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

[mavic3usa]

Since no additional context was provided with the video, we can only assume the footage accurately represents what happened. If the pilot says he didn't have ID, I believe him. He didn't appear to be dishonest about anything else in the video, which leads me to believe he was likely telling the truth.



This lawyer seems to agree with the references shared by @MS Coast. I'm not sure an "ID" always has to be a driver's license. It appears that any form of photo identification that can reliably verify a person’s identity would be acceptable.



I think we're simply commenting on what's visible in the police bodycam footage you shared. I'm not sure if you missed it earlier, but I mentioned that this YouTube video was likely edited to support a specific narrative, given that it was created by someone who identifies as a police activist. So, just because something isn't shown in the YouTube video doesn’t mean it didn't happen.

What we can clearly see is that the pilot was flying in a no-fly zone, repeatedly tried to lecture the police on how they should handle the situation, and ultimately learned that citizens don't get to dictate police actions. Whether the police acted appropriately is a separate issue, and that's where the additional context you didn’t provide becomes important.

If there's one takeaway from this video, it might be that treating people disrespectfully can backfire.

Lots of valuable comments and opinions in that piece (including from the law firm) representing both sides. I guess we'll need to depend on possible further legislation or legal cases to further establish what is right and what is wrong should a bona fide conflict occur since the federal rules failed to addressed them directly. For what little I can tell, this FL case would never make it to court because it qualifies under the illegal detention category. Even if it did, I doubt the FAA would engage since they would prefer to keep their confusing and possible unlawful statute intact.

Thanks for posting the piece and I particularly appreciate all of the comments in the feedback echoing exactly the points and concerns I have been making so I please there are others who agree with me. Our pilot was not flying in a no-fly zone but only in restricted airspace with authorization. While he was flying, a TFR became active and he stopped flying during the TFR and he landed. Local law enforcement recognized this and acknowledged it and gave a verbal warning and allowed the pilot to go even though he asked for ID (he never demanded ID) and the pilot declined. I believe the official police encounter was cordial and respectful and both sides performed properly. It was only after the illegal detention did both sides becomes disrespectful and from what I know, victims of illegal detention often get belligerent when their rights get violated and when they push back, it is often comes of as dictating action and lecturing especially to the police. At that point, they usually unlawfully escalate the situation to violence and excessive force. Exactly why I plan to exercise my right to remain silent during a legal or illegal detention.

Another takeaway from the video is if the police don't want to be treated disrespectfully and want to continue to dictate the actions of the stop and want to keep their charges intact to gain the support of the community and the prosecutors, follow the law, honor your oath and obey the Constitution, and don't violate someone's rights during the course of your duties. Since everyone enjoys short videos, here's a clip explaining an example (may or may not have anything to do with this situation) of a well-known law enforcement practice similar to this one where police re-engage and yeah I know it's a little bit more complicated than that but you get the point:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[mavic3usa]

View attachment 181884

The police officer on the scene never requested his certificate or identification for inspection during the legal portion of that stop. That event never occurred. What you saw was a law enforcement officer asking for ID during detention and for investigation and when the pilot said he didn't have his ID for the stop (not for an inspection), the officer took out his note pad to collect the pilot details in lieu of this identification (per state law) effectively waiving it. The officer would later forgo all of this and absolve the pilot of any legal obligation from that point forward.

I believe if the officer has requested the pilot to provide his certificate and identification for inspection, the pilot may have done so but we'll never know so we have no choice but to land on "he didn't violate federal law." We'll never know because the police didn't go that route but instead they apparently had RAS for a crime and when they detained the pilot, they triggered certain rights that override this FAA statute. Both cannot be satisfied at the same time. FAA needs to adjust their laws and/or train the police better if they intend for that statute to be legal and effective under more circumstances. At this point, this federal statute only works during an inspection (as it was clearly intended) and it was not intended to work during a "stop" and if you don't believe me, I invite you to let's find out together in a courtroom the next time it happens.

