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

This is why neighbors don't want your drone near their homes

D

danman999

Guest
(CBS) – A Chicago man faces misdemeanor criminal charges after a camera-equipped drone was seen hovering outside a residential high rise.

A 52-year-old female “victim” observed the drone flying outside the 42nd floor of a condo tower in the 500 block of North Lake Shore Drive around 12:30 p.m. Saturday, Chicago police tell CBS 2.

A Chicago man was charged after a drone with a camera was observed hovering outside this Chicago high rise. (CBS)

The device had a camera attached to it and was “hovering in the area for a long period of time, without consent from building management,” police say.

Amit Kleiman, 31, attempted to recover the drone when it landed on the third floor, police say.

He was taken into custody and charged with one count each of criminal trespass; reckless conduct; and breach of peace. Kleiman was also charged with two counts of having a small unmanned aircraft, police say
 
  • Like
Reactions: snipe
Not sure how this is going to stick. Criminal trespass in Illinois requires entry onto someone's land (unless he entered the building or onto the property itself, hovering a drone over the property is not entering), and it also requires prior notice. I highly doubt they told him not to trespass and he refused. There's a city ordinance for this but they have to prove it was over the "property" of the high rise, and this has yet to be challenged in court. (http://ward32.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/DronesSubstituteOrdinance.pdf)

Reckless conduct requires an act that causes great bodily harm or endangers the safety of a person. I doubt anyone was injured and unless there were people directly below where the drone hovered, it would be difficult to prove how it was endangering someone else.

"Breach of peace" is a wide-ranging and nebulous charge. Basically it means bothering anyone or threatening them. I'm sure they could charge this person with that. Not sure if the charge would stick.

And there's absolutely nothing illegal about possessing a UAV ("two counts of having a small unmanned aircraft"). I have no clue if this means what it says or something else, but I can't imagine, even if law (which I can't find in Chicago or Illinois law), it would be considered constitutional.
 
Not sure how this is going to stick. Criminal trespass in Illinois requires entry onto someone's land (unless he entered the building or onto the property itself, hovering a drone over the property is not entering), and it also requires prior notice. I highly doubt they told him not to trespass and he refused. There's a city ordinance for this but they have to prove it was over the "property" of the high rise, and this has yet to be challenged in court. (http://ward32.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/DronesSubstituteOrdinance.pdf)

Reckless conduct requires an act that causes great bodily harm or endangers the safety of a person. I doubt anyone was injured and unless there were people directly below where the drone hovered, it would be difficult to prove how it was endangering someone else.

"Breach of peace" is a wide-ranging and nebulous charge. Basically it means bothering anyone or threatening them. I'm sure they could charge this person with that. Not sure if the charge would stick.

And there's absolutely nothing illegal about possessing a UAV ("two counts of having a small unmanned aircraft"). I have no clue if this means what it says or something else, but I can't imagine, even if law (which I can't find in Chicago or Illinois law), it would be considered constitutional.
So once again - another news story that amounts to a pile of unicorn poop...
 
I'm assuming the trespass charge is not for the drone trespassing but for the owner trespassing to recover the drone which "landed on the third floor" according to the article. Stupid to be hovering outside a building especially facing the windows, even if he wasn't up to no good that just looks bad.

-Joe
 
Irresponsible use at minimum, IF close enough to the building to be a nuisance.
It could have been 50m away.
In any case this is the sort of news that drone users generally don't want to see.

He could be breaking rules about flying within legal distance or near / over buildings, traffic, people ?
Also landing into a high rise ? That = flying close to buildings.
Basically whatever FAA rules may apply ?

If the same as CASA regs in Australia, he most likely would have broken at least a couple of our regs.
Not sure if US law would get involved in that, could be out of their jurisdiction, but they looked for something to charge him with.
 
I'm assuming the trespass charge is not for the drone trespassing but for the owner trespassing to recover the drone which "landed on the third floor" according to the article. Stupid to be hovering outside a building especially facing the windows, even if he wasn't up to no good that just looks bad.

-Joe
All it takes to avoid situations like this is to use common sense. Vouerism, or Peeping Toms, is an illegal act in just about every jurisdiction:
"Peeping Tom laws generally make it a crime to view and/or photograph or film a person without his or her consent. Peeping Tom statutes differ from state to state, but they usually require:

  1. That the victim did not realize he or she was being viewed;
  2. That the victim was fully or partially naked, and
  3. That the viewing took place at a place where the victim had a reasonable expectation of privacy."
 
All it takes to avoid situations like this is to use common sense. Vouerism, or Peeping Toms, is an illegal act in just about every jurisdiction:
"Peeping Tom laws generally make it a crime to view and/or photograph or film a person without his or her consent. Peeping Tom statutes differ from state to state, but they usually require:

  1. That the victim did not realize he or she was being viewed;
  2. That the victim was fully or partially naked, and
  3. That the viewing took place at a place where the victim had a reasonable expectation of privacy."
I think there are a number of assumptions at work here: 1) He was spying/peeping [unknown]. 2) All drone operators are responsible [untrue], and 3) All drone operators are solid upstanding citizens and not creepers [sadly, untrue]... Right now it's just a story of a drone outside of a building (well, and on the building). Any of the above options are completely feasible.

