Tell It To the Judge...

keith00 · Nov 20, 2018

Norb_DAIS said:
twenty-seven 8 x 10 colored glossy pictures with the circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one..."

Ah, it's my favorite Thanksgiving song! Good luck!

ac0j · Nov 20, 2018

good luck Norb!

ff22 · Nov 21, 2018

jaysrmc said:
This was also a answered by the FAA in email to me. Please let me know if u want the email for court. The state has no bearing on where you fly for the most part. Only take off and landing will hold up.

There was a new post in this thread which led to reading it all. (I have not finished reading the entire thread but saw your post)

I live in Seattle and was led to believe that we canNOT fly anywhere in the City except over our own single family lots. Are you suggesting that if I take off over my lot, then I can fly outside the boundaries of my lot as long as I, again, land on my lot? (as background, someone crashed a drone into the Space Needle and someone else had a drone fall and hit a member of the public at a parade which apparently led to restrictions).

ac0j · Nov 21, 2018

ff22 said:
There was a new post in this thread which led to reading it all. (I have not finished reading the entire thread but saw your post)

I live in Seattle and was led to believe that we canNOT fly anywhere in the City except over our own single family lots. Are you suggesting that if I take off over my lot, then I can fly outside the boundaries of my lot as long as I, again, land on my lot? (as background, someone crashed a drone into the Space Needle and someone else had a drone fall and hit a member of the public at a parade which apparently led to restrictions).

That is how I would interpret it. Airspace cannot rightly be controlled by the city. Only ground use.
IF an accident should happen, the only recourse would be the drone owner having to make reparations for any injury or property damage. Similar crashing a car.

jaysrmc · Nov 23, 2018

ff22 said:
There was a new post in this thread which led to reading it all. (I have not finished reading the entire thread but saw your post)

I live in Seattle and was led to believe that we canNOT fly anywhere in the City except over our own single family lots. Are you suggesting that if I take off over my lot, then I can fly outside the boundaries of my lot as long as I, again, land on my lot? (as background, someone crashed a drone into the Space Needle and someone else had a drone fall and hit a member of the public at a parade which apparently led to restrictions).

That is correct and I will give you my contact at the a FAA if needed in a private message.

ff22 · Nov 24, 2018

jaysrmc said:
That is correct and I will give you my contact at the a FAA if needed in a private message.

When I get arrested I will reach out! (g)

I still have to gain more confidence but there are so many trees including tall fir and other specimens in my neighborhood as well as power and telephone lines that would probably make me hesitate to fly beyond my lot. But maybe it is not as difficult as it seems to this beginner.

View attachment 54171

TR Ganey · Dec 4, 2018

Any updates?

m0j0 · Dec 5, 2018

I have yet to read all of this but someting to consider. It looks like he is on the side of the road. Is that a state highway? It is likely that where he was standing is not on the preserve but instead standing on property that belongs to the state of California. That is the reason the state maintains the road and the area next to the road. In some places it will be the area between the fence and the road. You routinely see the state using mowers etc to cut the growth etc. I would argue that you were not on the preserve but instead on state property.

Brian D · Dec 6, 2018

Thunderdrones said:
Are you referring to a federal or local precedent?

Here are the airspace restrictions straight from the FAA.

Airspace Restrictions

... just wondering if these apply to 107 pilots or recreational.... ...reason I'm asking is it's a bit ridiculous for the wildfire rule ... as drone pilots can often help out the fire department in observation of a perimeter that is not so readily viewed from a ground standpoint ... I just do it my way and do what is the right thing no matter what " laws " say isn't allowed

ac0j · Dec 6, 2018

Brian D said:
... just wondering if these apply to 107 pilots or recreational.... ...reason I'm asking is it's a bit ridiculous for the wildfire rule ... as drone pilots can often help out the fire department in observation of a perimeter that is not so readily viewed from a ground standpoint ... I just do it my way and do what is the right thing no matter what " laws " say isn't allowed

Do you think Part 107's can fly anywhere that a recreational user cant? WRONG!
if there is an NFZ or temporary restriction , it covers EVERYONE. if it is a fire zone, IT COVERS EVERYONE.
Too many part 107's dont seem to understand that.

packnrat · Dec 6, 2018

Norb_DAIS said:
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

that ticket says "model craft", you were flying a aircraft. as reg by the fed faa group.
but the judge only wants the money, so your out of luck (had a shorter word for that).

but yes write everything down, even wording used by the cop. (get a personal audio recorder. --it is not usable in court--. but you have a lawyer record of exactly what was said) take in ALL paper work, (reg #, permits, etc) and print up every page by the feds. and any fed, state, county, city laws about drones. place all this on the table before the judge. even the drone. (no power supply). possible to get a certified sound test?
i print up a lot of little things and use these plastic page binder things. cost to buy the one tool and three or four boxes of the binder things. but will look like you are a pro and know the law better than maybe even the cop and judge do.

you are going into court as GUILTY. pay the tax, so you have a steep up hill to prove you committed NO crime.