 

[msinger]

Our pilot was not flying in a no-fly zone but only in restricted airspace with authorization. While he was flying, a TFR became active and he stopped flying during the TFR and he landed.

Sure, it's true that a No-Fly Zone and a TFR are not the same thing. A No-Fly Zone is a permanent or semi-permanent area where drone flights are strictly prohibited. A TFR, on the other hand, is a temporary restriction on flying in a specific area. However, both are generally considered "no fly zones" because flying in either without FAA approval is not allowed.

Regarding the pilot, he did not have approval to fly within the TFR. However, he did fly in the TFR at least long enough to be noticed by local law enforcement.

As noted here, only public safety agencies, first responders, and certain organizations such as media outlets are typically eligible for approval to fly in TFRs. Additionally, pilots who violate TFRs can face sanctions ranging from warnings or fines to certificate suspensions, depending on the nature of the violation.

The police officer on the scene never requested his certificate or identification for inspection during the legal portion of that stop. That event never occurred. What you saw was a law enforcement officer asking for ID during detention and for investigation and when the pilot said he didn't have his ID for the stop (not for an inspection)

From the video you shared, the police officers did not indicate why they were asking for ID. Again, I'm not a lawyer, but it appears the police officers were allowed to ask for ID, according to what the lawyer above posted. Assuming you're not a lawyer either, I think you're just sharing your humble opinion based on the limited data we have from the portions of the interaction shown in that video.

Another takeaway from the video is if the police don't want to be treated disrespectfully and want to continue to dictate the actions of the stop and want to keep their charges intact to gain the support of the community and the prosecutors

Again, in your humble opinion, the police officers were illegally asking for ID. However, conflicting information suggests they were allowed to request ID, so I don't think we can assume they were acting unlawfully. Repeating that it was illegal, over and over, doesn't make it so.

 

[mavic3usa]

From the video you shared, the police officers did not indicate why they were asking for ID. Again, I'm not a lawyer, but it appears the police officers were allowed to ask for ID, according to what the lawyer above posted. Assuming you're not a lawyer either, I think you're just sharing your humble opinion based on the limited data we have from the portions of the interaction shown in that video.

Just so my position is clear:

I've already agreed the police were ok to ask for ID during the legal stop. If the officer wanted to ID pursuant to a drone inspection, he should have been trained well enough to know to ask for other information if the DL was unavailable (which was made clear by the pilot his ID was unavailable). In this particular case, the police dismissed the ID requirement and set the pilot free. That's where the trouble begins.

Police were NOT ok to demand ID during the second portion of this encounter which occurred after the pilot was free to go. I don't care where you are in this country, police cannot legally demand an ID if you are *not* legally detained. In any case, they cannot arrest you for not giving them an ID as long as you can give your name and DOB but they have to ask for it. I have never heard of anyone arrested for not having a DL or an ID card unless they were driving (or apparently now.... droning). I've heard of the driving exception but never I heard of the droning exception until now.

Again, in your humble opinion, the police officers were illegally asking for ID. However, conflicting information suggests they were allowed to request ID, so I don't think we can assume they were acting unlawfully. Repeating that it was illegal, over and over, doesn't make it so.

To address this specifically, when you are illegally detained then demanding ID would also be illegal. So would charging someone for "obstruction" for not providing the ID. In the second half of the interaction (which I am calling the illegal detention), the police didn't request ID, they demanded it. And when they didn't get it, they made the arrest without PC. You cannot simply precede the demand for ID with the words "you are being detained" just to make the demand for ID legal. Pilot recognized this and stood his ground. Police need RAS to legally detain the pilot and they didn't have RAS for the second half of the encounter (during which the demand for ID was made by police).

