DJI Mavic, Air and Mini Drones
Friendly, Helpful & Knowledgeable Community
Join Us Now

Tell It To the Judge...

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!

I had the same thing on my bike at about 4am.
He was right on my tail and accelerated so I took off and he then hit his lights.
When he got out of his car I asked what he thought he was doing being so close and told him I accelerated because I thought he was going to hit me.
He apologised and let me go.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Former Member
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.

Here are a couple of overlays with the DJI flight record...


View attachment 49673
 

Attachments

  • DJI_FlightRec_GMap_Overlay.jpg
    DJI_FlightRec_GMap_Overlay.jpg
    1.5 MB · Views: 168
We need drones that look like birds. I can’t imagine getting fined for flying at that locale. What drone were you flying? It must have been easy to spot.
 
We need drones that look like birds. I can’t imagine getting fined for flying at that locale. What drone were you flying? It must have been easy to spot.
Mavic 2 Pro...not easy to spot. The ranger couldn't see it as I was bringing it back...when it was directly overhead.
 
Man that stinks! Bob Dylan sang it the best, "Now all the criminals in their coats and their ties. Are free to drink martinis and watch the sun rise."

Good luck. We are on your side.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Norb_DAIS
Hi OP Norb , am australian living in the philippines it doesn't matter really well when but i thought i would just add that. It seems like now that we have to operate like a clandestine operation.
by that launch somewhere where no one can see you launch and then just go and do your video using the camera to track around the little spring etc etc yeah sure it will get out of sight but unfortunately the rules now force us to do that.
there are also too many drone police think they know everything on these forums that unfortunately is the case of the situation right now. I see this thread has gone on for 7 pages good luck and hope you don't get fined.
 
UPDATE:
### As written in notice ###
I received a notice from the Contra Costa County Superior Court giving me 6 options:
  1. Pay $192 in full or request a payment plan at the Court Clerk's Office between ....etc...
  2. Request Community Service or an Ability to Pay Determination at the Clerk's Office between 8AM - 9AM....etc
  3. Request a Trial by Written Declaration in writing or at the Clerk's Office. You must post bail for a Trial by Written Declaration (CVC 40902).
  4. Request a court trail at the Clerk's Office. You do not have to post bail before requesting a court trial.
  5. Request a court trial in writing. You must post bail to request a trial in writing (CVC 40591(b)).
  6. Request one 30-day extension of the above due date only. (This extension does not change the deadline for requesting a Trial by Written Declaration, which is the original appearance date noted on your citation.)
IF YOU DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS NOTICE
  • You may OWE A CIVIL ASSESSMENT of up to $300 (PC 1214.1). An additional CIVIL ASSESSMENT of up to $300 may be added if found guilty and you do not pay on time.
  • The Court will decide your case without you in a Trial by Written Declaration in Absentia (CVC 40903).
### End of options ###

I also received a response from the FAA this morning (10/22/18), or at least an acknowledgement that they received my email regarding the incident and they wrote:

###

7:18 AM (8 hours ago)
to UAShelp, me
Thanks for bringing this to our attention. We are internally coordinating a response that we anticipate sending later this week. You’ll receive the response from the UAS support center ([email protected])
###

Not sure what to expect from them, but I'm hoping to get more clarity.
Regarding the court, I'm leaning toward requesting a court trial at the clerk's office (#4). I think it would be best to present my side in person rather than in writing.
 
I'd get an extension because we all know the FAA can take a while. If there are any drone lawyer enthusiasts on this site and near you maybe they can help out. I'd really wait as if the FAA sided with you then it would be an open and shut case and would send a message to local law enforcement. Who knows with the new laws coming into effect though. Like others have said have all your logs printed out as well as on a tablet where you can easily show the judge. I personally think they wont even show up for the hearing and if they do how much proof will they have other than just saying I saw a drone flying. I still want to send you $20, not much but I hope others follow suit and send you something to help with your time and OUR fight! PM me your address and I'll get the 20 sent out
Much love And ALOHA from Maui!
Terran Blue Carter
 
  • Like
Reactions: JohnC and Norb_DAIS
I'd get an extension because we all know the FAA can take a while. If there are any drone lawyer enthusiasts on this site and near you maybe they can help out. I'd really wait as if the FAA sided with you then it would be an open and shut case and would send a message to local law enforcement. Who knows with the new laws coming into effect though. Like others have said have all your logs printed out as well as on a tablet where you can easily show the judge. I personally think they wont even show up for the hearing and if they do how much proof will they have other than just saying I saw a drone flying. I still want to send you $20, not much but I hope others follow suit and send you something to help with your time and OUR fight! PM me your address and I'll get the 20 sent out
Much love And ALOHA from Maui!
Terran Blue Carter

Much appreciated my island bruddah! (I grew up on Guam)....but I'll keep you all updated on how this pans out, and if it turns out that I'll need more resources to make my case, I'll hit you (all) up with a GoFundMe drive!
 
