Man arrested for flying drone over deadly Mansfield ATV crash

[larryc43230]

Looks as if Ohio is a hotbed for droning news lately, most of it negative....

Man arrested for flying drone over deadly Mansfield ATV crash

This went down about 65 miles from where I live.

Larry

 

[Huckleberry]

Arrested for obstructing official business seems like an overreach to me. Was his actions humane? Probably not. But unless there was a NOTAM closing the airspace above the crash site or the drone was directly interfering with the ability to work the scene, I’d say the gentleman didn’t break any laws (without me knowing any local or state laws obviously). Last I checked, being an inhuman moron was not illegal.

 

[gnirtS]

Even forgetting the moral part of it ( Mod Removed Langage)having a drone in the area can easily prevent things such as air ambulances, search and rescue, fire fighting or surveying etc from operating in the area and he has no idea if any air resources have been requested or not.
Throw the book at him.

 

[Huckleberry]

Even forgetting the moral part of it (the guy is an arsehole) having a drone in the area can easily prevent things such as air ambulances, search and rescue, fire fighting or surveying etc from operating in the area and he has no idea if any air resources have been requested or not.
Throw the book at him.

I understand that, and completely agree with him not knowing what air resources may be responding. But, the fact is, you have to break a law to be charged with something. They can’t arrest him just because it made them mad that he was flying over head. That’s probably the reason why he refused to hand over the footage. As an operator, if you are being asked to turn over footage from your drone (assuming LE is claiming you were committing a crime) you should have the privilege of knowing what law you broke. If you did not break a law, no one has rights to your footage but you. How would taking video from a drone be any different than a pedestrian taking video from a cell phone?

 

[larryc43230]

I understand that, and completely agree with him not knowing what air resources may be responding. But, the fact is, you have to break a law to be charged with something. They can’t arrest him just because it made them mad that he was flying over head. That’s probably the reason why he refused to hand over the footage. As an operator, if you are being asked to turn over footage from your drone (assuming LE is claiming you were committing a crime) you should have the privilege of knowing what law you broke. If you did not break a law, no one has rights to your footage but you.

Actually, according to more detailed reports (and a video featuring the perp himself), there was a police drone in the immediate area and the police will likely charge him with something like interfering with the police drone. The drone pilot admitted he saw the police drone, but claimed it should have been "prominently labelled" as a police drone (whatever that means; lights and siren??).

He also claimed that he never took any photos of the accident scene. After the police confiscated the drone, remote, and phone, they found a bunch of photos of the scene. This will very likely result in a charge of lying to the police.

Larry

 

[Phantomrain.org]

Looks as if Ohio is a hotbed for droning news lately, most of it negative....

Man arrested for flying drone over deadly Mansfield ATV crash

This went down about 65 miles from where I live.

Larry

The Detective said it best , an accident where there our dead people on the road is treated just like a Crime Scene and we dont want any one taking pictures with there drone.

The whole Drone Interefence is Non Sense , it was just an easy scoop to confisgate his drone and get the gruesome pictures he had taken..of the dead bodies...

Guy was hovering in his back yard over looking the highway.

Detective told the truth of why , drone intereference had nothing to do with being in the way of another drone , its just means two drones on site.

Phantomrain.org
Coal

 

[BigAl07]

I fly for Law Enforcement and Emergency Services routinely (local and state level) and unless the "perps" drone had a direct effect over my actions AND (I stress AND) my actions were necessary for the safety of someone on the ground etc I would just have someone go and request the "perp" ground his sUAS until our work is done. If he refused to land then additional actions would come into play.

I suspect there is more to this story (almost always is) and it's not nearly as "cut & dried" as it first appears.

 

[Joel1521]

I tend to agree. I find Law Enforcement Officers, who have a job to do, as reasonable people. I don't know the facts, but I can imagine he would have first been requested to not fly in the area in light of the ongoing emergency and how he responded to that request may have caused a negative response from Law Enforcement. I would love to know more of those facts.

 

[JAW]

If the cops wanted to get a temporary flight restriction over a crime scene, how long would it take? What's the procedure?

 

[BigAl07]

If the cops wanted to get a temporary flight restriction over a crime scene, how long would it take?

A TFR is not instant/quick. It requires lots of signatures and approvals and has to go "Up The Ladder". If it's an urgent Life Threatening matter (not just evidence gathering or accident documentation) it can be done in under an hour (really probably less if you know the right people).

I doubt an agency would even bother with a TFR in this case as it would probably not pass the taste test, take too long to get enacted, and not what TFR's are designed for. Remember that a TFR affects not just sUAS but manned aircraft as well so you've got to think the process through from the surface to several thousand feet up. Also if the sUAS operator doesn't update his system and he's not flying with a current internet connection he could very well fly in a TFR and never know it.

We've gotten a TFR for Wild Fire here that took an hour to get processed and it was to clear the area of all air traffic so the water tankers could come in and do their job. That was a life threatening situation and warranted a TFR.

