How flying a drone led to an arrest....
- Thread starter mavic3usa
- Start date
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2016
- Messages
- 29,772
- Reactions
- 33,501
- Location
- Harrisburg, PA (US)
- Site
- mavichelp.com
Yes, I know. It may however explain the intended narrative of the video.
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.
No, just said that there was language in the FAA regulations regarding acting in accordance with the drone manufacturer's operations and maintenance instructions.
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.
Just providing the information is not adequate.
The regulation requires that a Part 107 pilot present "proper identification," both to take the exam and after being certified at the request of law enforcement. The fellow in the video failed to do that. (No, there's no mention of a driver's license.) You and the group you refer to may want to address any conflicts with the Fourth Amendment.
Negative. We're on a drone stop, not at the knowledge test. During the detention, the police never asked for anything related to the drone stop. They asked for identification (even after he provided his name) and they told him he was obstructing. Nowhere in the federal code does it say you can be charged with obstruction (or anything else) if you fail to provide the documents or your identification. Usually it looks something like one of these two examples:
(2) A person who violates subsection (1), if such violation results in another person being adversely affected by the unlawful use of his or her name or other identification, commits a felony of the third degree
Except as provided in subsection (2), any person who violates this subsection commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
I understand it's not always easy to grasp some legal concepts (especially when it involves both state and federal) and since you appear to not get it, I'm going to make it easy for you and simply say the pilot did not violate federal law and federal law does not force him to show his ID to state and local law enforcement upon demand. It's not going to matter how many times you post the code and then add your [wrong] interpretation opinion about what you believe it means. You are talking in circles and you keep posting the same [mis]information but trying to put your own spin on it so I'll make it easy; going forward whenever you claim a drone pilot has to produce his ID to law enforcement, I'm going to respond with "No you don't. The code doesn't say that. You're wrong." For the record, it's not going to matter what the FAA comments are on this particular topic.
The FAA regulations require a Part 107 pilot operating a UAS to have identification and documentation in his possession and to provide it at the request of law enforcement officers.
The references to the Part 107 regulations have been posted here. I'll leave it to others to read and interpret the regulation. I'm confident that @mavic3usa will be available to critique your reading and comprehension skills and your understanding of the material.
In the video I included in post #1, from what we can see in that video which appears to be police body cam, the pilot didn't break any laws pertaining to identification and documentation, neither federal law nor state or local law.
The video shows that he had his identification, Part 107 certificate, and drone registration with him while flying?
Apologies, that's was a complex statement that may have lost some of the meaning, which is:
The video does not show him refusing any legal request for identification, certificate, or registration. And the video doesn't give us any identification that he wasn't carry identification, certificate, or registration. I'm pretty sure he had it.
Nobody knows for sure if he had it on him or not. And since there are no federal agents on the scene that we can tell, there's no one there to demand it from him. Meaning he might have had it but nobody's business.
microlinux
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2016
- Messages
- 29,772
- Reactions
- 33,501
- Location
- Harrisburg, PA (US)
- Site
- mavichelp.com
1:00: "I don't have it on me." (in reference to his ID)
5:09: "Like I said, I don't have any ID. And if I did, I wouldn't give it to you because no crime was committed."
The police asked him for his driver's license. He said I don't have it with me. He also said he wouldn't give it even if he had it....which means he had it in his pocket.
The FAA does not require him to provide his driver's license to law enforcement. How do we know this? Because nowhere in this country are there any laws that require a citizen to apply for, acquire, maintain, or carry on them a driver's license. So we know for sure this FAA regulation does not make that mandatory. If you would like to claim the federal regulation means the part 107 pilot must present a DL then that regulation is invalid on the face; nowhere in that statute do they mentioned DL.
How do know the police are demanding a driver's license (or a state ID)? Because that's all police are legally capable of demanding when they legally detain someone. They cannot demand a photograph, or a fingerprint, or a retina scan. Plus we know police are unaware of the federal regulation so their demand had zero to do with it. I never heard them ask him for name and DOB which you can do if a person doesn't have ID. Probably because he already provided his name (if we are to believe the LAANC authorization was provided as shown). In any case, when they demanded more, it was an illegal demand.
The police never made a legal request. This video only showed illegal requests. The pilot refused an illegal request.
He had it and he was carry it; everything was in his pocket or on his phone.
Look I know you guys are trying to spin this. You're supposed to look at the evidence in light most favorable to the victim and give him the benefit of the doubt but what this sounds like is the typical "let's jam him up any way we can with even the littlest of things." Nobody asked the pilot for his certificate and therefore, no one asked for identification to help prove the certificate belongs to him. To claim the police were asking for ID in order to establish the validity of his drone flight as specified by the FAA instead asking for ID in order to run a background and check for warrants (which is what they are doing) is exactly why we don't want state and local police to have anything to do with law enforcement for drones. They can't get it right, you guys can't get it right....it can't be legally enforced as written.
I get it (the intent): We want part 107 pilots to be able to be spot checked (for no particular reason) to make sure everything is in order; that's fine. However, the spot checking shall be done by federal authorities and not state and local authorities.
Unfortunately their job isn't to investigate drone-related federal regulations and their investigation doesn't necessarily mean identifying someone. However, none of that matters if consent is given and then the police can pretty much do whatever they want.
Thanks for letting us know what you would do. Here's what I plan to do when stopped by local law enforcement:
1.If I am legally detained, I will provide (if demanded) my name and any other identifying details (such as DOB) prescribed by my state law. Doesn't matter for what reason, if the officer has RAS then I obey the laws in my state.
2.If I am illegally detained, I will still provide (if demanded) my name and any other identifying details (such as DOB) prescribed by my state law. An illegal detention would mean the officer doesn't suspect me of a crime or doesn't have RAS.
3.If the police make contact with me because I am flying my drone and they have drone regulations concerns (meaning they may want to gather information to possibly share with the FAA) then, as a recreational pilot, I plan to show them my TRUST and share my drone registration card (number) and nothing more.
4.If the police make contact with me because I am flying my drone and they just want to make sure everything is in order (meaning I am not under investigative detention) then I will walk away and share nothing with them and probably won't even speak to them.
These are my thoughts in general but there could be dozens of other scenarios and situations so ymmv. While I can't speak to exactly how I will act, these are my own plans. Obviously if FAA authorities or federal law enforcement make contact, that changes everything. These are my thoughts, it's not legal advice, I realize others may act differently. For some, it's just easier to just comply whether you are obligated to or not.
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2016
- Messages
- 29,772
- Reactions
- 33,501
- Location
- Harrisburg, PA (US)
- Site
- mavichelp.com
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.
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2016
- Messages
- 29,772
- Reactions
- 33,501
- Location
- Harrisburg, PA (US)
- Site
- mavichelp.com
That's typically how forum threads work. They remain open so others can contribute or ask additional questions later on. Those who aren't interested in the thread can simply ignore it and aren't obligated to follow the discussion.
Similar threads