UPDATE #2, Response from FAA

Hi All,

I just received an email response from the FAA ([email protected]). Thanks to @jaysrmc for sharing the initial contact information -- who then forwarded my inquiry to the appropriate group.

Please read the attached PDF file regarding laws and UASs. When I started reading it, it looked like I should just pay my fine and move on, but as I got to the end, it does make a point that is worth my trip to the court to plead in my defense.

Specifically:

"Substantial air safety issues are raised when state or local governments attempt to regulate the operation or flight of aircraft. If one or two municipalities enacted ordinances regulating UAS in the navigable airspace and a significant number of municipalities followed suit, fractionalized control of the navigable airspace could result. In turn, this ‘patchwork quilt’ of differing restrictions could severely limit the flexibility of FAA in controlling the airspace and flight patterns, and ensuring safety and an efficient air traffic flow. A navigable airspace free from inconsistent state and local restrictions is essential to the maintenance of a safe and sound air transportation system. See Montalvo v. Spirit Airlines, 508 F.3d 464 (9th Cir. 2007), and French v. Pan Am Express, Inc., 869 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1989); see also Arizona v. U.S., 567 U.S. ___, 132 S.Ct. 2492, 2502 (2012) (“Where Congress occupies an entire field . . . even complimentary state regulation is impermissible. "

Please read the entire document.

I'll be posting this in the "Rules..." section of this forum for others as well.


-Norb
 

Attachments

  • State and Local Regulation of UAS Fact Sheet Final 12172015.pdf
    79.6 KB · Views: 34
I am within the five mile radius of an airport. So I am looking for an area to fly, my son lives in Broken Arrow OK, so I thought I would look at ordnance’s of hat city to see if drones are prohibited. Here is what I found note the section on Scope at the end. So reading this unless the city has a designated area all take offs and landings are prohibited within the city limits.

Chapter 3.5 - AIRPORTS, HELIPORTS, TAKEOFFS AND LANDINGS[1]



Sec. 3.5-1. - Operation of airports, heliports, etc., within city limits prohibited; exceptions.



No person shall operate any airport, heliport, air terminal, landing field, or landing site within the city limits; provided this prohibition shall not apply to any heliport used by and associated with an ambulance service or hospital which is duly licensed by the state to serve Broken Arrow, and which is primarily used for the transportation by air of sick or injured persons, medical supplies and health care providers.
(Code 1977, § 3.5-1; Ord. No. 1985, § 1, 4-15-1996)



Sec. 3.5-2. - Permitted locations for takeoffs and landings.

No airplane or helicopter shall take off from or land upon any land, building, or structure within the city limits except:
(1). At a permanent heliport allowed by applicable law;
(2) At a site specifically authorized by city council for such activity as a temporary use under such terms and conditions as the council may prescribe; or
(3) As necessary to respond to an emergency involving a threat to human life or to property; or
(4) At the location of a nonrecurring event, in which fewer than six landings or takeoffs are anticipated during any semiannual period.

(Code 1977, § 3.5-2; Ord. No. 1985, § 1, 4-15-1996)

Sec. 3.5-3. - Applications for use of land under this chapter; notice.
An applicant for the use of land under this chapter shall cause the site to be posted and give written notice to the surrounding property owners, located within 300 feet of the landing site, of the application at least ten days in advance of the hearing. The sign shall have the dimensions and size of lettering comparable to the sign used in zoning applications within Broken Arrow. Such applications may be referred to the special events committee for recommendation.

Sec. 3.5-4. - Items considered at hearing on application.

At any hearing on an application under this chapter, consideration shall be given to the openness and lack of development of the land, the location of electrical and natural gas lines, the distance to private residences, the frequency of the use, and the volume of sound anticipated.

(Code 1977, § 3.5-4; Ord. No. 1985, § 1, 4-15-1996)

Sec. 3.5-5. - Scope of chapter.

