Sure, he can elect to argue with the judge after the judge has made his arbitrary decision. Will that help get his fine reduced. I dont think so. In a kangaroo court, nobody wins but the court. (no disrespect meant to my Aussie friends. It's an American quote, I believe)
Tell It To the Judge...
- Thread starter Norb_DAIS
- Start date
Sure, he can elect to argue with the judge after the judge has made his arbitrary decision. Will that help get his fine reduced. I dont think so. In a kangaroo court, nobody wins but the court. (no disrespect meant to my Aussie friends. It's an American quote, I believe)
It's exactly what this is about--the OP said they told him "flying over the space was prohibited" and ticketed him for it--but who knows where he was or what was posted nearby--in which case I would agree with you but OP didn't give us all the other details
That's the problem on these forums--never enough detail--then when we all get to talking about it the moderator here shuts it all down--mod confuses disagreements with disrespect or something--my 2 cents
I never said to argue with a judge--you said that--I taught my kids to be polite; respectful; but to stand up for what is right--arguing with a judge--would not be respectful--do not confuse pleading with arguing--anyway good discussion and can't wait to find out the outcome
I think you are confusing pleading and arguing. Pleading is a formal written statement of a party's claims or defenses. Oral arguments are spoken to a judge of the legal reasons why they should prevail. Arguments in court are part of the judicial process. Once the judge has made his decision, he can lessen or raise the fine based on the defendants demeanor and remorse. (I learned that while studying for the LSAT.)
I'm afraid that more posts like this one are appearing and we do not have legal help ... I have not had my first confrontation with the law .. but it seems that they try to frighten us sometimes when I'm flying in my head I just wait for the moment when someone get close to saying something
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2018
- Messages
- 93
- Reactions
- 79
- Age
- 58
To be fair (as I mentioned in the video), the officer and the park ranger were very respectful and professional. I didn't feel intimidated and he performed his job the way he is supposed to.
Yes, I was only trying to film the wind turbines, which I believe is not on park property. I did fly over the rocks that are likely the issue.
I wasn't attempting to test loopholes in the park regulations, but if there is a valid legal case where the FAA rules as we understand them supercede those of the park district, then I would want clarification.
I intend to get that in a very respectful manner. The info that has been posted here is useful and I appreciate all the feedback.
This whole case is about jurisdiction, they claim you were standing under their jurisdiction. Make sure when you go to court, before entering you ask the clerk of the court if it is ok to enter under Federal Jurisdiction. He/she will say yes, now the important bit, do not sit down before the judge enters court. Tell the Judge you are standing under Federal Jurisdiction. Then the FAA rules take precedence.
HDBOB
Member
I'm no lawyer .... if you are a 107 you are flying under FAA rules. As a 336 (soon to be extinct and replaced by 349) you are flying hobby rules .... which states "Follow community-based safety guidelines and fly within the programming of a nationwide community-based organization " ... NOT FAA "RULES & REGULATIONS". You can't keep quoting FAA airspace rules if you are a 336. Your community and the AMA are your rules to follow. You can't have it both ways! Your community "The Park" is enforcing their rules. I wish you good luck!!
You are wrong--You must still follow ALL the FAA regs for "flying under the special rule for model aircraft"
Fly under the Special Rule for Model Aircraft
Contact the ACLU, they love to start and win fights for people. Not a normal action or a normal fight they get into. But many use them to fight their battle whether right or wrong, and if the ACLU do take the case the publicity will educate the local authorities real quick about what they don't know about who controls the air space. Just a thought.
The ticket was not for flying. It was for operation a model craft and it does not specify what kind. It does not say flying over the marsh. Even if he convinces them that flying is legal and under FAA control, they can still hold him guilty for the charge on the ticket as he WAS operating a model craft. As that part of the violation IS correct, then the only question is whether or not he was ON PARK PROPERTY. So he needs to show where he was standing and GIS maps to show whether that spot is or is not park property.
HDBOB
Member
Seriously .... then all you US 336 hobby pilots flying BVLOS, above 400 feet AGL, and at night are following the 107 FAA rules? I think not. You fly within your rules as a 336. The same as if I want to do a job at night as a 107 I have to apply for a night waiver. No worries as Part 349 will lay down the rules to get rid of all this confusion.
Send me a PM with a email address and I will send it over.
bluntnose
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2017
- Messages
- 32
- Reactions
- 27
- Age
- 80
I’ve read all the preceding posts in order to try and get an accurate picture of the facts in this matter, still have a couple of questions. As I understand it you took off and landed outside the restricted territory. You flew mostly entirely outside of the park, except for a brief time over some rocks which you believe were inside the park. When the park ranger came upon you were you still in the air? Did the ranger see you flying, and if so over the park or outside the park? Did the ranger hang around while the police wrote the ticket? Did you hear either of them indicate whether the ranger would be at court to testify? Assuming he won’t, then would I be correct that the only witness who actually saw you flying the drone will most likely not be available to testify at your little trial? Or did the policeman also see the drone in the air over the park? Because the state has the burden of proving each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt it becomes important for you to know the likely testimony before selecting your trial strategy. No sense going in there and doing a mea culpa if their gun’s not loaded anyway.
