Tell It To the Judge...

[Former 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!

Very true! If the defendant makes it clear that the prosecution is going to have to prove it's case, the charges might get dismissed before it ever goes to trial. Brilliant. Most people walk in to a speeding ticket hearing with no defense whatsoever, and their fate is sealed. The best defense is a good offense.

 

[Donnie Frank]

Very true! If the defendant makes it clear that the prosecution is going to have to prove it's case, the charges might get dismissed before it ever goes to trial. Brilliant. Most people walk in to a speeding ticket hearing with no defense whatsoever, and their fate is sealed. The best defense is a good offense.

I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say 90% of the time the officer doesn't show up. Of the remaining 10%, I win 90% of the time. One of my favorite citations (that I had framed and display proudly on my living room wall) was when a "plain clothes" officer in a "plain clothes" police car tailgated me @ 2:00 AM. The citations he gave me were for speeding (55 in a 40) and running a red light. I beat both. The red light citation was dismissed in Metropolitan Court, but I had to escalate the speeding citation to District Court, where I won. According to N.M. statute, drivers must remain a "safe and prudent distance" behind the cars in front of them. I cited the "2 Mississippi" rule of thumb, which the judge agreed with. My argument was that I felt threatened on my motorcycle @ 2:AM with the unmarked cop car right up my butt. I explained that the cop was < "1 Mississippi" behind me, and that the only reason I was speeding was to create a safe "2 Mississippi" buffer zone. The judge asked the cop, "Were you a safe and prudent distance behind the defendant?" The cop mumbled something. The judge declared, "Case dismissed!"

The reason the red light citation was so easy to beat was because the sensor in the oncoming turning lane was malfunctioning, causing the light to go into what's called a "loop," which essentially means the traffic light behaves as if a car is there, even if one is not. I merely got a notarized statement from the city traffic division that asserted the traffic light was "malfunctioning." So that one was dismissed immediately in Metro Court.

This was 15 years ago. Not much has changed in the court system since then. In my youth, I averaged 4-5 citations/year, and always received a good driver discount on my insurance because none of them ever took. On those occasions I lost, I would use my "get out of jail free" card, which is to go do driver education class, which you still have to pay for, but gets you out of your points.

I honestly haven't received a citation in years. Not because I no longer speed, but probably because I've gotten *really* good at keeping an eye out for the police.

The point of this diatribe is that drone citations are no different, and, truth be told, probably *easier* to beat in court. Show up prepared. Be respectful. Dress nice. Judges LOVE that s***. Watch the defendants on Judge Judy, and do the exact opposite. HA! The plaintiffs on that show seem generally more prepared than the defendants (who wave all their rights to have their disputes settled in the Judge Judy forum). Which is probably why they never employ their right to discovery documents, is my guess. But I digress...

Oh....one more thing...

I'd bet dollars to doughnuts if you went to your local FSDO office and explained what happened, they would probably HELP you find the statutes you need to win. After all, you WERE compliant with FAA rules and regulations (make sure you know how close/far you're allowed to be to windmills). Specifically, you need statutes to show that the FAA - and ONLY the FAA - governs U.S. airspace. I almost envy you. I'd be chomping at the bit to fight this one in court.

And finally, if you lose in Metro Court, appeal the decision and go to District Court. I've never lost an appeal. District judges tend to be more "by the book" than their Metro Court counterparts. Unfortunately, there IS a fee to appeal, (25-50 bucks I believe), but you aren't just fighting for you. You're fighting for ALL drone operators all over the nation....<;^) YOU are the new Pirker. HA!

 

[Former Member]

I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say 90% of the time the officer doesn't show up. Of the remaining 10%, I win 90% of the time. One of my favorite citations (that I had framed and display proudly on my living room wall) was when a "plain clothes" officer in a "plain clothes" police car tailgated me @ 2:00 AM. The citations he gave me were for speeding (55 in a 40) and running a red light. I beat both. The red light citation was dismissed in Metropolitan Court, but I had to escalate the speeding citation to District Court, where I won. According to N.M. statute, drivers must remain a "safe and prudent distance" behind the cars in front of them. I cited the "2 Mississippi" rule of thumb, which the judge agreed with. My reasoning being that I felt threatened on my motorcycle @ 2:AM with the unmarked cop car right up my butt. I explained that the cop was < "1 Mississippi" behind me, and that the only reason I was speeding was to create a safe "2 Mississippi" buffer zone. The judge asked the cop, "Were you a safe and prudent distance behind the defendant?" The cop mumbled something. The judge declared, "Case dismissed!"

