Friends,
I am a lawyer, and I have been licensed to practice law in California for 16 1/2 years. I don't practice "drone law" specifically, but I wanted to share a few thoughts on this stuff.
First, this is NOT a civil traffic ticket -- it's a CRIMINAL charge. Yes, it's "only" a misdemeanor, but so are most DUIs. If the OP is convicted, he will have a criminal record for the rest of his life. So this is really not just a matter of "pay the fine and move on". Anyone who is saying that really has no clue what they are talking about.
Second, some people have said it's a bad idea to get legal advice from an online forum. I agree with that in part. It would be a TERRIBLE idea to simply read some posts on a message board and then make a decision based on that stuff. But, there is nothing wrong with using the web to conduct some preliminary research and thus gain a better understanding of the situation.
Third, the original post here was not very detailed, but at least based on how the situation was explained, I am not certain the OP is guilty of violating the law (the law being California Penal Code Section 402(a)).
The text of this statute is shown below. The critical point is NOT merely that the OP flew a drone "near" an emergency. That by itself would not be enough to violate the law. The violation requires proof that you went to (or remained at) the scene of an emergency, and thereby impeded law enforcement or emergency personally in the performance of their duties.
Based on the story from the OP, did that happen here? I don't know, and neither does anyone else (except for the OP and the police). Bottom line, if the cops were merely annoyed at the OP for flying a drone, that would clearly not be sufficient to violate the law. Rather, the cops would have to show that the drone IMPEDED their ability to perform their duties in some way. Without more information, it's impossible to know if that happened or not.
The good news, of course, is that the prosecution has the burden of proof. A criminal defendant is not required to prove that they did NOT break the law -- the prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they did break it.
In this situation, you could prove the police were "impeded" simply by calling a witness who can explain why the drone interfered with law enforcement's activities. This wouldn't be hard to do -- the helicopter pilot could simply testify that he had to veer off-course or avoid the area until he was sure the drone had left. But at the same time, it's possible the helicopter pilot would say that actually, the drone wasn't even an issue at all. In that case, the OP is not guilty and he should absolutely fight this.
For now, my advice is to simply go to the first court date (usually called an initial appearance). All you need to do is enter a plea (not guilty) and then you can talk to the prosecutor about options. This might be possible at the initial appearance, or it may have to wait until your next court date. Either way, you cannot make an informed decision about the best move here without more information.....so go gather that information, and then you can decide what to do. If you want to save a few dollars and represent yourself, that's your choice....but if there is no clear evidence that the drone impeded the situation, I would hire a lawyer and fight this. Even if it costs a few thousand bucks, it's worth it not to have a criminal conviction on your record.
West's Ann.Cal.Penal Code § 402
§ 402. Interference with personnel at scene of emergency; interference with lifeguard
(a)(1) Every person who goes to the scene of an emergency, or stops at the scene of an emergency, for the purpose of viewing the scene or the activities of police officers, firefighters, emergency medical, or other emergency personnel, or military personnel coping with the emergency in the course of their duties during the time it is necessary for emergency vehicles or those personnel to be at the scene of the emergency or to be moving to or from the scene of the emergency for the purpose of protecting lives or property, unless it is part of the duties of that person's employment to view that scene or those activities, and thereby impedes police officers, firefighters, emergency medical, or other emergency personnel or military personnel, in the performance of their duties in coping with the emergency, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
(2) For purposes of this subdivision, a person shall include a person, regardless of his or her location, who operates or uses an unmanned aerial vehicle, remote piloted aircraft, or drone that is at the scene of an emergency.
(b) Every person who knowingly resists or interferes with the lawful efforts of a lifeguard in the discharge or attempted discharge of an official duty in an emergency situation, when the person knows or reasonably should know that the lifeguard is engaged in the performance of his or her official duty, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
(c) For the purposes of this section, an emergency includes a condition or situation involving injury to persons, damage to property, or peril to the safety of persons or property, which results from a fire, an explosion, an airplane crash, flooding, windstorm damage, a railroad accident, a traffic accident, a powerplant accident, a toxic chemical or biological spill, or any other natural or human-caused event.