Tricky drone job. Legal? Ethical?

[WilliamDaugherty]

Recently I had a customer referral for an unusual job. The client wants to get evidentiary photos of an abutting neighbor's land and outbuildings. The client claims that the new construction is creating run-off damage to their property but can't see enough of what's happening to take legal action. Another complicating factor is the entire area is in a 50' Class D location, so flights would be quite low. We know that airspace is not private, but at only 50' I'm concerned that "reasonable privacy" might become an issue. Plus, the entire vibe feels creepy to me. I've done lots of property/construction/site aerial surveys, but I've never been part of a dispute. Honestly not sure I want to start now.

 

[BobaFut]

Can you not get approval to go higher than 50'? I've gotten several approvals to go up to 400' in zero grids in Class C...it's not gonna be same day, but getting the approval is pretty easy. I would also say that overall the job is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. I mean, the higher you go, the better, and even better if you can avoid flying directly over the property. But property disputes happen all the time and often lead to someone having to go onto a neighbor's property to take photos or whatever.

 

[TwoSticks]

I would not be bothered with the reason so long as it's a legal flight otherwise. You're being asked about a real estate or a property opportunity. Had they offered to pay you to look in the neighbors windows it would be a different story. At some point, if the proof of the issue is to be had it may need to be done from the air. You might use caution if the neighbor is hostile but if everyone cooperates it should be fine to review a property that the owner is asking to survey.

 

[WilliamDaugherty]

Can you not get approval to go higher than 50'? I've gotten several approvals to go up to 400' in zero grids in Class C...it's not gonna be same day, but getting the approval is pretty easy. I would also say that overall the job is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. I mean, the higher you go, the better, and even better if you can avoid flying directly over the property. But property disputes happen all the time and often lead to someone having to go onto a neighbor's property to take photos or whatever.

The ATC Manager at the airport in question is also Part 107 and we have flown each other's aircraft, so I'm confident I could get approval/cooperation from that side. It's just that a waiver has to be for a specific date/time, and weather might not cooperate, whereas LAANC for 50' is available at a moment's notice.

It would appear a direct overflight of the neighbor's property (at least a small portion)would be required.

I have a call into the local PD to get their position.

 

[WilliamDaugherty]

I would not be bothered with the reason so long as it's a legal flight otherwise. You're being asked about a real estate or a property opportunity. Had they offered to pay you to look in the neighbors windows it would be a different story. At some point, if the proof of the issue is to be had it may need to be done from the air. You might use caution if the neighbor is hostile but if everyone cooperates it should be fine to review a property that the owner is asking to survey.

Last year I witnessed a very bad dispute between neighbors in my town that escalated wildly. Criminal convictions resulted and the conflict is still ongoing today. I have stayed far outside that situation and would want to avoid anything similar, hence my general reluctance. I do not know the extent of the hostilities in the situation under discussion, but the language used by the client leads me to believe it is not a friendly discussion.

Turns out, the Lieutenant to whom I was referred at the PD is a guy I know. Obviously LEOs aren't lawyers, but they are the boots on the ground and theirs is a valuable perspective.

 

[GFields]

Recently I had a customer referral for an unusual job. The client wants to get evidentiary photos of an abutting neighbor's land and outbuildings. The client claims that the new construction is creating run-off damage to their property but can't see enough of what's happening to take legal action. Another complicating factor is the entire area is in a 50' Class D location, so flights would be quite low. We know that airspace is not private, but at only 50' I'm concerned that "reasonable privacy" might become an issue. Plus, the entire vibe feels creepy to me. I've done lots of property/construction/site aerial surveys, but I've never been part of a dispute. Honestly not sure I want to start now.

This could become a HUGE problem! This type of surveillance is illegal in many places. If it were me, I would get some legal advice before embarking upon such a project. The airspace restriction aside.

 

[FLDave]

I agree, this could be a huge legal problem, not with the airspace or privacy concern, but the legal involvement with the proceedings. It's all part of the investigative proceedings of a legal issue. I would be pretty sure that you would be part of the dispute. So, my suggestion is to get legal counsel which you would likely need later.

 

[Skydreamer]

or dont do it!

 

[Aerophile]

First question I would ask myself is what's the risk/benefit balance. Start with: how valuable would this job be to you. Reasonably lucrative? Then move forward with caution. I'd want to seek some sort of OK from the owner of the property you are seeking to overfly; if they refuse or are openly hostile, I'd revisit just how badly you want this job. If they're OK with it, maybe get it in writing.

There's what's legal, and then there's what's worth it to you. If you can get it done quickly and be done with it, OK. But if it turns ugly...

 

[WilliamDaugherty]

I want to thank those who participated in this discussion. It was helpful to hear the various opinions.

