Ohio House Bill 77

[heightened_imagery]

Didnt see any posts here about it yet. Link to story is here.

Basically:
Ohio House Bill 77 will make it a criminal offense for anyone operating a drone in a manner that knowingly endangers a person or property or that purposely disregards others' rights or safety.

Those found guilty of the offense will have to pay a $500 fine or spend six months in jail.

The bill will also make it illegal to operate a drone in a manner that disrupts law enforcement and emergency services.

Additionally, it allows local governments to regulate drones flying over public property.

What does everyone feel about it?
Will it be challenged?
Is it even legal?
Discuss!

 

[mavic3usa]

OH already has a law that protects people and their property from endangerment/damage from cars, busses, airplanes, rocks, knives, guns, law mowers, and drones and anything else. It's already illegal to interfere with police and ems.

The reason to have a separate drone bill is two fold:
1. It's vague enough that you can charge anyone with a drone crime if you don't like what they are doing with that drone.
2.Once people find out it's easy to be charged with crime while flying a drone normally, they will refrain so this will be a chill on drone flying in OH.

We will be back to square one. Whether you get arrested and go to jail or get a ticket will depend on 1) Who you are, 2) Where you are flying, 3) What you say or don't say 4) The officer, 5) The complaint, and 6) How much you cooperate or not.

Flying an FPV drone at 60mph purposely endangers the other people in the public park; period.
If you catch the attention of a police officer on scene during the course of his duties, your interruption will likely be seen as a disruption.

This law will probably pass but it needs to be challenged. the part I hate the most is the reference to a drone violation someone else's rights, the idea that flying over private property is a problem, regulating flying over public property, and for sure, this bogus idea about using a drone to interfere with police. Those are all nonstarters.

 

[Bad Santa]

Burden of proof law.
Any citations would need to prove that the condition that make it illegal was, indeed, satisfied.

 

[mavic3usa]

Burden of proof law.
Any citations would need to prove that the condition that make it illegal was, indeed, satisfied.

You're joking, right?

A prosecutor has to prove flying an FPV drone at 60mph with the pilot wearing goggles, zipping through the city park and 911 calls coming in from people who are scared what they hear and can't see..... if you go home that night your fine; if you get arrested that means they had the "proof" that you broke the law.

Anyway, no one is going to court over this. With threats to go to jail, all drone flyers caught under this statute would rather agree to plead no content and pay $500 rather than fight it. Eventually people will be prevented from flying in the city park and the bill will have succeeded.

For speeding 5 mph OTL, the first ticket is $200, the second ticket is $500, etc. This is prescribed in the law and it's common knowledge.
If the first ticket was $200 and/or go to jail for 30 days, nobody would speed 5mph OTL.

 

[Bad Santa]

You're joking, right?

A prosecutor has to prove flying an FPV drone at 60mph with the pilot wearing goggles, zipping through the city park and 911 calls coming in from people who are scared what they hear and can't see..... if you go home that night your fine; if you get arrested that means they had the "proof" that you broke the law.

Anyway, no one is going to court over this. With threats to go to jail, all drone flyers caught under this statute would rather agree to plead no content and pay $500 rather than fight it. Eventually people will be prevented from flying in the city park and the bill will have succeeded.

For speeding 5 mph OTL, the first ticket is $200, the second ticket is $500, etc. This is prescribed in the law and it's common knowledge.
If the first ticket was $200 and/or go to jail for 30 days, nobody would speed 5mph OTL.

You're kidding, right?

The difference of the burden of proof is the person who says they were in danger because someone "annoyed" them with their drone at the park vs the guy flying his racing drone 20 feet over a crowd watching a fireworks show at night.

 

[mavic3usa]

You're kidding, right?

The difference of the burden of proof is the person who says they were in danger because someone "annoyed" them with their drone at the park vs the guy flying his racing drone 20 feet over a crowd watching a fireworks show at night.

Flying your drone 20 feet over a crowd watching fireworks show at night is already a crime. We don't need a new law for that. OH is not passing a law to stop this behavior.

OH is passing a law to stop this:

Flying your drone in the city park buzzing around however distant from the person or two and that person is alarmed or scared that drone may hit them even though it doesn't come near them (in the pilots opinion) or that person is annoyed with the noise. Pilot doesn't think his flying is unsafe; bystander thinks his actions are unsafe. It's very easy to sit on a park bench minding your own business and then watching a drone fly around the entire park and you starting thinking "that's crazy; that drone flying around the park is nut; someone is going to get hurt."

Today, that's not a crime.

After the OH bill is signed, that could be crime. Says so right here: ".... that purposely disregards others' rights or safety."

 

[Bad Santa]

Flying your drone 20 feet over a crowd watching fireworks show at night is already a crime. We don't need a new law for that. OH is not passing a law to stop this behavior.

OH is passing a law to stop this:

Flying your drone in the city park buzzing around however distant from the person or two and that person is alarmed or scared that drone may hit them even though it doesn't come near them (in the pilots opinion) or that person is annoyed with the noise. Pilot doesn't think his flying is unsafe; bystander thinks his actions are unsafe. It's very easy to sit on a park bench minding your own business and then watching a drone fly around the entire park and you starting thinking "that's crazy; that drone flying around the park is nut; someone is going to get hurt."

Today, that's not a crime.

After the OH bill is signed, that could be crime. Says so right here: ".... that purposely disregards others' rights or safety."

~sigh~
SMH

 

[mavic3usa]

~sigh~
SMH

I know. Sad isn't it.

 

[Bad Santa]

I know. Sad isn't it.

I think you know that's not what I sighed about.
The sadness lies within those who interpret (perceived) bad things with hyperbole.

 

[mavic3usa]

I think you know that's not what I sighed about.
The sadness lies within those who interpret (perceived) bad things with hyperbole.

So this law is a good law and I'm only perceiving it to be bad and ill-conceived and nefarious?

Do you agree with this law in part or the entire law? Do you feel this law will have no impact on the drone community?

Why do you think OH wants to pass this law?

From the few sentences you wrote, I get the impression you think this law will help catch the bad guys and prevent drone crimes and give OH the power to keep the community safe from drones but if you are following the law, you have nothing to worry about; is that right?