Louisiana Trespass Law Concerning Drones

[CenlaUAS]

I am Part 107 certified and live in Louisiana. In the pass couple of weeks, I have been confronted by LEO concerning me flying my drone. The constant part of the conversations has to do with me "trespassing" by flying over someone's property. NOT stopping. NOT hovering. NOT recording. Just Passing over.
To date I have not received any citations concerning this but it may just be a matter of time.
A link to the law is here.
The two main sections in question are:
"The provisions of Paragraph (1) of this Subsection shall not apply to any person operating an unmanned aircraft system in compliance with federal law or Federal Aviation Administration regulations or authorization."
And
"in the air space over immovable property owned by another with the intent to conduct surveillance of the property or of any individual lawfully on the property."

Comments an opinions are welcome to try to help me understand this.

Link fixed?

 

[tcope]

Your link does not work. Appears that you linked to a local document?

Edit:

Louisiana State Legislature

 

[CenlaUAS]

Your link does not work. Appears that you linked to a local document?

Edit:

Louisiana State Legislature

Link fixed in OP. Thanks

 

[Tinmania]

Has that part of the law ever been tested in higher court? I doubt it would hold up, but if it is new and untested I'd certainly not want to be the one to test it.



Mike

 

[tcope]

The two main sections in question are:
"The provisions of Paragraph (1) of this Subsection shall not apply to any person operating an unmanned aircraft system in compliance with federal law or Federal Aviation Administration regulations or authorization."
And
"in the air space over immovable property owned by another with the intent to conduct surveillance of the property or of any individual lawfully on the property.

First part says paragraph 1 does not apply (as you are operating within FAA regs, correct?

Are you conducting surveillance? If not, the second part does not apply to you. So where is your issue?

Next time an office stops you and says you cannot fly, ask them to cite the statue against this. If they mention this one, explain that it does not apply and ask if they would show you were it does.

An office can be mistaken. If that officer is then shown that they are incorrect and they _still_ tell you that you are in violation, they are just harassing you.

 

[Tinmania]

First part says paragraph 1 does not apply (as you are operating within FAA regs, correct?

Are you conducting surveillance? If not, the second part does not apply to you. So where is your issue?

I think his issue is that the LEOs did not interpret that law the same as you (nor me for that matter). I can't imagine how this guy could be arrested/cited but, would you take the chance?

I'd advise the OP to at least check with a local attorney. Heck maybe even get them to draft a letter stating the OP is operating within federal law and to contact them if there are any questions. That may or may not get a LEO to back down, but it can't hurt.



Mike

 

[Tinmania]

One thing, to the OP, what altitude were you at when flying over property? I try to avoid it but if I have to it's at 200'. Hopefully you were not flying over at a low altitude, as people will get annoyed with that, which I can def understand.



MIke

 

[CenlaUAS]

One thing, to the OP, what altitude were you at when flying over property? I try to avoid it but if I have to it's at 200'. Hopefully you were not flying over at a low altitude, as people will get annoyed with that, which I can def understand.



MIke

I live in a semi rural area. A lot of low flying aircraft such as crop dusters. For this reason I try not to fly to high, 100 to 150 feet at most. When flying, I do not fly lower than the highest structure in the area.

 

[Tinmania]

I live in a semi rural area. A lot of low flying aircraft such as crop dusters. For this reason I try not to fly to high, 100 to 150 feet at most. When flying, I do not fly lower than the highest structure in the area.

If people there are okay with crop dusters flying over at 150' but freak at a drone: Skip the drone and become a crop duster pilot with a camera?

Seriously though, what is triggering the LEOs to come and talk to you? By that I mean was it an actual complaint, or did they just happen to see you on their own? If it was a citizen's complaint I might deal with a LEO differently than if they just happened to come upon me on their own. Also, are the LEOs getting or asking for your name and ID?


Mike

 

[Chip]

First part says paragraph 1 does not apply (as you are operating within FAA regs, correct?

Are you conducting surveillance? If not, the second part does not apply to you. So where is your issue?

Next time an office stops you and says you cannot fly, ask them to cite the statue against this. If they mention this one, explain that it does not apply and ask if they would show you were it does.

An office can be mistaken. If that officer is then shown that they are incorrect and they _still_ tell you that you are in violation, they are just harassing you.

I agree with your interpretation 100%. One thing that seems unique though is that LA is acknowledging that a property owner has some airspace rights which undercuts the argument that the FAA has sole control and right to regulate all air everywhere in the USA.

 

[Tinmania]

I agree with your interpretation 100%. One thing that seems unique though is that LA is acknowledging that a property owner has some airspace rights which undercuts the argument that the FAA has sole control and right to regulate all air everywhere in the USA.

This law doesn't say some airspace rights though: it simply states, "in the air space [sic] over immovable property owned by another." That makes it seem infinite. Worse they are literally making this the same as physical trespass, without any distinction at all on height. Unreal.

Couldn't find anything about that law being tested.



Mike

 

[Chip]

This law doesn't say some airspace rights though: it simply states, "in the air space [sic] over immovable property owned by another." That makes it seem infinite. Worse they are literally making this the same as physical trespass, without any distinction at all on height. Unreal.

Couldn't find anything about that law being tested. Mike

Yes, this statute makes no effort to define how high the airspace rights go which makes it a unique and controversial approach. I am guessing it might still pass constitutional muster (despite federal preemption doctrine) because it exempts drones and aircraft operating under FAA regulation unless they are conducting "surveillance." Whether this creates an actual conflict with federal law (as required for federal preemption to kick in) seems like a much closer call than some of the others we have discussed here in the past.

 

[Tinmania]

Many advocacy groups have really latched onto using drones as a way to advance their causes, whether that be pollution or animal rights. The businesses they target are doing whatever they can to lobby for drone laws. I know that LA passed a drone law a few years ago that involved only "targeted locations" such as refineries, chemical plants, etc.

I still haven't read what the genesis of this latest statute was. Does anyone know? Angry homeowners? Business again?


Mike

 

[TrayBoz]

What is an LEO?

 

[Tinmania]

Law Enforcement Officer.

 

[CenlaUAS]

Found this article from a Baton Rouge paper dated April 2016 here.
I know this is before Part 107 became official but it is a prelude to Louisiana law being updated to include drones. The original bill mentioned in the article also wanted to protect someone from lawsuits if they had shot down a drone.
Original bill here. I do not think that part made it to the final bill.

 

[Chip]

...The original bill mentioned in the article also wanted to protect someone from lawsuits if they had shot down a drone.
Original bill here. I do not think that part made it to the final bill.

Holy smoke you are right! Early version of bill (which did not make into final) made it legal to kill or capture a drone invading private airspace rights!

 

[Chip]

...I still haven't read what the genesis of this latest statute was. Does anyone know? Angry homeowners? Business again? Mike

The article says that the Baton Rouge republican senator who sponsored the bill said he first raised his drone concerns three years ago but could not get any traction. A lot has happened in three years!

Many people believe that the FAA has sole authority to regulate all airspace in the USA even if its one inch above private property. This does not make sense, however, when you consider that states have the right to enact and enforce their own laws covering things like nuisance, invasion of privacy, trespass and reckless endangerment under their "police power" to protect the public.

Its just a personal opinion but I think this LA law may be a reasonably clever attempt to hit the sweet spot between state and federal regulation. Now, when I say sweet spot I do not mean what is most advantageous for drone flyers but rather what may be required political compromise in that state.

It still seems odd to me for the statute to acknowledge the existence of private air rights without specifying their boundaries. For example, Nevada passed a law barring drones from flying over private property at less than 250 feet which makes it clear and simple.