Even Cops can’t ask you to ID if you haven’t committed a crime but since I was a City of Chicago employee, I would called the Police! They have a real low threshold for security guards trying to act like them!
Navy Pier Chicago Illegal to Fly? I got assaulted there for not showing my ID to a security guard there.
- Thread starter AtortPhotography
- Start date
FoxFlight Drone Video
Well-Known Member
When I flew Navy Pier and Grant Park for this video in September of 2021, I didn't have a problem. That said, I launched from the top of a hill in the park circled in red simply because I was away from the people and had a better LOS down the length. So I wasn't in an area where I was going to be noticed as much.
But yeah, this goes in the category of "I hear about it but it hasn't happened to me." I have had only good encounters with people and the occasional law enforcement.
But yeah, this goes in the category of "I hear about it but it hasn't happened to me." I have had only good encounters with people and the occasional law enforcement.
Your case brings up some interesting issues.
1. You were most definitely operating your drone unlawfully. Whether you knew it or not, you need to own that.
2. While the security guard had every right to ask you for your identification, he did not have a right to physically assault you, or attempt to detain you against your will. You should consider filing a police report and / or a civil lawsuit.
3. All that being said, you could have simply provided him with a copy of your Part 107 certification and allowed the security guard to document whatever he needed to document pursuant to your unlawful operation of a drone from their property. You need to own that, too.
1. You were most definitely operating your drone unlawfully. Whether you knew it or not, you need to own that.
2. While the security guard had every right to ask you for your identification, he did not have a right to physically assault you, or attempt to detain you against your will. You should consider filing a police report and / or a civil lawsuit.
3. All that being said, you could have simply provided him with a copy of your Part 107 certification and allowed the security guard to document whatever he needed to document pursuant to your unlawful operation of a drone from their property. You need to own that, too.
Does Illinois have a state law restricting the flying of drones in private places?
If so it becomes a "privacy" issue and probably extends to restrictions of photography when flying over private places and requiring permission of the owner to take pictures.
They question I always have about this restriction - I'm in California where it does exist - is does this only apply to the capture/recording of images from a drone or is the video feed back to the controller within the definition of "photography"?
If so it becomes a "privacy" issue and probably extends to restrictions of photography when flying over private places and requiring permission of the owner to take pictures.
They question I always have about this restriction - I'm in California where it does exist - is does this only apply to the capture/recording of images from a drone or is the video feed back to the controller within the definition of "photography"?
FLDave
Well-Known Member
Specifically, what so you mean by flying "in private places"? The air ABOVE private property is, in general, regulated by the FAA and related authorities. Trespassing ON private property is a separate issue.
I disagree with this statement, although it is splitting some pretty fine hairs.
The amusement park at Navy Pier is both administered/owned by a private entity, and is a public accommodation. Meaning, it’s open to the public.
It isn’t against the law, it isn’t unlawful to enter the property. It’s not a criminal trespass to enter the property. The OP did not cut a fence, sneak in through a window, fake their credentials, etc. To what’s written, they did not commit a crime, they did not act unlawfully.
The property owner certainly has the right to determine what can or cannot be done on their property, that is, legally, they can determine what would be a trespassing use. For example, drone operations not permitted.
But, being a public accommodation, it is up to the owner or their agents, for example a security guard, or via posted signs, to notify drone operators about what’s not an allowed use. Which the security guard did do, and the pilot landed and prepared to leave. Up to that point, the interaction was consistent with the rights of the pilot and of the property owner.
Publication of rules on a web site isn’t adequate notice. Notification requires prominent signage or verbal statements from an agent of the property owner.
As I understand the law, the OP was never acting unlawfully or illegally. The remedy for the property owner is to issue a trespassing notice, and to call the police if the pilot doesn’t leave.
So I was referring to California law - Civil Code 1708.8
(a) A person is liable for physical invasion of privacy when the person knowingly enters onto the land or into the airspace above the land of another person without permission or otherwise commits a trespass in order to capture any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression of the plaintiff engaging in a private, personal, or familial activity and the invasion occurs in a manner that is offensive to a reasonable person.
(d) A person who commits any act described in subdivision (a)... is liable for up to three times the amount of any general and special damages that are proximately caused by the violation of this section. This person may also be liable for punitive damages, subject to proof according to Section 3294. If the plaintiff proves that the invasion of privacy was committed for a commercial purpose, the person shall also be subject to disgorgement to the plaintiff of any proceeds or other consideration obtained as a result of the violation of this section. A person who comes within the description of this subdivision is also subject to a civil fine of not less than five thousand dollars ($5,000) and not more than fifty thousand dollars ($50,000).
CA CIV Code 1708.8
California Code, CIV 1708.8.
leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
-------------
Reading this, it does seem that as long as one is not "recording" to either internal or external storage of images, you would not be in violation.
It has always been my policy to ask and get permission first - even if it's a rent-a-cop. They have been charged with maintaining the security of the property. The concept of asking forgiveness rather than permission doesn't apply when security is involved. If you had sought out someone on the property and asked permission, you would have avoided all this grief. If they said no, then it's no. If they said OK, then you have permission and whoever gave you the permission will defend your right to fly because you were approved by the security personnel. Under the worst case scenario, if you are queried by another person on the property and you were able to say, "I spoke with John Security Guy and he gave me permission to fly here. Is that OK with you?" If it isn't, just land and say thanks.
Granted the security was very heavy handed, but you were also on property he was charged with protecting. Imagine if his boss cornered him and asked if he got a name and address of the intruder and he had to say no. What if that cost him his job? How about, "sure - here's my ID and my documents. Sorry if I caused you any distress. I probably should have asked first. You had the same ability to de-escalate as did the security guard. Having been in many tight situations myself over the years, I can tell you that your best weapon is your mouth. Be friendly - be accommodating. It's not who's right, it's not who's wrong, it's who's in control.