 

[BigAl07]

What's the procedure?

The "Requesting Agency" calls the SGI Contact # and gets the ball started. There are names, information, and forms that have to get filled out. Once they are completed and submitted your phone will light up and you get to explain more. Once they are happy with your answers they will contact your local FSDO (who may already be on a conference call with you anyway) and they start arranging it. They will coordinate with any manned aircraft facilities etc that might be affected and start setting the TFR up.

Remember that the TFR will affect every aircraft that could potentially fly in the area so it's pertinent to make sure it doesn't restrict hamper critical air travel.

 

[sar104]

The "Requesting Agency" calls the SGI Contact # and gets the ball started. There are names, information, and forms that have to get filled out. Once they are completed and submitted your phone will light up and you get to explain more. Once they are happy with your answers they will contact your local FSDO (who may already be on a conference call with you anyway) and they start arranging it. They will coordinate with any manned aircraft facilities etc that might be affected and start setting the TFR up.

Remember that the TFR will affect every aircraft that could potentially fly in the area so it's pertinent to make sure it doesn't restrict hamper critical air travel.

45 minutes to an hour is my experience for an SGI waiver with a TFR. It's a bit quicker if you don't need any SGI waivers and simply want a TFR - that's just a call to the applicable ARTCC.

 

[paulbuckley]

In the UK it is illegal to fly a drone over any serious incident that may require medical assistance because it would interfere with, and restrict, the effectiveness of emergency services such as medivac.
It's a matter of common sense.

 

[BigAl07]

In the UK it is illegal to fly a drone over any serious incident that may require medical assistance because it would interfere with, and restrict, the effectiveness of emergency services such as medivac.
It's a matter of common sense.

That's also illegal in the US but it's hard for a sUAS operator to know whether or not MediVac are needed so lots of grey area. This is where common sense and a strong moral compass come into play.

 

[Slim.slamma]

strong moral compass come into play.

?

 

[deleted member 877]

Yawn. Another thread that will no doubt end up becoming choc-full of assumptions and conjecture based on a news story.

 

[Bebopperoo]

I don't get it. Everyone and their brother has a camera on their cellphone. Nothing wrong or immortal with photographing ANY public event, including crashes. We are shown corpses on the news regularly, so why does everyone become holier than thou, make up laws that don't exist and scream moral indignation, when the camera is a drone. In almost all countries, the airspace above an incident remains unchanged legally by the incident, and there is no right to privacy just because you're injured or dead, in public. Cellphone cameras have caused numerous courts to accept that the right to photograph people in public is obvious, as long as the images are not misused. So why are drone pilots regarded as sickos for exercising this right? Air ambulances are hardly ever used, and if they arrive, land! Crime scenes can be restricted to the public, but the photons bouncing off the objects are everyone who can capture them's domain. Time we stood together against these sad tossers who can't use drones, and claim airspace that belongs to ... Us!

 

[gnirtS]

I don't get it. Everyone and their brother has a camera on their cellphone. Nothing wrong or immortal with photographing ANY public event, including crashes.

Id like to think most decent human beings arent interested in photographing people who are dead, injured, distressed, in pain or anything else just for their own sick personal amusement.
Why would you do it? What are you going to do with those images? Whats the point?

Its not official journalism, theres no merit at all in doing it. No public interest in unofficial people taking gory snapshots to show off to their friends.

Air ambulances are hardly ever used, and if they arrive, land!

But they are used and can be used. And can be cancelled if one of the emergency services on scene spots the drone as it'll be deemed too risky to approach the area and this HAS happened in various places.
The moron with the drone has NO idea what assets have been called for, are needed or are on the way so has no way of knowing if hes interfering or not. So again, a sensible, thinking human being, knowing he has no legitimate need to be there (personal curiosity is not a good reason) would get away from there and not hang around.

Time we stood together against these sad tossers who can't use drones, and claim airspace that belongs to ... Us!

I'd argue the opposite. Time the drone community grew up, matured and started self policing. Stop people causing distress, annoyance and interference to other members of the public and try to fix the terrible image that currently exists.

 

[Lapeer20m]

There is no expectation of privacy in public spaces. For purposes of the 1st amendment this guy is essentially a journalist gathering content for a story. The government doesn’t get to inspect your footage and decide what is/isn’t appropriate.

This is also a 4th amendment issue. Without reasonable suspicion, nobody should be detained or have their property seized.

My guess is that the department will pay this guy piles of money for this indiscretion.

 

[sar104]

There is no expectation of privacy in public spaces. For purposes of the 1st amendment this guy is essentially a journalist gathering content for a story. The government doesn’t get to inspect your footage and decide what is/isn’t appropriate.

This is also a 4th amendment issue. Without reasonable suspicion, nobody should be detained or have their property seized.

My guess is that the department will pay this guy piles of money for this indiscretion.

It isn't a privacy issue - it's an interfering with or impeding an emergency operation issue. If that's what actually happened.