Taking By POLICE

[Brojon]

Note to self:
If LEO asks if I have a drone the correct answer is “do you have a search warrant?”

Actually the first mistake was handing over the drone to begin with.
People are way too eager to cooperate with police.
The important thing to realize is that officers are conversant with statutes which is distinct and different than the law.
They have no authority to quote 107 anything since they are local law enforcement - to be actionable they have to have a civil offense.
The whole thing stinks of a LEO thinking he knows about drones and going on a witch hunt.
Then we have the question how on earth did they just happen to show up as you're landing? Did someone call?
Are the cops and OP knowledgeable about what constitutes twilight, civil twilight and darkness?
Too many questions and not enough facts.

 

[tcope]

To quote that article you site:

The Air Commerce Act of 1926 and the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938 expressly claim this soveriegnty for the federal government. Twenty-two states have adopted the Uniform State Law for Aeronautics, which recognizes that sover- iegnty may have been granted to the federal government, and does not purport to regulate air flights in respects covered by federal legislation.

The argument for federal supremacy is based not only upon the treaty, war making, and interstate commerce clauses of the Constitution, but also upon the alleged "proprietory [sic] interest" of federal government In navigable airspace.

Proprietary interest=ownership

Proprietary Interests Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

Proprietary interests are profits, rights, ownership shares or advantages held by the full or partial owner of a tangible or intangible asset or property. For example, an author has a proprietary

definitions.uslegal.com

That only explains their right to govern airspace, not that they own it. As I mentioned, the only reason to own something is so you can give it to someone else. There is simply no need to give airspace to someone else in the form of ownership. Mearly having the ability to regulate it is enough. Airspace starts 1” off some one’s property. Having the federal government actually own that area would mean everyone would be trespassing and using Federally owned airspace every day. That makes no sense and as mentioned, not needed. The Causby case furthers non-ownership in that Federal planes can be guilty of trespass against a property owner if they interfere with the use of that person’s land (as pointed out, an “aerial trespass”).

If the Federal government owned airspace we’d be buying/leasing it from them every time anyone built into that area. That does not happen. Permits are needed so that local municipalities can make sure construction laws are followed. If I want to put an antenna on my roof, I don’t buy/least that airspace from the Federal government.

There is one view listed in the attachment, that there is no ownership of airspace (#2). There is a case with the court of appeals with this info:

The Court of Appeals said: "We own so much of the space above the ground as we can occupy or make use of, in connection with the enjoyment of our land. This right is not fixed. It varies with our varying needs and is co-extensive with them. The owner of the land owns as much of the space above him as he uses, but only so long as he uses it. All that lies beyond belongs to the world."

There is confusion on this issue even today and a reason for this confusion… it is unclear who owns airspace and how much. The reason there is case law to some degree on this is precisely because there is no statutory law on who owns what airspace. If there were, these issues with not exist.

All of this points to the Federal government not owning airspace, only regulating it. There is no law that can be cited stating that the Federal government does own airspace because they do not.

 

[Redleg]

That only explains their right to govern airspace, not that they own it. As I mentioned, the only reason to own something is so you can give it to someone else. There is simply no need to give airspace to someone else in the form of ownership. Mearly having the ability to regulate it is enough. Airspace starts 1” off some one’s property. Having the federal government actually own that area would mean everyone would be trespassing and using Federally owned airspace every day. That makes no sense and as mentioned, not needed. The Causby case furthers non-ownership in that Federal planes can be guilty of trespass against a property owner if they interfere with the use of that person’s land (as pointed out, an “aerial trespass”).

If the Federal government owned airspace we’d be buying/leasing it from them every time anyone built into that area. That does not happen. Permits are needed so that local municipalities can make sure construction laws are followed. If I want to put an antenna on my roof, I don’t buy/least that airspace from the Federal government.

There is one view listed in the attachment, that there is no ownership of airspace (#2). There is a case with the court of appeals with this info:

The Court of Appeals said: "We own so much of the space above the ground as we can occupy or make use of, in connection with the enjoyment of our land. This right is not fixed. It varies with our varying needs and is co-extensive with them. The owner of the land owns as much of the space above him as he uses, but only so long as he uses it. All that lies beyond belongs to the world."

There is confusion on this issue even today and a reason for this confusion… it is unclear who owns airspace and how much. The reason there is case law to some degree on this is precisely because there is no statutory law on who owns what airspace. If there were, these issues with not exist.

