My Mavic Was Shot Out of the Sky

[newnan3]

The sad thing, IMHO, is that even if you get a judgement against the guy, getting money from him if he just ignores it, may be difficult other than a lien on his property. The only other thing is charges that result in him paying a fine.

A common misconception when people talk about filing suit over a supposed wrongdoing is that the court is gonna go into their vault of money and hand it to you....

Getting a judgment only gives you the right to try to collect. Often this can be futile as often defendants have no money and own no property.

 

[bleedgr33n]

I was waiting for a return call from the FAA. I received the call today....and they basically don't care. The caller was a really nice guy, but he said even if there was an individual firing at a 747, local law enforcement still would need to handle it.

Next up I plan to get an update from local LE if I can and find out if the prosecutor is going to pursue any charges recommended by the deputy or if they have just dropped the issue altogether.

As for me personally, I'm fairly stuck as to what to do. Even if I were to get a judgement against the guy, getting him to pay up is likely unfeasible given the sum and his apparent socioeconomic status.

 

[E92Vancouver]

I was waiting for a return call from the FAA. I received the call today....and they basically don't care. The caller was a really nice guy, but he said even if there was an individual firing at a 747, local law enforcement still would need to handle it.

Next up I plan to get an update from local LE if I can and find out if the prosecutor is going to pursue any charges recommended by the deputy or if they have just dropped the issue altogether.

As for me personally, I'm fairly stuck as to what to do. Even if I were to get a judgement against the guy, getting him to pay up is likely unfeasible given the sum and his apparent socioeconomic status.

If you got a judgment you could garnish his wages, bank account and/or put a lien on his property.

 

[Lapeer20m]

Speaking with someone who heavily investigate the drone laws, FAA owns ANY air space above the surface of the Earth in the US borders. There is no 80ft rule or anything like that. For a bit of extreme but clarification point, if you fly a helicopter 2 ft off the ground in your 200 acre back yard, you still fall under FAA regulation as your private property rights have no relevance anymore.
The best method to take down a drone legally? Hack it or jam it and the FAA confirmed that's not their problem, that's a local law enforcement issue at that point

Technically that becomes an FCC issue as they control the radio frequency spectrum.

It is my understanding that radio jammers and the like are generally unlawful.

I am curious about the best way to down a dji drone with radio frequency. Just jamming controller or gps frequencies wouldn't necessarily bring it down.

The amount of power required to fry the internals is likely not safe for a human to handle.

The .gov is using this technology but I don't understand exactly how they are doing it.

 

[dewster]

It may end up being a civil matter since an air rifle was used.

Gather facts, info from the FAA, flight logs etc. to prove your case. Now your flight altitude and time spent hovering will have to be answered as well.

I'm sure there will be a distinction made between shooting down manned and unmanned aircraft and whether shooting down a drone endangers the public.

 

[Stuart Wood]

Yes, they will. But withholding said evidence until after all depositions and witness testimony is taken is ideal - as the defendant doesn't know what is on the video. If he knows in advance what is on the video, he can tailor his statements accordingly. Whereas, if he doesn't know if there's a video, or what is on it, he's much more likely to provide deceptive and incriminating accounts of what happened.

It's called "discovery", you have obligation to turn over all evidence relevant to the case prior to any adjudications.

 

[_milo_]

Criminal Damage to Property, Malicious Injury to Property, Criminal Mischief, etc, whatever your state calls it, it"s criminal to intentionally damage someone else's property whether with a firearm, airgun, hammer, etc.

You could recover damages in the criminal case in the form of restitution, some states could have the restitution as a condition of his probation, depending on his financial state, it could be very small payments per/month sent to you from the County as he make payments to the the county.

 

[dwallersv]

Technically that becomes an FCC issue as they control the radio frequency spectrum.

It is my understanding that radio jammers and the like are generally unlawful.

I am curious about the best way to down a dji drone with radio frequency. Just jamming controller or gps frequencies wouldn't necessarily bring it down.

The amount of power required to fry the internals is likely not safe for a human to handle.

The .gov is using this technology but I don't understand exactly how they are doing it.

Tightly focused beam.

Ever seen a flashlight?

 

[domination]

The FAA has jurisdiction over all airspace above the US. No homeowner has any right at all to airspace above their house. If you have proof of who shot it down, then off to court you go. But, also remember you are not allowed to fly over people, so if you were over him, or anyone, well that infraction is on you.

Yes - in the US. But this was in Vancouver.

 

[domination]

My point is, the logs you have posted online show that you were loitering over the property, under 83 feet AGL for at least half the time and the only case law on the books about this isn't in your favor (FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.). You should seriously consider just cutting your losses as I don't think you're going to find the outcome of any FAA investigation to be desirable to you or the drone community at large. Not defending the homeowner as they were clearly in the wrong and should be punished but they aren't the only guilty party here. Also, for your security I suggest removing your google drive link as it contains your full name.

Late to posting BUT this occurred in Vancouver.

 

[Chironbrew]

You do realize there is a town called Vancouver in Washington state?

 

[erkme73]

It's called "discovery", you have obligation to turn over all evidence relevant to the case prior to any adjudications.

Adjudications, sure, but not statements to investigators. The sequences is, assuming there is pressure to charge the shooter:

1) Investigator(s) will question all involved, gather evidence and witness testimony.
2) If the DA/prosecutor decides that there were violations of the law that (s)he feels can be successfully prosecuted, charges will be filed.
3) Any lawyer retained by the shooter will immediately file for discovery to learn what evidence and testimony the prosecution has.
4) Case goes to trial and shooter will be able to form a defense based on the evidence obtained via discovery.