I spoke with a senior member of the relevant PD (my acquaintance) and he said he spent a bit of time asking around. Their consensus was that since they have to get warrants for any of their own drone photos/video, they thought it would probably be a privacy violation if I were to do the same without permission. They are just spinning up a drone practice so we spoke about that for a bit also. I subsequently contacted the client to say I would be declining the project request. I have no interest in being part of a conflict and there's plenty of other work.

 

[Skydreamer]

yup….NH privacy laws(video recording)

 

[TwoSticks]

I dont see anything on there that directly applies here. Those statutes refer to a person but in this case we are talking about a property and/or property line. I guess if the neighbor came out and stood around as if to be in private in their space you could say the person was being recorded but if no one is there I don't see how that would be the issue. That said, the answer has been given already, say no and thanks and move on to something else.

 

[Aerophile]

I subsequently contacted the client to say I would be declining the project request. I have no interest in being part of a conflict and there's plenty of other work.

A wise decision, I think. Well-played.

 

[rickmurray1989]

I always go with my gut when evaluating potential flights, commercial or otherwise. If it feels creepy or unethical, I walk away. The money is not worth it to me.

 

[360 Guy]

If you don't feel comfortable about the situtation, walk away.
Put it this way, if it should go to court and they ask where did the pic/videos come from, then you are involved.
I'd bow out.

 

[BigAl07]

Probably wise to refuse this one unless you are heavily compensated, heavily insured, intimately familiar with local privacy laws etc, and the hiring entity agrees to pay if there is an "incident" and equipment is lost/destroyed.

We were hired a few years ago by a local Attorney (and keep in mind I'm in NC which has some UAS Anti-Surveillance laws on the books) to document Tree Removal Procedures on/near/over a property line. It was any UGLY dispute resulting in an insanely high $$ law suit. I was asked to remain over OUR client's property but document tree locations, tree heights, and assess how the newly cleared trees affected long-range views etc. At no time did I fly over the neighbors property and it was well away from the neighbor's home/structure as to not bring "Surveillance/Privacy" into the equation.

The flights went without incident and I was called into court to "Explain" my methods and to authenticate the DATA I had provided. After a couple of hours my client won and the law suit was completely dismissed which was the desired result. It was a WIN-WIN for me because I was paid to do the flights and then paid again as a Subject Matter Expert to go to court. It was a very good paying gig and I wish I had more of them LOL.

 

[Scottalmas]

I want to thank those who participated in this discussion. It was helpful to hear the various opinions.

I spoke with a senior member of the relevant PD (my acquaintance) and he said he spent a bit of time asking around. Their consensus was that since they have to get warrants for any of their own drone photos/video, they thought it would probably be a privacy violation if I were to do the same without permission. They are just spinning up a drone practice so we spoke about that for a bit also. I subsequently contacted the client to say I would be declining the project request. I have no interest in being part of a conflict and there's plenty of other work.

Your LEO analysis seems flawed. They need a warrant because Law Enforcement is a "state actor" and, therefore, 4th amendment rights are triggered. You are a private citizen and your conduct is not subject to constitutional scrutiny here (IMHO). A Google search should inform you about the privacy laws (not Constitutional guarantees) that govern private rights of action (civil liability) or potential criminal statutes (criminal liability) in your jurisdiction.

 

[BobaFut]

Your LEO analysis seems flawed. They need a warrant because Law Enforcement is a "state actor" and, therefore, 4th amendment rights are triggered. You are a private citizen and your conduct is not subject to constitutional scrutiny here (IMHO). A Google search should inform you about the privacy laws (not Constitutional guarantees) that govern private rights of action (civil liability) or potential criminal statutes (criminal liability) in your jurisdiction.

Agree, I don't think this is a good area to take advice from LEOs unless the question is "how would local LEOs handle/respond to a call involving a drone flying over someone's property?"

 

[JimSteadman]

Recently I had a customer referral for an unusual job. The client wants to get evidentiary photos of an abutting neighbor's land and outbuildings. The client claims that the new construction is creating run-off damage to their property but can't see enough of what's happening to take legal action. Another complicating factor is the entire area is in a 50' Class D location, so flights would be quite low. We know that airspace is not private, but at only 50' I'm concerned that "reasonable privacy" might become an issue. Plus, the entire vibe feels creepy to me. I've done lots of property/construction/site aerial surveys, but I've never been part of a dispute. Honestly not sure I want to start now.

If you have you 107, you should not have problems getting approval to fly higher. But the liklihood of getting too deeply involved in an ugly dispute with neighboring property owners is high. Walk away. You are not a public utility required to take all comers.

 

[spsphotos]

The ATC Manager at the airport in question is also Part 107 and we have flown each other's aircraft, so I'm confident I could get approval/cooperation from that side. It's just that a waiver has to be for a specific date/time, and weather might not cooperate, whereas LAANC for 50' is available at a moment's notice.

It would appear a direct overflight of the neighbor's property (at least a small portion)would be required.

I have a call into the local PD to get their position.

Note that you cannot get DZ pre-approval auth if the area has LAANC. IT will tell you that LAANC is available and to use that.