Stopped by campus police and told I can't fly over campus, even though i had LAANC authorization

[merk]

Email the FAA UAS division at [email protected] and let them have the conversation with the police for you. Local police won’t be able to keep up with their knowledge or authority. I’ve done this very successfully in the past. They even emailed me a very official looking letter to keep in my flight bag.

Already done. I've forwarded a copy of the email to the university and I'm waiting to see what their reply is.

 

[merk]

So I got an email back from the university. They basically avoided any discussion at all about what the FAA said and their attempt at regulating their airspace. They did however claim that I entered restricted airspace by flying into a medical heliport space. I was aware of that space and as far as the DJI map showed, I never actually crossed into that space. I came close to it, but never went into it.


So, I'm not sure if their tracking system really did record me crossing into it, or if they are maybe just bringing it up to try and get me to forget the whole thing, since they conveniently avoided any discussion about them exceeding their authority in trying to regulate all of their airspace. I've asked them if they could send me a copy of whatever flight path they have recorded for me.

 

[sar104]

So I got an email back from the university. They basically avoided any discussion at all about what the FAA said and their attempt at regulating their airspace. They did however claim that I entered restricted airspace by flying into a medical heliport space. I was aware of that space and as far as the DJI map showed, I never actually crossed into that space. I came close to it, but never went into it.


So, I'm not sure if their tracking system really did record me crossing into it, or if they are maybe just bringing it up to try and get me to forget the whole thing, since they conveniently avoided any discussion about them exceeding their authority in trying to regulate all of their airspace. I've asked them if they could send me a copy of whatever flight path they have recorded for me.

They don't understand airspace either, apparently. Medical helipads are not surrounded by controlled or restricted airspace.

 

[merk]

They don't understand airspace either, apparently. Medical helipads are not surrounded by controlled or restricted airspace.

it did show up in the map, so I do think it was restricted. In either case, I avoided it. Even if it wasn't restricted, that's the sort of thing I'd try to give a wide berth.

 

[thispilothere]

So, I'm not sure if their tracking system really did record me crossing into it, or if they are maybe just bringing it up to try and get me to forget the whole thing, since they conveniently avoided any discussion about them exceeding their authority in trying to regulate all of their airspace. I've asked them if they could send me a copy of whatever flight path they have recorded for me.

Sounds about right. They kept everything nebulous enough so they can still harass you in the future.

 

[merk]

Sounds about right. They kept everything nebulous enough so they can still harass you in the future.

Well, I'll see if they provide any sort of record of where they say they tracked my flight.

 

[sar104]

it did show up in the map, so I do think it was restricted. In either case, I avoided it. Even if it wasn't restricted, that's the sort of thing I'd try to give a wide berth.

As I said - the helipad has neither restricted nor associated controlled airspace, other than that it lies within KARB surface Class D. What kind of restricted airspace do you think it would be? You should be aware of how those are defined if you are Part 107. DJI geo zones have no official authority.

 

[BigAl07]

As I said - the helipad has neither restricted nor associated controlled airspace, other than that it lies within KARB surface Class D. What kind of restricted airspace do you think it would be? You should be aware of how those are defined if you are Part 107. DJI geo zones have no official authority.

View attachment 139833

View attachment 139834

We almost need a sticky stating something like:

"DJI GEOFENCING is not FAA Regulations and has no direct correlation to actual Airspace Regulations!"

 

[Defens]

From the UM Ordinance....

WHEREAS, Article VIII, Section 5 of the Michigan Constitution of 1963 provides that The Regents of The University of Michigan and their successors in office shall constitute a body corporate and vests in it the general supervision of the University; and

WHEREAS, Section 5 of Public Act 151 of 1851, as amended (Michigan Compiled Laws Annotated, Section 390.5), provides that the Regents shall have power to enact ordinances, by-laws, and regulations for the government of the University; and

WHEREAS, Section 3 of Public Act 151 of 1851, as amended (Michigan Compiled Laws Annotated, Section 390.3), provides that the government of the University is vested in the Regents; and

WHEREAS, Section 1 of Public Act 80 of 1905, as amended (Michigan Compiled Laws Annotated, Section 19.141), provides that the Regents shall have authority to make and prescribe rules and regulations for the care, preservation, and protection of buildings and property dedicated and appropriated to the public use, over which the Regents have jurisdiction or power of control and the conduct of those coming upon University property, which may be necessary for the maintenance of good order and the protection of its property, and further provides that the Regents shall have authority to enforce such rules and regulations; and

WHEREAS, Section 1 of Public Act 291 of 1967 (Michigan Compiled Laws Annotated, Section 390.891), authorizes the Regents to enact parking, traffic, and pedestrian ordinances for the government and control of its campuses, and to provide fines for violations of the ordinances; and Section 3 of that Act permits the Regents to establish a Parking Violations Bureau as an exclusive agency to accept admissions of responsibility in cases of civil infraction violations of any parking ordinance and to collect and retain fines and costs as prescribed in the ordinance for violations; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to the above-designated authority, and in discharge of the responsibility imposed by them, The Regents of the University of Michigan deem it necessary to adopt an ordinance and rules and regulations for the care, preservation, protection, and government of University property; for the regulation of the conduct of persons coming upon its property; for the regulation of driving and parking of motor vehicles, vehicles and bicycles upon its property; for the removal and impoundment of motor vehicles, vehicles and bicycles abandoned thereon; for the maintenance of good order; for the promotion of public health, safety, and general welfare in and upon its property; and for any other purposes as permitted under the laws of the State of Michigan.