IANAL and this isn't legal advice. But you are right, this is just my opinion, and I guess we have to wait for a possible lawsuit and deposition to learn more about the real facts. Rightly, the charges were dismissed because the prosecution recognized this case couldn't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[msinger]

I don't care where you are in this country, police cannot legally demand an ID if you are *not* legally detained

According to what I've shared here, it appears ID may be required in all locations across the US. I don't see any mention of detainment being a prerequisite for requesting ID.

Could you point me to where the link states that ID is not required anywhere in the US? Or, if you're aware of another legal document that addresses this, feel free to reference that instead.

 

[MS Coast]

At this point, this federal statute only works during an inspection (as it was clearly intended) and it was not intended to work during a "stop"

I'm not interested in dissecting that fellow's experience or debating and interpreting the Constitution and case law or potential conflicts with the FAA regulations.

My sole interest here is to make it plain to other Part 107 pilots that the FAA regulations do require that we show ID, certificate, and registration to any law enforcement officer upon request. The regulations are quite clear. There are no conditions included as you suggest.

I am deeply concerned about the threats to civil rights in the United States and the erosion of the protections defined in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. I am supporting groups that are challenging those threats. But I see no benefit whatsoever in inciting a theatrical conflict with law enforcement officers over showing my credentials and ID when flying my drones. I will not be in a courtroom over that issue. You're on your own there.

 

[mavic3usa]

According to what I've shared here, it appears ID may be required in all locations across the US. I don't see any mention of detainment being a prerequisite for requesting ID.

Just so we are clear, detainment is not a prerequisite for requesting ID. Anybody can request ID anytime for any reason but no one has to obey a request. If the police walk up to me and request to see my ID and I say "no thanks" then I can walk away with no legal consequences until he detains/arrests. Or, I can consent and hand it over.

However, detainment *is* a prerequisite for demanding identification and when a peace officer legally demands that you identify yourself when you are detained or under arrest, you need to obey the demand or else there could be legal consequences. This includes most traffic stops.

Don't want to get too deep into legal theory and such so let's take these few examples keeping in mind that requesting = asking and demanding = forcing more or less.

[UTAH 77-7-15]Authority of peace officer to stop and question suspect -- Grounds.
[UTAH 76-8-301.5]Failure to disclose identity.

Nowhere in the UT (or in any state law) that I am aware of requires a citizen to obtain, carry, or present a Driver's License, a State ID card, a Passport, or any other official government ID card. In order to comply with the UT laws, the citizen can provide name and date of birth and other elements specified instead.

The first law gives the peace officer the authority to make the demand (a legal demand, not an ask or a request) but only under certain conditions which are clearly spelled out and often referred to as RAS (reasonable articulable suspicion).

The second law gives the peace officer the authority to make an arrest if the "actor" fails to comply with the officer's legal demands for identifying information which is clearly spelled out. Note the actor has to be legally stopped and note there is no requirement to provide a DL or any other ID card; merely uttering the required information is sufficient (and yes, there are usually consequences for providing false identifying information). Generally, you only need a DL to legally operate a motor vehicle and you only need a passport for entry/exit the country.

In Texas, you never have to disclose your ID or identifying information to a peace officer unless and until you are under arrest. An investigative detention is not enough.....with one exception (driving) and now another exception I guess (droning).

[TEXAS 38.02]Failure to Identify

There may be some minor exceptions in some obscure locations under extenuating circumstances but this is your relevant SCOTUS case:

Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nev., Humboldt Cty., 542 U.S. 177 (2004)​

 

[msinger]

Just so we are clear, detainment is not a prerequisite for requesting ID. Anybody can request ID anytime for any reason but no one has to obey a request. If the police walk up to me and request to see my ID and I say "no thanks" then I can walk away with no legal consequences until he detains/arrests. Or, I can consent and hand it over.

Just to clarify, my question was specifically about Section 107.7, since that's the regulation the pilot in the video is required to follow under FAA rules.

Of course, there are plenty of other situations where showing ID is mandatory and not optional. For instance, many states require ID to open a bank account, purchase a home, or vote. But, we don't need to venture into those topics since they are not related to Section 107.7.