The reason the red light citation was so easy to get out of is because the sensor in the oncoming turning lane was malfunctioning, causing the light to go into what's called a "loop," which essentially means the traffic light behaves as if a car is there, even if one is not. I merely got a notarized statement from the city traffic division that asserted the traffic light was "malfunctioning." So that one was dismissed immediately in Metro Court.

This was 15 years ago. Not much has changed since then. In my youth, I averaged 4-5 citations/year, and always received a good driver discount on my insurance because none of them ever took. On those occasions I lost, I would use my "get out of jail free" card, which is to go do driver education class, which you still have to pay for, but gets you out of your points.

I honestly haven't received a citation in years. Not because I no longer speed, but probably because I've gotten *really* good at keeping an eye out for the police.

The point of this diatribe is that drone citations are no different, and, truth be told, probably *easier* to beat in court. Show up prepared. Be respectful. Dress nice. Judges LOVE that s***. Watch the defendants on Judge Judy, and do the exact opposite. HA! The plaintiffs on that show seem generally more prepared than the defendants (who wave all their rights to have their disputes settled in the Judge Judy forum). Which is probably why they never employ their right to discovery documents, is my guess. But I digress...

Oh....one more thing...

I'd bet dollars to doughnuts if you went to your local FSDO office and explained what happened, they would probably HELP you find the statutes you need to win. After all, you WERE compliant with FAA rules and regulations (make sure you know how close/far you're allowed to be to windmills). Specifically, you need statutes to show that the FAA - and ONLY the FAA - governs U.S. airspace. I almost envy you. I'd be chomping at the bit to fight this one in court.

You should be on TV as the "Drone Defendants Advocate." All great advice.

I still "count Mississippis" for so many things, never thought anyone else did too. Dates back to when I was a kid playing touch football, and it was my turn to be the "giver." I had to shout 3 Mississippis loud enough after I gave the ball to the other side so that the offense, and your team, could hear you count them.

 

[Donnie Frank]

You should be on TV as the "Drone Defendants Advocate." All great advice.

Well...I haven't actually had to fight any drone citations yet <knock on wood>...hehe... Lord willing, I won't have to any time soon...hehe....

I still "count Mississippis" for so many things, never thought anyone else did too. Dates back to when I was a kid playing touch football, and it was my turn to be the "giver." I had to shout 3 Mississippis loud enough after I gave the ball to the other side so that the offense, and your team, could hear you count them.

Few people know this, but a "Mississippi count" is accurate to within 12 milliseconds of one second. HA!

 

[Former Member]

Well...I haven't actually had to fight any drone citations yet <knock on wood>...hehe... Lord willing, I won't have to any time soon...hehe....

Few people know this, but a "Mississippi count" is accurate to within 12 milliseconds of one second. HA!

Very funny!

 

[ac0j]

I'll be printing all of that info and doing more research before my court date. I don't know how these citation hearing work though...will I be given a chance to explain or demonstrate that the park district's ordinance is invalid relative to control of the airspace above it? Assuming of course that I can make that case.

View attachment 48353

All great arguments for airspace rules. But again we are turning this into something it isn’t. The citation is for “no model aircraft allowed”. It says nothing about flying it. It is about having it. Just like no alcohol or smoking rules. But keep on if you like.
The ticket is attached in the post I quoted.

 

[Donnie Frank]

All great arguments for airspace rules. But again we are turning this into something it isn’t. The citation is for “no model aircraft allowed”. It says nothing about flying it. It is about having it.

This would actually be even easier to beat, as no law exists forbidding any American from OWNING or POSSESSING a drone. Despite the ambiguous syntax used in the citation, what they mean is "No model craft allowed to FLY in this area." As opposed to your interpretation of "You're not allowed to own or posses a model craft in our area." I guarantee if the drone were in the trunk of his car or sitting on the ground, Norb_DAIS would NOT have received a citation.

Just like no alcohol or smoking rules.

Using your analogy, would you be cited for having a pack of smokes in your pocket? Of course not. The "no smoking" and "no drones" citations are based on action (verb) not possession (noun). And you'll find that many "no alcohol allowed" areas specify "open containers." I disagree with your assessment.

But keep on if you like.
The ticket is attached in the post I quoted.