.

bluntnose · Dec 6, 2018

Hi, I couldn't remember if you were ticketed based upon the location of you and/or your car, or based upon where the drone was flying. So here's from your original blurb:

"Turns out the land on the other side of the freeway is a regional preserve and my drone flying over the space was prohibited. Therefore, I was issued a citation with a notice to appear in late November."

Here's a quote from the FAA response letter, from immediately below the part you quoted:

• Operational UAS restrictions on flight altitude, flight paths; operational bans; any regulation of the navigable airspace. For example – a city ordinance banning anyone from operating UAS within the city limits, within the airspace of the city, or within certain distances of landmarks. Federal courts strictly scrutinize state and local regulation of overflight. City of Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal, 411 U.S. 624 (1973); Skysign International, Inc. v. City and County of Honolulu, 276 F.3d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir. 2002); American Airlines v. Town of Hempstead, 398 F.2d 369 (2d Cir. 1968); American Airlines v. City of Audubon Park, 407 F.2d 1306 (6th Cir. 1969).

From their comments to you, and from reading the code they say they're enforcing, it sure sounds to me like they think they can regulate flight paths, in other words overflight over their regional park district. Assuming you weren't standing inside the grounds of the park then the only thing they could be prohibiting is overflight. I think somewhere Thunderdrone quoted the ordinance as prohibiting flying less than 500 feet over the park. While if appears that the FAA would tell them they can't because that's part of the navigable air space, you may not need to resort to that, because it sounded like they are trying to prohibit ANY overflight of the park by a drone. No can do, at least not without risking the strict scrutiny of a federal court. All of which makes me think that you're wise to go to trial in the courtroom, not by written declaration. Written declaration means you have to shoot your best shot without knowing exactly what the city/state's theory of prosecution is, i.e., exactly HOW they say you violated the ordinance. That way you only have to combat one theory by the prosecution.

You sure you don't want some donations to the legal defense fund? Sure would be handy to show up with a decent attorney. "FREE NORB!, FREE NORB!"

Prismatic · Dec 7, 2018

Norb_DAIS said:
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.)

@Norb_DAIS : Here it is, December 7; any updates? You have a large and interested "virtual gallery" watching and wondering! I hope it's gone well for you.

Norb_DAIS · Dec 10, 2018

Prismatic said:
@Norb_DAIS : Here it is, December 7; any updates? You have a large and interested "virtual gallery" watching and wondering! I hope it's gone well for you.

Hey all!

Thanks for continuing to comment and share your thoughts, including all the positive ones! I know we have differing opinions on some topics, but I like the fact that the community shares a concern about our legal rights to fly regardless of whether it's strictly a hobby or for business purposes.

That being said, I went to the court just before Thanksgiving and informed them that I wished to challenge the citation in court. The clerk told me that they needed to schedule the hearing with enough time to subpoena the citing officer. So I chose January 4, 2019 and have just received the written summons to appear last week stating that the court trial "...has been continued to January 25."

I want to get this settled as soon as possible and I'm cautiously optimistic that the statement that I received from the FAA, as well as the other documents I have collected, will compel the judge to rule in my favor.

Norb_DAIS · Dec 10, 2018

m0j0 said:
I have yet to read all of this but someting to consider. It looks like he is on the side of the road. Is that a state highway? It is likely that where he was standing is not on the preserve but instead standing on property that belongs to the state of California. That is the reason the state maintains the road and the area next to the road. In some places it will be the area between the fence and the road. You routinely see the state using mowers etc to cut the growth etc. I would argue that you were not on the preserve but instead on state property.

I was outside the locked gate (25) on the side of the road.

Norb_DAIS · Dec 10, 2018

TR Ganey said:
Any updates?

Just posted...trial moved to 1/25.

TR Ganey · Dec 10, 2018

I am very hopeful that the Judge takes a liking to ya!

m0j0 · Dec 11, 2018

Norb_DAIS said:
I was outside the locked gate (25) on the side of the road.

I figured as much. I can’t believe you were on their property. That being the case I find it hard to believe that they can uphold the citation.

m0j0 · Dec 11, 2018

ac0j said:
Do you think Part 107's can fly anywhere that a recreational user cant? WRONG!
if there is an NFZ or temporary restriction , it covers EVERYONE. if it is a fire zone, IT COVERS EVERYONE.
Too many part 107's dont seem to understand that.

I understand it very well as do most operators here.