The prosecutor may not have a handle on the answers to these questions until he talks to the police and/or ranger witness just before trial. Only then will he/she have a sense of how strong (or weak) their case is. So trying to call the state’s attorney before the trial may only serve to educate him/her, so he can plug the holes in his case, based on what facts you tell him. You don’t want to even decide whether to testify in your defense until after the state puts on their case in chief and you can see whether they even get to first base or not. When they finish you get to argue to the judge that you shouldn’t have to put on any evidence because they failed to establish what’s called a prima facie case, i.e. the basics. Youre also free at that point to raise the legal argument (Show the judge your strongest legal authority that says the state can only regulate the ground, i.e., where you can take off and land, not the airspace, because the federal government has pre-empted the state in regulating the national airspace.)
If you make your best pitch and the judge says no, their case-in-chief was enough to get past your objections, then you will have to decide whether there’s anything to be gained by testifying in your defense. It’s a tricky decision because if you do testify, then the prosecutor is free to cross examine you and fill in any weak spots in his case-in-chief. So frankly, unless you need to counter some testimony that you either took off from or landed on park territory, it might not even be best to testify. They have the burden of establishing that you were flying over no-no land.
Whew! That’s a bunch, huh? Just trying to give you a sense of what your options are. I guess all the above assumes that when you tried to show the judge legal authority at the very beginnning of the trial he didn’t buy it yet. That legal argument can be attempted before any evidence even comes in and, as I said above also at the end of the state’s initial case.
So, a question for the gentle readers here, where’s that notice found, the one from the FAA that tells local governments hands off the airspace?
I raised the point a number of times on the phantom forum, before there were any Mavics, that unless we organize ourselves as a national multicopter (drones, choppers, whatever) association in order to combat the squeeze coming down on us, we will simply lose. This situation is just one example. If we are to be organized thusly only as a part of AMA, then there needs to be a vibrant subdivision of AMA composed of real dronies, not merely tolerated by the fixed wing crowd. One way or the other I still hope that can happen.
Good luck, Norb.
The prosecutor may not have a handle on the answers to these questions until he talks to the police and/or ranger witness just before trial. Only then will he/she have a sense of how strong (or weak) their case is. So trying to call the state’s attorney before the trial may only serve to educate him/her, so he can plug the holes in his case, based on what facts you tell him. You don’t want to even decide whether to testify in your defense until after the state puts on their case in chief and you can see whether they even get to first base or not. When they finish you get to argue to the judge that you shouldn’t have to put on any evidence because they failed to establish what’s called a prima facie case, i.e. the basics. Youre also free at that point to raise the legal argument (Show the judge your strongest legal authority that says the state can only regulate the ground, i.e., where you can take off and land, not the airspace, because the federal government has pre-empted the state in regulating the national airspace.)
If you make your best pitch and the judge says no, their case-in-chief was enough to get past your objections, then you will have to decide whether there’s anything to be gained by testifying in your defense. It’s a tricky decision because if you do testify, then the prosecutor is free to cross examine you and fill in any weak spots in his case-in-chief. So frankly, unless you need to counter some testimony that you either took off from or landed on park territory, it might not even be best to testify. They have the burden of establishing that you were flying over no-no land.
Whew! That’s a bunch, huh? Just trying to give you a sense of what your options are. I guess all the above assumes that when you tried to show the judge legal authority at the very beginnning of the trial he didn’t buy it yet. That legal argument can be attempted before any evidence even comes in and, as I said above also at the end of the state’s initial case.
So, a question for the gentle readers here, where’s that notice found, the one from the FAA that tells local governments hands off the airspace?
I raised the point a number of times on the phantom forum, before there were any Mavics, that unless we organize ourselves as a national multicopter (drones, choppers, whatever) association in order to combat the squeeze coming down on us, we will simply lose. This situation is just one example. If we are to be organized thusly only as a part of AMA, then there needs to be a vibrant subdivision of AMA composed of real dronies, not merely tolerated by the fixed wing crowd. One way or the other I still hope that can happen.
Good luck, Norb.
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2018
- Messages
- 93
- Reactions
- 79
- Age
- 58
I was in the air when the park ranger showed up, but he couldn't see it until I pointed it out to him as I was overhead and landing.
Donnie Frank
Well-Known Member
This is great information and I BELIEVE this is covered on the 107 test. As you cited, only ONE authority controls the airspace, and that entity is the FAA. According to my 107 study material, nobody else has authority over U.S. Airspace.
Last edited:
Donnie Frank
Well-Known Member
Great advice. I would like to add that a "Motion for Discovery" is one of my favorite tools for ANY citation. This is no different. You are entitled to know exactly what evidence the prosecution (the officer) is going to use against you in court. They aren't allowed any surprises. You have a right to these items in a timely manner, and have to be allowed enough time to build your case (so they can't just show up in court with discovery documents and give them to you right there and then and expect you to build your case). Often times, merely creating a list of 5 things is enough to make the officer not show up. The list MUST be reasonable. For example, for speeding citations I normally ask for calibration records of the unit and the officer's RADAR / LIDAR credentials and training records. I ask for a map of the area showing his and my location when it witnessed the infraction, etc. You get the point. It has to be a list that a judge would approve.
Good luck!
Similar threads
DJI Drone Deals
1. Mini 2
2. Mini 3 Pro
3. Mini 4 Pro
4. Air 2s
5. Air 3
6. Avata 2
7. Mavic 3 Pro
8. Mavic 3 Classic
2. Mini 3 Pro
3. Mini 4 Pro
4. Air 2s
5. Air 3
6. Avata 2
7. Mavic 3 Pro
8. Mavic 3 Classic
Forum statistics