Some quick research of the "East Bay Regional Park District Ordinance 38 Rules and Regulations" netted this:

"409.3 Operate (motor driven) model airplanes or boats, automobiles, or other model craft"

The key word being "Operate." Your assessment is incorrect. It's my fairly firm understanding that one cannot land or launch in National Park areas. Because NP's don't govern airspace (the FAA does), they can't forbid you from flying over NP areas. I know this to be true, as I live near a NP that I fly over all the time. I never land or launch there, as per their rules. The NP's can control the ground, but not the airspace.

I actually had a debate about this with a Park Manager, who eventually conceded that I was correct.

 

[kilomikebravo]

I uploaded a scored version but found that YouTube doesn't allow replacements. Just additions...

When I want to re-upload an existing video, I copy the description text and keywords to a text file. Then I delete the online original and upload copy number two. Then I paste in the text. Hope that helps.

KB

 

[Donnie Frank]

When I want to re-upload an existing video, I copy the description text and keywords to a text file. Then I delete the online original and upload copy number two. Then I paste in the text. Hope that helps.

KB

I do the exact same thing. Works like a charm. I'll add that I always make sure the subsequent video is uploaded and configured *before* deleting the superfluous video.

 

[ac0j]

They can reserve the right to ban any item they want. Concealed weapons, koolaid, firewood. Or whatever. On their property.
I am just pointing out that if they can’t control airspace they can control what activities go on.
It doesn’t have to make sense to anyone but the people in control of the property.
The big picture is they say no drones or model aircraft because they do not want them around their site. People should just respect that.

 

[Donnie Frank]

They can reserve the right to ban any item they want. Concealed weapons, koolaid, firewood. Or whatever. On their property.

Assuming where he was parked wasn't gated or marked as "restricted area," I can only assume he took off and landed on public property. Again, no entity other than the FAA can govern the airspace. So your assertion is that he took off and landed on the property? If that's the case, I would argue that the property was unmarked.

I am just pointing out that if they can’t control airspace they can control what activities go on.

Sure. But looking at the video, the car is parked just off to the side of the road with a gate roughly 20' away from the car. So he was not inside the gate. Ergo, was not on their property.

It doesn’t have to make sense to anyone but the people in control of the property.

Fortunately, our justice system doesn't work that way. The plaintiff still has to prove their case.

The big picture is they say no drones or model aircraft because they do not want them around their site. People should just respect that.

I don't think this was a matter of disrespect. Based on the OP, it sounded like he had no intention of trespassing or breaking any rules. If the defendant took off and landed on the plaintiff's unmarked property, I'd say he had a case.

 

[ac0j]

Assuming where he was parked wasn't gated or marked as "restricted area," I can only assume he took off and landed on public property. Again, no entity other than the FAA can govern the airspace. So your assertion is that he took off and landed on the property? If that's the case, I would argue that the property was unmarked.

My assertion is; he must have had his model aircraft on property they control, hence BOTH a ranger and a police officer were on scene and he was cited for it. I am not saying right or wrong.
I am saying someone did something wrong intentional or not. But I wasn't there, so I cant be so sure of what happened as you seem to be.

Sure. But looking at the video, the car is parked just off to the side of the road with a gate roughly 20' away from the car. So he was not inside the gate. Ergo, was not on their property.

My driveway is my property, on every property I own. Maybe that was the case? If it was put there by them for their use to access their property, they own it all the way to the easement along the street. Around here that is the curb, or pavement edge.

Fortunately, our justice system doesn't work that way. The plaintiff still has to prove their case.

You are wrong here. Our justice system is unpredictable, and works different on any given day in any given court. It will boil down to what the judge decides. IF the judge is anti-drone, or if the judge owns a drone would be a huge factor. Judges decisions get over ruled every day by other Judges. Same law, different interpretations of it.

I don't think this was a matter of disrespect. Based on the OP, it sounded like he had no intention of trespassing or breaking any rules. If the defendant took off and landed on the plaintiff's unmarked property, I'd say he had a case.

