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

mavic3usa · 2025-04-06T23:07:43-0400

jwilson said:
Well, I saw it once on YouTube. I guy was at a police station. He might of been taking pictures. A cop came over to him, and asked him what he was doing. The guy said none of your buisness. Then the cop asked to see his ID. The guy said he didn't have to show ID. So that was the end of it. So I'm not a lawyer, but it makes sense to me.

This one?

(not me, not my video)

msinger · 2025-04-07T00:06:24-0400

mavic3usa said:
The individual in the US drone video is not "James Madison audits." He does a lot of hosting of other people's videos and their situations including this part 107 pilot.

Yes, I know. It may however explain the intended narrative of the video.

jwilson · 2025-04-07T04:04:08-0400

mavic3usa said:
This one?

(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.

No. The one I saw was in Hermosa Beach, California.

MS Coast · 2025-04-07T10:28:34-0400

mavic3usa said:
He's not in violation of it until the FAA says so; not when the local police say so.

Someone violates a law when they fail to abide by (break) that law. They may or may not be cited and prosecuted, but the violation takes place when the act occurs.

mavic3usa said:
I think in another thread, you also mentioned it is a violation of federal law not to keep your drone's software current, no?

No, just said that there was language in the FAA regulations regarding acting in accordance with the drone manufacturer's operations and maintenance instructions.

mavic3usa · 2025-04-07T11:51:34-0400

MS Coast said:
Someone violates a law when they fail to abide by (break) that law. They may or may not be cited and prosecuted, but the violation takes place when the act occurs.

fine, call it whatever you like, just as long as the local police officer understands he won't be the one citing or prosecuting the "violation" and he has no legal authority to do so any more than the university dean or the sorority president.

since we are nitpicking, if you take a closer look at the federal statute, it does not require you to show a driver's license to law enforcement. the federal regulation stipulates that you have to provide a photograph, your signature, and your date of birth (for the purposes of supporting the part 107 certificate). the FL officers did not demand any of these and they did not demand the certificate (because they are untrained); they demanded an ID which no one in America is required to have in their possession and the FAA does not require you to show a driver's license. So technically, the pilot did not violate that federal statute and the prosecutor knows it, the faa knows it, the pilot's lawyer knows it, and I know it. Only you and the police don't know it.