 

[mavic3usa]

Just to clarify, my question was specifically about Section 107.7, since that's the regulation the pilot in the video is required to follow under FAA rules.

You and I disagree about the meaning of Section 107.7. Regardless, nothing in that law enforcement contact in the video triggered Section 107.7; that would be my argument. I appreciate that you and MSCoast would like to now limit this discussion to just a part 107 drone stop but that's not what happened here; we must look at the totality of the circumstances. But I'm happy to keep to part 107 if that keeps it clear and my reply is, the pilot did not break any part 107 rules. He was probably happy to provide a photo or a signature or his dob birth to support his certificate to local law enforcement pursuit to an inspection or similar but this never happened. What he was not going to do is give the police a driver's license or some form of ID. There's a difference. Maybe next time the police will take this proper route instead of allowing the pilot to leave without providing anything.

Of course, there are plenty of other situations where showing ID is mandatory and not optional. For instance, many states require ID to open a bank account, purchase a home, or vote. But, we don't need to venture into those topics since they are not related to Section 107.7.

ID is not mandatory in the context of our legal discussion if you have the ability to decline with no consequences. There are millions of situations where ID is used but it's never, ever mandatory where you have to do it or else you face legal consequences due to a state or local law. That's what "mandatory to show" means where you hear it from a judge, a law enforcement officer, or a government official. That concept fundamentally disappeared when we stuck it to the British in the 1700s.

Maybe that's not what you meant but you also realize it didn't need to be said that people use ID and ID card for millions of situations; we all agree with that. All I know is the government cannot force you to apply for an ID, they cannot force you to carry and ID with you, and they cannot force you to maintain an ID which means they cannot force you show an ID. You cannot be arrested anywhere for saying you don't have an ID card, you don't have an ID card with you, or you won't give your ID card....and that's exactly what happened here. When I say force, that means get one or pay a penalty. Of course if you don't get one and you don't get certain services is ok and it's up to you (not the government) how you feel about that. I apologize if you already knew this and this is not the way you intended to frame up the ID conversation.

 

[msinger]

ID is not mandatory in the context of our legal discussion if you have the ability to decline with no consequences. There are millions of situations where ID is used but it's never, ever mandatory where you have to do it or else you face legal consequences due to a state or local law. That's what "mandatory to show" means where you hear it from a judge, a law enforcement officer, or a government official. That concept fundamentally disappeared when we stuck it to the British in the 1700s.

While both obtaining a Remote Pilot Certificate and flying with that certificate are optional, either action requires you to have an ID on your person and to show it when asked. Since the pilot did not have an ID, he wouldn't have been able to meet that requirement anyway.

Given that this is clearly outlined and should be common knowledge, I suppose the only thing left is to debate technicalities where a lawyer might help the pilot "work the system". That seems beyond the scope of this thread, so I’ll bow out here and leave the rest of that discussion to you.

 

[MS Coast]

While both obtaining a Remote Pilot Certificate and flying with that certificate are optional, either action requires you to have an ID on your person and to show it when asked. Since the pilot did not have an ID, he wouldn't have been able to meet that requirement anyway.

Given that this is clearly outlined and should be common knowledge, I suppose the only thing left is to debate technicalities where a lawyer might help the pilot "work the system". That seems beyond the scope of this thread, so I’ll bow out here and leave the rest of that discussion to you.

(Emphasis added.)

Me, too.

 

[mavic3usa]

While both obtaining a Remote Pilot Certificate and flying with that certificate are optional, either action requires you to have an ID on your person and to show it when asked. Since the pilot did not have an ID, he wouldn't have been able to meet that requirement anyway.

Given that this is clearly outlined and should be common knowledge, I suppose the only thing left is to debate technicalities where a lawyer might help the pilot "work the system". That seems beyond the scope of this thread, so I’ll bow out here and leave the rest of that discussion to you.

(Emphasis added.)

