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]
www.defendyourbrowardcase.com