WHEREAS, nothing herein shall be construed or interpreted to constitute an exclusive remedy for conduct that violates University policy; University ordinances; or municipal, state, federal, or other laws.

I see nothing in here that gives the regents authority to write code to enforce anything other than pedestrian, bicycle, or vehicular traffic on the university grounds. No mention of airspace - which would be in violation of Federal law. IANAL.

 

[Genghis]

No - I'd just call the local FSDO or the FAA sUAS help line in DC and report it. Was this campus LE or city?

https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-statement-federal-vs-local-drone-authority

 

[Genghis]

I see nothing in here that gives the regents authority to write code to enforce anything other than pedestrian, bicycle, or vehicular traffic on the university grounds. No mention of airspace - which would be in violation of Federal law. IANAL.

https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-statement-federal-vs-local-drone-authority

 

[PVilardi]

I have yet to see any cop change their tune when informed of the law. They usually double down.

You are absolutely right about that. Fire Marshal here is also a peace officer and even he says most cops believe they are right no matter what.

 

[Rich QR]

I see nothing in here that gives the regents authority to write code to enforce anything other than pedestrian, bicycle, or vehicular traffic on the university grounds. No mention of airspace - which would be in violation of Federal law. IANAL.

I agree with you. However, it appears, based on the text of the ordinance quoted, that the Regents DID write a rule that forbids drone flight over the campus. The police officer in the field can legitimately claim that he's got the authority to enforce rules enacted by the University Regents, and he's not in a position to second-guess whether the Regents were within their authority when they enacted the rule. I suspect that, if the officer does issue a citation, he'll be backed up by his chain of command within the police department. The place where jurisdictional issues may be settled would be in the courts. And it might take an appeal or two to settle it definitively. That could quickly become more expensive than the fine.

So what's an individual pilot to do? I'd suggest not arguing jurisdictional issues with an officer in the field. He's got his marching orders, and even if you're right, he'll issue the citation according to the law he's been told to enforce, and let the courts sort it out.

You might be able to get some help from the FAA, but don't be surprised if the police department says something along the lines of, "We don't answer to the FAA. We work for the University Regents, and we enforce their rules".

Perhaps you could petition the University Regents to change their rule, based on the FAA's guidance. I have no idea of the probability of success on that front.

It would be interesting to write to the AOPA or AMA, to see if they would offer any help in pursuing a test case through the courts.

I saw the link earlier in the thread about the US District Court in Massachusetts issuing a decision that struck down a local ordinance. That is of course good news, but the problem is that a District Court's decision is not a binding precedent for other districts. A decision by a Court of Appeals would be binding on Districts within the jurisdiction of that particular Court of Appeals, so would be stronger, but the Supreme Court of the United States is the only court that could issue a decision that would become a binding precedent nationwide.

https://www.law.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Matthew-Schafer-FederalLawFederalCourtsandBindingandPersuasiveAuthority.pdf

 

[Hogarth]

Merk, your efforts dealing with this is commendable!

For all in Michigan, the resource is the Michigan Coalition of Drone Operators. They are very active in working with local governing agencies on sUAS issues, and in some cases, battling them.

Founder is @Lapeer20m

Here's a thread he started a couple years ago. The video is a must see!

Arrested for flying a drone; UPDATE video

We won! please be respectful.

mavicpilots.com

Their attention is now on Ottawa County. It appears they are headed to the court of appeals!

Currently, the bottom line in Michigan, State Law prohibits local governing agencies from regulating ownership and operations of drones.

 

[johnmoxl]

Your LAANC permission is the relevant "document" to show them since it is authorized by the FAA. It is a beautiful campus (I went to school there) and you have every right to fly there provided it is not directly over people and within LOS. They have no jurisdiction whatsoever. Uof M is also a very leftist/progressive culture, so it is not surprising that they have rules that are outside their lawful jurisdiction. Unless you sell the photos the copyright laws do not apply, and as stated before if the people are not unidentifiable there is no issue of privacy rights. Don't be confrontational but also don't be bullied. In addition to central campus and the stadium, check out the arboretum - beautiful setting. Fly on!

 

[akdrone]

I live in Canada & if someone flow a drone around my house without asking first, I think I could argue invasion of privacy. But having flow drones commercially since 2012, i wonder why you didn’t go to the institution first, explain what you wanted to do. Having been in a similar situation a number of times, I’ve never had anyone refuse, in fact, au contraire every person/institution I’ve consulted has been interested and asked if they could help. I’ve always provided copies of some photographs as a thank you afterwards. Laws don’t cover individuals sensitivities very well. I would suggest treat them as you would wish to be treated. Confrontation usually goes down rabbit holes, a little interaction, friendly exchange & it could all turn out differently, everyone is happy. Just my thoughts from years of experience as a commercial photographer.