Me, too.

Thank you both for a good discussion. Hopefully it is clear when FAA regulations contradict the Constitution then the Constitution wins every time. The only point that I would make is we don't "work the system" because we live by the system and it's a beautiful system including all it's so called technicalities. In the video, I saw only one individual working the system and it was more like cheating the system. I'm glad it worked out in the pilot's favor.

 

[msinger]

The police report from here. I only included the summary since the entire report contains a lot of personal information.

 

[mavic3usa]

The police report from here. I only included the summary since the entire report contains a lot of personal information.

View attachment 181885

Nice find; I realize this is not part 107 related but I'll comment on the ^report. Officer left out some of the pertinent details but I understand he had to do it to make his case and present only the absolute minimum in an effort to establish PC. Kudos to the prosecutor to quickly realize "per FAA regulations" doesn't support a FL statute obstruction charge any more than the University policy or "my mom told me to do it" and dismissed the charges. Next time, the officer should describe how he was carrying out his official FL duties and how those were obstructed. That officer doesn't have FAA duties which are covered under the statute 843.02. For example, if the University said by policy "any student you stop, get a fingerprint before you release them" which is fine for them to say that but a FL peace officer cannot add that to his official duties list.

The summary in the link below will give you an opinion on how to interpret the FL obstruction statute from the standpoint of legal duty and other related elements. Collecting drone pilot details is not a legal duty for FL peace officers no matter how badly the FAA would like to confer those powers to them.

Attorney on "Resisting without Violence" in Tampa, FL

Attorneys explain the crime of resisting an officer without violence under Florida Section 843.02 and the statute's legal requirements.

criminaldefenseattorneytampa.com

Can't wait to see the deposition so the officer has to answer the real questions that he left out of the report. But I think we all know that if there is a lawsuit, the government will settle and admit no wrongdoing and the flying public will have to endure this again one day in the future; my work never ends. Again, all my opinions.

 

[msinger]

Can't wait to see the deposition so the officer has to answer the real questions that he left out of the report. But I think we all know that if there is a lawsuit

You should do your own research. This pilot has a lengthy record. I doubt he'll be filing any lawsuits anytime soon.

 

[davedrone 178]

Here's what happened to me yesterday. I live in RI and have been flying my Air 3 a little too far and a little too high as of late. Been flying over the ocean mainly. About 10 minutes into one of my flights, a State Trooper came upon me and asked how high are you? I was just a little confused for a second and he then told me I was flying a drone and would you mind waiting here for a Homeland Security agent. Too make a long story short, they told me I was being tracked for a number of days and they visited my house with an FAA agent the day before. I was read the riot act but apparently avoided any trouble unless I break the laws again. Decided to put all my drones up for sale knowing that I have now live within the restrictions. I new task force in New England is now on the roam in New England and they are monitoring flights.
Flyer beware.

 

[MS Coast]

Here's what happened to me yesterday. I live in RI and have been flying my Air 3 a little too far and a little too high as of late. Been flying over the ocean mainly. About 10 minutes into one of my flights, a State Trooper came upon me and asked how high are you? I was just a little confused for a second and he then told me I was flying a drone and would you mind waiting here for a Homeland Security agent. Too make a long story short, they told me I was being tracked for a number of days and they visited my house with an FAA agent the day before. I was read the riot act but apparently avoided any trouble unless I break the laws again. Decided to put all my drones up for sale knowing that I have now live within the restrictions. I new task force in New England is now on the roam in New England and they are monitoring flights.
Flyer beware.

Were you operating inside the boundary of the airspace for KOQU, Quonset State Airport, and the USCG airbase?

 

[davedrone 178]

Yes

 

[MS Coast]

Yes

Operating in restricted airspace without authorization is substantially more likely to attract attention than flying a little too far and high. You might consider keeping the drones and flying in non-restricted areas.

 

[davedrone 178]

All of this was absolutely my bad. Giving up drone flying.