If you imagine coming out your back door and seeing someone flying at the bottom of your yard, and they say "I thought it was OK", I expect you would also want to know who it was and what were they doing. Sometimes common courtesy and common sense will carry the day.
Granted the security was very heavy handed, but you were also on property he was charged with protecting. Imagine if his boss cornered him and asked if he got a name and address of the intruder and he had to say no. What if that cost him his job? How about, "sure - here's my ID and my documents. Sorry if I caused you any distress. I probably should have asked first. You had the same ability to de-escalate as did the security guard. Having been in many tight situations myself over the years, I can tell you that your best weapon is your mouth. Be friendly - be accommodating. It's not who's right, it's not who's wrong, it's who's in control.
If you imagine coming out your back door and seeing someone flying at the bottom of your yard, and they say "I thought it was OK", I expect you would also want to know who it was and what were they doing. Sometimes common courtesy and common sense will carry the day.
A security guard is not a commissioned or deputized law enforcement officer. He has no power to make an arrest; if he really thought someone was breaking the law he needed to call the police.
The state has no authority relative to flying the national airspace which includes airspace above private property. This law basically addresses privacy issues, and by not "recording" while in flight over the property, it is a good proof that one is not surveilling the property.
So to go back to the OP and question of flying over the Navy Pier in Chicago. The Navy Pier is owned by the Navy Pier, Inc. which according to their website is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit corporation established in 2011, and is private property. It appears for the OP - while not explicitly stated - photography may have been recorded. My post was just pointing out that under California civil code law this would be considered an invasion of privacy. A trespassing violation is a criminal activity under California penal code (601 and 602) and would need to be enforced in the appropriate manner. I can't speak to Illinois laws on privacy and trespassing.
Of curious to me in California would specifically be PC 602.1 (a)
"(a) Any person who intentionally interferes with any lawful business or occupation carried on by the owner or agent of a business establishment open to the public, by obstructing or intimidating those attempting to carry on business, or their customers, and who refuses to leave the premises of the business establishment after being requested to leave by the owner or the owner’s agent, or by a peace officer acting at the request of the owner or owner’s agent, is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for up to 90 days, or by a fine of up to four hundred dollars ($400), or by both that imprisonment and fine."
If paying visitors or customers to a publicly open privately owned place of entertainment (say San Diego's version of the Navy Pier) and some visitors/customers complained that there was a drone overhead and they were going to leave due to its presence, and said drone was not associated with the place - would PC 602.1 trespassing come into play.
It would appear at least in California if you're flying your drone over a private business and a security guard ask you to leave, you probably should.
FLDave
Well-Known Member
And what does this have to do with California code? I see no relevancy.
I just asked a question - if under California trespassing law Penal Code 602.1, if security guard asks a drone pilot to not fly over the private business they were guarding, it seems like if they don't comply it "could be"* considered trespassing in California.
So the point of my original post was; does Illinois have a similar approach to trespassing as I am not familiar with Illinois laws.
* - As former law enforcement, I can tell you, a lot of outcomes hinge on ..."it depends" and "attitudes" of those involved.
I would have shown him my Part 107 after I had landed and if he had wanted to escalate further, I would called the Police! There were Police Officers stationed about 100 feet from where you took off! Get a Lawyer and file suit! I even had Cops fly my Drone!
I think you’re stretching in a couple of areas, perhaps for the sake of debate. The OP’s situation is that they were given notice, but their ability to leave the property was illegally impeded right after that notification. As far as we know from what’s written.
As far as I know, once notification is given the pilot is obligated to cease operations or cease operations and leave as requested. If they do not do so the property owner can temporarily or permanently bar them from entry, and the owner should call law enforcement if needed. That’s not in dispute on private property anywhere in the U.S.A.
(my emphasis added in bold)
By definition a space that is a public accommodation is not a space where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. The public is welcome - it is not private. That’s how I read the California Code you quoted, that’s how I understand Oregon’s privacy statutes as well.
(There are other civil provisions about use of imagery captured in a public space, or a public accommodation.)
It’s certainly possible to get on the wrong side of privacy law while flying in conformance with FAA regs, but to my understanding this isn’t an example of that at all.
Navy Pier in Chicago is not a No Fly Zone and the Security Guard exceeded his Authority by even asking for ID! Only Cops can ask you for your ID and even then, they may not get it!
Hope you file a police report and notify the navy pier. They need to know about a situation like this where a security guard is assaulting people. What he did was assault you. He had no authority to physically push you or put his hands on you. Someone power tripping like him is going to physically hurt someone one day.
If you have digital footage/audio of any part of this assault, check through it, if it looks/sounds as bad as it felt while it was happening, file an official complaint with the body responsible for employing whoever the individual is then file a complaint of assault with the police.
If you landed when asked, were polite & compliant, and attempted to leave, there was no justification for the “security“ guy to touch you and get that aggressive. What he did was assault and worthy of a 911 call at the time. Inexcusable behavior on his part. Did he ever call for backup or have a recording device on him? Sounds like an out of control wanna be personality.
My statement is about the legality of flying the drone, Private property vs public property. What I said has nothing to do with the Guard's or OP's behavior. So, I don't understand your point for quoting my statement and your response to it.
Similar threads
DJI Drone Deals
New Threads
-
-
-
-
-
Looking for Help with Search for a Lost Pup with a Drone (Carmel Valley San Diego)
- Started by boomtown2024
- Replies: 3
Forum statistics