The problem is, if the shooter is able to learn about (and view) the video evidence before the investigators question him, he can avoid providing false statements to the detectives. On the other hand, if he doesn't know the video exists, he may well lie to investigators, creating a whole new set of troubles - not the least of which is credibility problems for any future trial.

Allowing the shooter to see first-hand what evidence the police have a their disposal before their investigation is complete is detrimental to the OP.

 

[SRJ_Mavic_PRO]

Hmmm. First post? Registered today? Stirring the pot? Me thinks this joker is your neighbor.

You labeled that post right JOKER!

 

[Gary cato]

Here's the video from the speaker at DefCon that did this research:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

loved the presentation

 

[Stuart Wood]

Adjudications, sure, but not statements to investigators. The sequences is, assuming there is pressure to charge the shooter:

1) Investigator(s) will question all involved, gather evidence and witness testimony.
2) If the DA/prosecutor decides that there were violations of the law that (s)he feels can be successfully prosecuted, charges will be filed.
3) Any lawyer retained by the shooter will immediately file for discovery to learn what evidence and testimony the prosecution has.
4) Case goes to trial and shooter will be able to form a defense based on the evidence obtained via discovery.

The problem is, if the shooter is able to learn about (and view) the video evidence before the investigators question him, he can avoid providing false statements to the detectives. On the other hand, if he doesn't know the video exists, he may well lie to investigators, creating a whole new set of troubles - not the least of which is credibility problems for any future trial.

Allowing the shooter to see first-hand what evidence the police have a their disposal before their investigation is complete is detrimental to the OP.

Believe that changes as soon as an attorney is involved (which is usually the case once a criminal charge is placed and assuming shooter retains his rights), so in this case as the video is the only real evidence that would not make any difference. A bit like using police dash cam footage. At some point pre adjudication this would be in the open, and defense would have to have opportunity to see it and determine if it could be used to prove their case or not. Public domain footage (CCTV etc.) is often used in this way, unfortunately not possible to hold it back, but either way it is the Op's call.

 

[erkme73]

Believe that changes as soon as an attorney is involved (which is usually the case once a criminal charge is placed and assuming shooter retains his rights), so in this case as the video is the only real evidence that would not make any difference. A bit like using police dash cam footage. At some point pre adjudication this would be in the open, and defense would have to have opportunity to see it and determine if it could be used to prove their case or not. Public domain footage (CCTV etc.) is often used in this way, unfortunately not possible to hold it back, but either way it is the Op's call.

Exactly correct. but keep in mind, the investigation (including interviewing suspects and collecting evidence) occurs, at least in part, before charges are filed. The police don't file charges, the prosecutor does - and the prosecutor won't unless they are given convincing evidence that leads them to believe the can prosecute it successfully. Up until then, the 'suspect' isn't entitled to discovery - since no charges have been filed.

The smartest thing the suspect can do is retain an attorney, and remain silent. Doing so places obstacles in the path of the investigators, which not only prevents the suspect from making incriminating statements, but also puts the prosecution on notice that this case won't necessarily be a slam dunk.

 

[SRJ_Mavic_PRO]

After reading all the OP post and seeing the news clip I'm guessing that the "suspect" and the word smart would be an oxymoron...

 

[bleedgr33n]

I'm waiting on a return call from local Sheriffs office. I don't know that pursuing a civil suit is worthwhile at this point, mainly due to money. I don't have cash to go after this guy if I'm not certain I'd be getting a good judgement.

I will reassess after I find out if the local prosecutors office is pursuing charges.

 

[Mr. Salty]

I'm waiting on a return call from local Sheriffs office. I don't know that pursuing a civil suit is worthwhile at this point, mainly due to money. I don't have cash to go after this guy if I'm not certain I'd be getting a good judgement.

I will reassess after I find out if the local prosecutors office is pursuing charges.

Don't rule out small-claims court, because that's probably where you should be pursuing this anyway given that a Mavic only costs $1,000. Filing in small claims doesn't cost much and you don't need a lawyer.

 

[ZoMBiE*Je5uS]

If you are in Canada, you are in a Small Claims Court situation. If you believe the person who shot down your drone has the means to pay a judgement (works, owns land, a vehicle, etc) you don't need a lawyer to prosecute a small claims application.

You pay the fee, should be $100 or less for a claim under $5k and set out in your statement of claim what transpired and that you have video. You provide a receipt for the cost of your Mavic and if possible a quote for repairs (either from Dji, or a local shop).

You'll need to ensure that the other side is personally served once your claim is issued, there should be process servers in your area, or you can do it yourself. The issue with doing it yourself is that it can lead to confrontation, so take a 3rd party along.

Once served you'll get a date which is a status date, they may file a defence which reminds me of the issue that if you do not have an address other than home to be served at, you'll be giving the other side access to your home address. At the status date, you'll get a hearing date.

Before the hearing, contact the court as you'll need to ensure that you can connect your laptop to their AV equipment and play the video. As Applicant you need to go first, you testimony should consist of what you did, where the drone was when shot down and that Mr. X came and gave you your drone back afterwards and that Mr. X is the defendant here today.

Potential defences are that you were flying contra the Canadian rules as you did not have the landowners permission and were within 75m of a structure. This could result in a fine.

None of the foregoing was provided as legal advice, it is merely opinion, and may or may not be accurate in your jurisdiction. You are encouraged to consult with a lawyer in your jurisdiction to ascertain whether or not a small claims action is feasible for your case.