The provisions of this chapter are intended to regulate all "heavier than air" craft regardless of configuration, construction or means of propulsion. The provisions of this chapter are not intended to regulate "lighter than air" craft such as hot air balloons.

(Code 1977, § 3.5-5; Ord. No. 1985, § 1, 4-15-1996)
 
@Norb_DAIS —the Ariz. v U.S. case you quoted was from the time Az decided to help feds enforce immigration law by making it an arrestable misdemeanor to be caught violating fed immig. law. So Az police could scoop up “wetbacks” and hand ‘em over to feds for deportation. Feds said thanks but no thanks, Supremes said that’s right, Az you can’t meddle in an area feds have usurped, er uh, preempted. Same same for your situation.
 
@Norb_DAIS —same same for Montalvo case you cited. 9th Circuit said the question was whether the Fed Av Act. “ preempt state law standards of care, including any state-imposed duty to warn about the risks of deep vein thrombosis (“DVT”)”. This happened when airline passengers started suing the bejammers out of airlines and airplane manufacturers for sticking passengers in those tiny seat spaces we’ve grown to love without warning us that it greatly increases your chances of suffering DVT and dieing (as several of the plaintiffs had). Plaintiffs said state law standard of care was thereby breached. 9th Circuit(bless their hearts) said “Did you say state law? Oh, no no no, configuration of airline seats is ENTIRELY under FAA regulation, fed law PREEMPTS state law here. Plaintiffs said what about all these dead passengers?, while airlines said see this big fella standing behind me? That’s the FAA, my big brother. Neener, neener, neener.

Anyway, you get the point. It matters not a whit that the state thinks it can pass and enforce laws when they’ve done so in an area of activity preempted by the feds via the FAA and associated regulations. You appear to be on good ground.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Norb_DAIS
@Norb_DAIS —same same for Montalvo case you cited. 9th Circuit said the question was whether the Fed Av Act. “ preempt state law standards of care, including any state-imposed duty to warn about the risks of deep vein thrombosis (“DVT”)”. This happened when airline passengers started suing the bejammers out of airlines and airplane manufacturers for sticking passengers in those tiny seat spaces we’ve grown to love without warning us that it greatly increases your chances of suffering DVT and dieing (as several of the plaintiffs had). Plaintiffs said state law standard of care was thereby breached. 9th Circuit(bless their hearts) said “Did you say state law? Oh, no no no, configuration of airline seats is ENTIRELY under FAA regulation, fed law PREEMPTS state law here. Plaintiffs said what about all these dead passengers?, while airlines said see this big fella standing behind me? That’s the FAA, my big brother. Neener, neener, neener.

Anyway, you get the point. It matters not a whit that the state thinks it can pass and enforce laws when they’ve done so in an area of activity preempted by the feds via the FAA and associated regulations. You appear to be on good ground.

Well, the big day is coming soon. The plan is to head to the court tomorrow to let them know I would like a trial by written declaration and come back on that date (November 28.) I don't know what to expect, but I'll have my documents -- "
twenty-seven 8 x 10 colored glossy pictures with the circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one..."
 
  • Like
Reactions: kadras and Moozer
@Norb_DAIS —same same for Montalvo case you cited. 9th Circuit said the question was whether the Fed Av Act. “ preempt state law standards of care, including any state-imposed duty to warn about the risks of deep vein thrombosis (“DVT”)”. This happened when airline passengers started suing the bejammers out of airlines and airplane manufacturers for sticking passengers in those tiny seat spaces we’ve grown to love without warning us that it greatly increases your chances of suffering DVT and dieing (as several of the plaintiffs had). Plaintiffs said state law standard of care was thereby breached. 9th Circuit(bless their hearts) said “Did you say state law? Oh, no no no, configuration of airline seats is ENTIRELY under FAA regulation, fed law PREEMPTS state law here. Plaintiffs said what about all these dead passengers?, while airlines said see this big fella standing behind me? That’s the FAA, my big brother. Neener, neener, neener.

Anyway, you get the point. It matters not a whit that the state thinks it can pass and enforce laws when they’ve done so in an area of activity preempted by the feds via the FAA and associated regulations. You appear to be on good ground.
What SHOULD happen an what DOES happen within states is not that cut and dried.
What about legal weed? Its against federal law. Why havent the feds charged in and slammed the door on that? It is a bigger deal than drone airspace.
 
Lycus Tech Mavic Air 3 Case

DJI Drone Deals

New Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
130,586
Messages
1,554,115
Members
159,586
Latest member
DoubleBarS