available.

If law enforcement officials suspect a drone operator of violating any federal law, they should pass the information on to the FAA for investigation.”

“Law enforcement and public safety officials may ask pilots operating under Part 107 (typically aircraft weighing under 55 lbs and not operated as a recreational or public/government aircraft) for their FAA Remote Pilot Certificate. However, they are not currently required by federal regulation to make their certificate available.”

“Law enforcement officials may ask drone operators for the aircraft’s registration documentation. Failure to provide the document for inspection is unlawful and the operation or proposed operation should cease.”

“Law enforcement may ask to see a UAS operator’s FAA approved Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA).”


[bold added]



Title 14, Chapter I, Subchapter F, Part 107, Subpart A

§ 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.

[snip] [bold added]

[Amdt. No. 107-8, 86 FR 4381, Jan. 15, 2021]
 


Write your reply...

DJI Drone Deals

New Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
136,328
Messages
1,616,235
Members
164,927
Latest member
bookpublishingelite
Want to Remove this Ad? Simply login or create a free account