If they say they dont want drones around their property, A respectful person would grant that courtesy whether they agree or not. They dont look for someplace close by to do what they have been asked NOT to do There should not be a need to make any laws to prevent it.
Some people use FAA loopholes to do something that others dont want done. Just to prove that they can and expect others to agree with what THEY want. THAT is what new laws are created for. For the people that dont care about what others want, and find ways to do it legally anyway.
As I always say,
Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

I do not think the OP intentionally broke any rules, unfortunately, I have been told by a court that "Ignorance of the law is no excuse"

 

[Donnie Frank]

My assertion is; he must have had his model aircraft on property they control,

That's an erroneous assumption. He had his model aircraft on property they could ACCESS. I see no signage, gates or fences to indicate he was on their property. What I DO SEE, is a fence AND a gate. And he's outside of both! So while you assume this government entity owns the driveway, government property doesn't work like private property. Government property is ALWAYS fenced and gated AT the property line. I would argue that the shoulder where the plaintiff was parked WAS an easement. All existing markers, indicators, gates and fences seem to favor my assessment.

...hence BOTH a ranger and a police officer were on scene and he was cited for it.

So your assertion is that "Cited" = guilty. Interesting.

I am not saying right or wrong.

It's not a matter of write or wrong. It's a matter of guilty or not guilty. And of what? The plaintiff has to prove guilt in a court of law. I believe they have a weak case.

I am saying someone did something wrong intentional or not. But I wasn't there, so I cant be so sure of what happened as you seem to be.

You can't be sure? Can I quote you on that?

My driveway is my property, on every property I own. Maybe that was the case? If it was put there by them for their use to access their property, they own it all the way to the easement along the street. Around here that is the curb, or pavement edge.

I see your logic, but as someone who accesses government property occasionally, I can say with a lot of confidence that the gate and fence go right up to the property line.

You are wrong here. Our justice system is unpredictable, and works different on any given day in any given court.

While I concede that there is SOME malleability in our justice system, overall, if you can't prove your case, you lose.

It will boil down to what the judge decides. IF the judge is anti-drone, or if the judge owns a drone would be a huge factor.

A judge's job is to be impartial, regardless of his hobbies, family or politics.

Judges decisions get over ruled every day by other Judges. Same law, different interpretations of it.

Once the evidence presents itself, I think this case will be pretty cut and dry. Bottom line; If the defendant was NOT on the plaintiff's property, then he wasn't operating ON the plaintiff's property. Case closed. Second defense: If the defendant WAS on the plaintiff's property, it was not marked. That's not "ignorance of the law." That is "ignorance of the property line." To further bolster that argument, there IS a clear property divider a mere 20' away. Without markers, it's literally impossible to know how much property the plaintiff owns OUTSIDE their fence and gate boundaries. We are not mind readers. You assertion that we should ASSUME a property boundary WELL OUTSIDE THE WELL-MARKED, FENCED, GATED AREA is erroneous.

If they say they dont want drones around their property, A respectful person would grant that courtesy whether they agree or not.

You're now making a retroactive argument. Again, I don't think the OP INTENDED to fly on the plaintiff's property. I'll double down on that by saying I bet he never flies there again.

They dont look for someplace close by to do what they have been asked NOT to do There should not be a need to make any laws to prevent it.
Some people use FAA loopholes to do something that others dont want done.

Who uses FAA loopholes? I haven't. Have you? Anybody in this forum?

Just to prove that they can and expect others to agree with what THEY want. THAT is what new laws are created for. For the people that dont care about what others want, and find ways to do it legally anyway.
As I always say,
Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Okay...<shrug>....

I do not think the OP intentionally broke any rules, unfortunately, I have been told by a court that "Ignorance of the law is no excuse"

The OP fully understands all rules set forth by the FAA. So "ignorance of the law" is not in question. What IS in question is the plaintiff's RIGHT to cite those NOT inside their property lines. Also in question is, "If not at the gate and/or the fence, where exactly are the property lines?" If the property lines extend OUTSIDE the fence and gate, why are there signs not indicating so? Again, we're not mind readers. If you have an area with rules, the area has to be marked. I'm pretty sure that will hold up in a court of law. The plaintiff has to establish intent. The defendant could easily argue that he was well aware of the rules, so he purposely, consciously stayed OUTSIDE THE GATE to remain compliant. I think that case would hold.

 

[keith00]

OP, how far away were you from the Byron Airport in a straight line? I would be very certain of the answer to that question before you try to make an FAA argument in this issue. Based on where I think you were and the closest boundary to the airport, I measure it at 4.65 miles. From the center of the airport, it would be about 5.23 miles. Which measurement will they use?