All of this points to the Federal government not owning airspace, only regulating it. There is no law that can be cited stating that the Federal government does own airspace because they do not.

Well articulated, especially in regards to the point you made about the existence of case law being a result of the nonexistence of statutory law. “Control does not impart ownership” is the message here.

 

[superstarpup]

ok real quick was flying cops came jump out ther cars sad I was flying illegally as poor 107 flying at night flying over people I didn't say to them that I fly as a hobbyist and that I am able to fly at night I showed him all of my paperwork and they went to the course to try to look for a new law to put on me a little while later they came back Give me a receipt because they were taking my grown in that in three days I can call the office and get the police report three days I won't get the police report it said I am being charged with criminal trespassing three weeks later I received a call that I can come and get my grown when I picked it up they handed me a search warrant for the information they took off of the ST cardAnd then proceeded to tell me that I am not being charged with criminal trespassing they just needed a charge to put on the paper to get the warrant signed from the judge then he proceeded to tell me the rules of a 1070 no flying at night so on and so on and so on so on grandma grown in the papers and walked away before I got really mad

I wish this had sub-titles like those reality shows shot in Louisiana.

 

[otisbrazwell]

ok real quick was flying cops came jump out ther cars sad I was flying illegally as poor 107 flying at night flying over people I didn't say to them that I fly as a hobbyist and that I am able to fly at night I showed him all of my paperwork and they went to the course to try to look for a new law to put on me a little while later they came back Give me a receipt because they were taking my grown in that in three days I can call the office and get the police report three days I won't get the police report it said I am being charged with criminal trespassing three weeks later I received a call that I can come and get my grown when I picked it up they handed me a search warrant for the information they took off of the ST cardAnd then proceeded to tell me that I am not being charged with criminal trespassing they just needed a charge to put on the paper to get the warrant signed from the judge then he proceeded to tell me the rules of a 1070 no flying at night so on and so on and so on so on grandma grown in the papers and walked away before I got really mad

lawyering up is going to cost you maybe $3,000. as far as sd card cops most likely took copies of houses and people you mite have flown over. your bissing up a rope you should have said whats a drone and never flew from there ever again.

 

[Bigbird48]

ok real quick was flying cops came jump out ther cars sad I was flying illegally as poor 107 flying at night flying over people I didn't say to them that I fly as a hobbyist and that I am able to fly at night I showed him all of my paperwork and they went to the course to try to look for a new law to put on me a little while later they came back Give me a receipt because they were taking my grown in that in three days I can call the office and get the police report three days I won't get the police report it said I am being charged with criminal trespassing three weeks later I received a call that I can come and get my grown when I picked it up they handed me a search warrant for the information they took off of the ST cardAnd then proceeded to tell me that I am not being charged with criminal trespassing they just needed a charge to put on the paper to get the warrant signed from the judge then he proceeded to tell me the rules of a 1070 no flying at night so on and so on and so on so on grandma grown in the papers and walked away before I got really mad

WHAT?????

 

[Blannon2004]

I wonder what would have happened if you took the sd card out before you handed it to the cops...

 

[Thomas B]

ok real quick was flying cops came jump out ther cars sad I was flying illegally as poor 107 flying at night flying over people I didn't say to them that I fly as a hobbyist and that I am able to fly at night I showed him all of my paperwork and they went to the course to try to look for a new law to put on me a little while later they came back Give me a receipt because they were taking my grown in that in three days I can call the office and get the police report three days I won't get the police report it said I am being charged with criminal trespassing three weeks later I received a call that I can come and get my grown when I picked it up they handed me a search warrant for the information they took off of the ST cardAnd then proceeded to tell me that I am not being charged with criminal trespassing they just needed a charge to put on the paper to get the warrant signed from the judge then he proceeded to tell me the rules of a 1070 no flying at night so on and so on and so on so on grandma grown in the papers and walked away before I got really mad

@ericpoche Please use punctuation.
Is this more/different info than your initial post?

 

[DanMan32]

"this subject and scenarios like this one have been discussed countless times on these forums over the years."

A lot has changed this past year since the passing of the FAA reauthorization act.

 

[otisbrazwell]

@ericpoche Please use punctuation.
Is this more/different info than your initial post?

cops had the sd card for a bit they mite be building a case.. he mite have been fling over ppl , homes and roads with traffic..only place you can fly now is out in the boon docks

 

[DroningOn]

"this subject and scenarios like this one have been discussed countless times on these forums over the years."