I think stories like this will become increasingly more common in the coming years. Our little community, and others like it, will constantly be on the defensive - even when we are the few who follow the rules. *If* this guy was indeed doing nothing wrong or illegal [riiiiight], the news report will be remembered, long past his innocence.
 
I think there are a number of assumptions at work here: 1) He was spying/peeping [unknown]. 2) All drone operators are responsible [untrue], and 3) All drone operators are solid upstanding citizens and not creepers [sadly, untrue]... Right now it's just a story of a drone outside of a building (well, and on the building). Any of the above options are completely feasible.

I think stories like this will become increasingly more common in the coming years. Our little community, and others like it, will constantly be on the defensive - even when we are the few who follow the rules. *If* this guy was indeed doing nothing wrong or illegal [riiiiight], the news report will be remembered, long past his innocence.
True, even more the reason to operate your drone responsibly to make sure stories like this don't make the news, where it may not be reported objectively.
 
  • Like
Reactions: geigy
I dont buy these drones spying on people through their windows stories . Why would anyone want to use a drone to spy on someone, surely if someone wants to watch someone geting naked on a tiny screen - and im gussing that's whats most of the reports are implying that's what they are using the drone for - they just need to log on to the internet
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vilco
I dont buy these drones spying on people through their windows stories . Why would anyone want to use a drone to spy on someone, surely if someone wants to watch someone geting naked on a tiny screen - and im gussing that's whats most of the reports are implying that's what they are using the drone for - they just need to log on to the internet
Perverts don't always do things logically. Maybe they are looking for children, or something they can share with their equally sick buddies. While these peeping incidents may be rare (for the reasons you stated) I still have no doubts they occur.
 
If a drone hovers outside ANY building significantly, any modern day paranoid person will likely think it's watching them :/
As far as the publics view on nefarious use, it's not about the persons intent filming of flying, it's about the perception of whoever might be nearby and sees it.

Use for things other than people just having fun, getting good shots, or testing, would probably be very rare.
I like to think most people in the World as fairly normal in the moral sense, we should all hope anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kilrah
I think the trespass charge came from trying to retrieve his drone from the third floor balcony. It was probably without consent for entry. Breach of Peace: maybe because of all the commotion that was created from trying to get his drone and the neighbor saying he was hovering outside their condo. Could sound like he created a riotous state of mind for the residents (lol).

Possession of a drone is not a law. Maybe flying within city limits.

I think most charges will be dropped or beaten in court. It'll cost him though.
 
I dont buy these drones spying on people through their windows stories . Why would anyone want to use a drone to spy on someone, surely if someone wants to watch someone geting naked on a tiny screen - and im gussing that's whats most of the reports are implying that's what they are using the drone for - they just need to log on to the internet

exactly, Way too much pron on the net for that behaviour.
Unless it's some girl he's stalking, then that is messed up.
But what are the chances some girl being stalked lives on some high rise with
see through windows?
Drones are kinda noisy too for memory?
Only way i can see this working is if you had the CIA fly drone from that movie "Eye in the Sky".


Im betting there is way more to the story, there just omitting enough to make him and drones seem creepy
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mostly this story raises many questions. Does building management own the airspace around the building and if so for how far? How did he attempt to recover the drone? "Two counts of having a small unmanned aircraft, police say" ???? One count for possession, one count for owning, or maybe one count for unmanned and one for small aircraft????? "Hovering in the area for a long period of time". What's considered a long period of time? Now for some sarcasm, it was reported to happen at 12:30pm interrupted officers lunch/donut break? Is the 42 floor above 400 feet? Was it really a drone or was it a camera with a device attached to it. Does the gentleman live in the building? No offense meant in this next question did the OP get all of this confusing story correct? Sorry I wasted some of your time with some of my questions.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: merak75
Did he caught her naked on video? Was she nice? Sometimes crime does pay... :D
 
i have never lived in a high rise. would someone who lived several stories up tend to have curtains or blinds on their windows? If not, couldn't anyone just look in your windows with binoculars or a telescope?
 
I think every country is paranoid with the small but real risk of paedophiles and other people who have bad intentions. There are and will unfortunately be sick people in this world but its a shame that a lot of innocent well meaning UAV operators get blamed for being one of them..
 
The reality is that to really get a good high quality view of a person, a mavic has to be within about 10 feet. Flying within 10 feet of a window 40 feet up and who knows how far from the RC is quite risky. Plus many windows have a reflective coating that makes it difficult to see through them at various angles.....my guess is that the drone was somewhere within 50 feet of the building and someone overreacted about a "drone with a camera affixed to it" possibly spying on them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DurbanCraig and Mxs
Lycus Tech Mavic Air 3 Case

DJI Drone Deals

New Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
130,588
Messages
1,554,140
Members
159,592
Latest member
MaxRichu