And @Donnie Frank , while I agree with much of what you have said, I do have to interject that I can say with 100% certainty that government boundaries are not always fenced or gated right at the property line. I can say that with 100% certainty in regards to military bases...which one would certainly assume would be more strictly fenced than a regional park. And I just point that out as a helpful hint to the OP: be sure you know for a fact you weren't standing on park property before you show up in court. I tried to research that for you, but I can't find specific ownership information on the Contra Costa County Property Assessor's webpage for the property around the windmills on Vasco Road in Byron, CA.

I'm not saying he was on park property, and I'm not saying he wasn't. I don't know. I'm just suggesting he find out for sure without relying on the position of the gate or the side of the road he was on before he goes to court.

 

[ac0j]

I have worked on many government sites as well.
They always set fences and gates well off the roads.
First, so they have a place to pull in and park to get out and open the gate.
second, because in most places you are not allowed to put a fence right up to the roadside you must leave space for road crews and emergency parking.

I am not claiming to be a drone law expert. I am only saying that it can go either way. It is not an FAA question. It is a land use question.
It does not need to be posted if it is a state, county, or city wide ordinance. You dont even have to clearly mark the area as a park. If it has a fence and gate and it is not yours, pretty obvious you should stay out.

 

[Donnie Frank]

OP, how far away were you from the Byron Airport in a straight line? I would be very certain of the answer to that question before you try to make an FAA argument in this issue. Based on where I think you were and the closest boundary to the airport, I measure it at 4.65 miles. From the center of the airport, it would be about 5.23 miles. Which measurement will they use?

And @Donnie Frank , while I agree with much of what you have said, I do have to interject that I can say with 100% certainty that government boundaries are not always fenced or gated right at the property line. I can say that with 100% certainty in regards to military bases...which one would certainly assume would be more strictly fenced than a regional park. And I just point that out as a helpful hint to the OP: be sure you know for a fact you weren't standing on park property before you show up in court. I tried to research that for you, but I can't find specific ownership information on the Contra Costa County Property Assessor's webpage for the property around the windmills on Vasco Road in Byron, CA.

I'm not saying he was on park property, and I'm not saying he wasn't. I don't know. I'm just suggesting he find out for sure without relying on the position of the gate or the side of the road he was on before he goes to court.

Ironically, I just did an 1850 acre mapping project, which bordered on Kirtland Airforce Base, which was clearly delineated by a fence our drone was forbidden to cross. This was essentially out in the middle of nowhere (no houses, business, etc. Just desert). While I don't doubt your veracity, my experience has differed from yours.

 

[ac0j]

Ironically, I just did an 1850 acre mapping project, which bordered on Kirtland Airforce Base, which was clearly delineated by a fence our drone was forbidden to cross. This was essentially out in the middle of nowhere (no houses, business, etc. Just desert). While I don't doubt your veracity, my experience has differed from yours.

Well I concede that this would be the line in the middle of no where, but anywhere a public road is next to the property, I would love to see a picture of the fence sticking out of the curb.

 

[Donnie Frank]

Well I concede that this would be the line in the middle of no where, but anywhere a public road is next to the property, I would love to see a picture of the fence sticking out of the curb.

KAFB utilizes walls, fences, gates around the entire perimeter...all very well delineated. I concede that other government installations may be different.

 

[keith00]

It's those super-double-secret UFO bases that have even crazier fences.

 

[Norb_DAIS]

OP, how far away were you from the Byron Airport in a straight line? I would be very certain of the answer to that question before you try to make an FAA argument in this issue. Based on where I think you were and the closest boundary to the airport, I measure it at 4.65 miles. From the center of the airport, it would be about 5.23 miles. Which measurement will they use?

And @Donnie Frank , while I agree with much of what you have said, I do have to interject that I can say with 100% certainty that government boundaries are not always fenced or gated right at the property line. I can say that with 100% certainty in regards to military bases...which one would certainly assume would be more strictly fenced than a regional park. And I just point that out as a helpful hint to the OP: be sure you know for a fact you weren't standing on park property before you show up in court. I tried to research that for you, but I can't find specific ownership information on the Contra Costa County Property Assessor's webpage for the property around the windmills on Vasco Road in Byron, CA.

I'm not saying he was on park property, and I'm not saying he wasn't. I don't know. I'm just suggesting he find out for sure without relying on the position of the gate or the side of the road he was on before he goes to court.

Hi Keith00...I was flying under p107 and checked Airmap for any restrictions because I know the Byron airport was fairly close.

I also checked the sectional map and it shows the area as a Class E transition area. So I should be good under 700'AGL - which I was.