A lot has changed this past year since the passing of the FAA reauthorization act.

Like what?

 

[DanMan32]

LOTS. For one, no need for hobbyists to call every airport within 5 miles. Now we only need LAANC if in controlled airspace and just recently we can also submit requests in DroneZone if LAANC is not available. For a couple months hobbyists could not fly in controlled airspace at all as hobbyists could not yet use LAANC. In controlled airspace hobbyists must be below the facilities map ceiling which can be zero even 4 miles from the airport. They will get an automatic deny if they request above the grid ceiling.

FAA is way behind in being completely compliant with the new law. They still don't have a test for hobbyists.

I realize the above is not in relation to non-FAA LEO involvement but does show you can't necessarily apply what was understood years ago to now.

 

[DroningOn]

LOTS. For one, no need for hobbyists to call every airport within 5 miles. Now we only need LAANC if in controlled airspace and just recently we can also submit requests in DroneZone if LAANC is not available. For a couple months hobbyists could not fly in controlled airspace at all as hobbyists could not yet use LAANC. In controlled airspace hobbyists must be below the facilities map ceiling which can be zero even 4 miles from the airport. They will get an automatic deny if they request above the grid ceiling.

FAA is way behind in being completely compliant with the new law. They still don't have a test for hobbyists.

I realize the above is not in relation to non-FAA LEO involvement but does show you can't necessarily apply what was understood years ago to now.

Point taken but as you said, not in relation to the local LEO discussion

 

[DanMan32]

No, but I seem to recall LEO involvement was included in the act, giving them more delegated powers. Probably not to cite or arrest, but I'm sure definitely to intervene.

 

[Bigbird48]

watching that video also said no flying at night, it didn't mention 107 or hobbyist, just a general statment so again I wonder can recreational pilots fly at night . I know we discussed this but looks like it might have just changed again????? I fly at night and will continue to do so , since I'm on my own property and pretty rural, so don't have to much to worry about

 

[DroningOn]

No, but I seem to recall LEO involvement was included in the act, giving them more delegated powers. Probably not to cite or arrest, but I'm sure definitely to intervene.

Specific citation please

 

[Redleg]

Specific citation please

From the “Law Enforcement Toolkit” distributed by the FAA to local/county/state law enforcement agencies in the US:



As best I can gather, there is no delegation of any federal law enforcement powers and, to my knowledge, no provision exists for the delegation of such powers. The FAA encourages law enforcement agencies to report incidents and/or find a state law under which to prosecute drone pilots.

 

[DroningOn]

From the “Law Enforcement Toolkit” distributed by the FAA to local/county/state law enforcement agencies in the US:

View attachment 83338

As best I can gather, there is no delegation of any federal law enforcement powers and, to my knowledge, no provision exists for the delegation of such powers. The FAA encourages law enforcement agencies to report incidents and/or find a state law under which to prosecute drone pilots.

Ahh, the good old “tool kit“. That is usually what is trotted out but it looks like you read it correctly. It the bestows no enforcement powers, only gives a roadmap for the collection of information.

 

[BigAl07]

watching that video also said no flying at night, it didn't mention 107 or hobbyist, just a general statment so again I wonder can recreational pilots fly at night . I know we discussed this but looks like it might have just changed again????? I fly at night and will continue to do so , since I'm on my own property and pretty rural, so don't have to much to worry about

Huh? You even posted in the thread about night flying bud. It has not changed.

Confused about flying at night

My buddy ask me if I can fly my drone at night? I never had in the past so I started to see if I could. I've found a bunch of info and I'm still not sure. Currently.....can a hobbyist fly a drone at night in the US? Thanks

mavicpilots.com

As of right now HOBBYIST can fly at night in G Airspace so long as you follow all other rules & regs pertaining to hobby flights. You can be sure that when/if the FAA says no hobby flights at night it will be VERY publicized because many (pretty much almost all) hobbyist fly at night at least once in a while.

 

[Redleg]

Ahh, the good old “tool kit“. That is usually what is trotted out but it looks like you read it correctly. It the bestows no enforcement powers, only gives a roadmap for the collection of information.

Yeah, I’ve seen it in a few other places. It always seems to be misinterpreted. ?