Don't know Canadian law. In the U.S. invasion of privacy might work if a drone was filming inside a house that was otherwise hidden from normal view. Barbara Streisand famously sued an airplane pilot flying the coast and filming homes and such along the way. Nobody would have ever heard of it except for her lawsuit which then made photos of her home famous. We now call that the "Streisand effect" - suing for privacy which then makes something famous.

 

[dr6583]

(this is Michigan)
I've been stopped by the police once or twice before just asking what I was doing and nothing else beyond a 2 minute conversation happened.

Today however I was flying around a university that is also within controlled airspace. I have a part 107 license and i applied for and received LAANC authorization to fly within the area.

About 10-15 minutes into the flight an officer knocked on my car door asking about why I was flying and where I was flying. Apparently the university has it's own tracking system and could actually track the flight path of the drone. I was not standing on university property. But parts of the flight path took the drone over university property.

My understanding was only the FAA could tell you where you can and can not fly your drone. I even mentioned that, politely, to the officer and he acknowledged the issue but arguing the law was beyond his pay grade and he was just there to enforce the ordinances the university had.

I wasn't about to argue with the cop, since no matter what the law actually is, it's an argument that wouldn't have ended well for me.

This is what's on the university's page regarding drone usage:



Am I incorrect about only the FAA controlling airspace?

They can legally prevent you from taking off and landing from their property, but NOT flying over it. They're not the FAA and need to be educated.

 

[DoomMeister]

Don't shoot the messenger but you may want to look at the UM regulations on drones at

Drones on Campus | Division of Public Safety & Security

Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), commonly known as drones, are not permitted to operate, take off or land from, on or over University of Michigan property.

dpss.umich.edu

The University is a special state governmental entity and can create its own laws and enforce them, which they have done for drones in Article XVI in the U-M Regents' Ordinance, beginning on page 33...

Section 2 Criminal Provisions​

​

(a) Prohibition. Except as provided in Section 5 [Exceptions] and 6 [Waiver] of this Article, it shall be unlawful for anyone to operate, take off, or land a UAV from, on, or over University of Michigan property.​

(b) Penalty. A person who violates this Section 2 is guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction, punishable by imprisonment for not less than ten days and no more than sixty days, or by a fine of not more than fifty dollars, or both.​

Section 3 Civil Provisions​

​

(a) Prohibition. Except as provided in Sections 5 [Exceptions] and 6 [Waiver] of this Article, no person shall assist in the operation, take off, or landing of a UAV from, on, or over University of Michigan property.​

​

(b) Penalty. A violation of this Section 3 shall constitute a civil infraction and shall be punishable by a fine of not more than fifty dollars.​

Section 4 Impoundment of the UAV​

​

A law enforcement officer with a reasonable belief that a UAV is being operated in violation of any provisions of this Article may also impound the UAV. The impoundment shall involve removal of the UAV to a University of Michigan provided place of safekeeping until its owner can be located and notified. If the impounded UAV is not claimed by and returned to its owner within a time period considered by the University of Michigan to be reasonable, then it shall be disposed of in accordance with University of Michigan policy. The Executive Director of the Division of Public Safety and Security or the Executive Director’s designee with respect to the Ann Arbor campus, or the respective Chancellor or the Chancellor’s designee with respect to the Dearborn and Flint campuses, may impose a reasonable charge for the storage and handling of an impounded UAV while it is in the possession of the University of Michigan. Any UAV impounded shall not be released until all applicable charges and fines have been paid.​

The ordnance also defines "Law enforcement officer" as "a University law enforcement officer or a non-University law enforcement officer of legally established law enforcement agencies."

https://regents.umich.edu/files/meetings/01-01/Regents_Ordinance_July_2020.pdf

And U of M has NO, ZERO, NADA authority over the airspace over the campus. As long as CFR 14 Part 107 is adhered to by 107 certified pilots or Recreational pilots following USC 49 44809 they have no right to interfere with that flight as long as it is not done from their property.

That bunch of stuffed shirts on the Board of Regents place themselves on a footing with the Lord Almighty and truly need an attitude adjustment. I think they had graduates that serve on the Genesee County Park Commission.

 

[Jagerbomb52]

And U of M has NO, ZERO, NADA authority over the airspace over the campus. As long as CFR 14 Part 107 is adhered to by 107 certified pilots or Recreational pilots following USC 49 44809 they have no right to interfere with that flight as long as it is not done from their property.

That bunch of stuffed shirts on the Board of Regents place themselves on a footing with the Lord Almighty and truly need an attitude adjustment. I think they had graduates that serve on the Genesee County Park Commission.

You must have ate a double batch of wheaties this morning buddy. Have not seen you so riled up in a long time

 

[DoomMeister]

They don't understand airspace either, apparently. Medical helipads are not surrounded by controlled or restricted airspace.

Although the helipads at University Hospital are within the Class D airspace of Ann Arbor Municipal Airport in a 0’ LAANC sector.

The pilot had LAANC clearance and as long as he was within the airspace authorized the University has no leg to stand on.

Not contradicting, just clarifying.