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

Very interesting arrest of drone pilots

Status
Not open for further replies.
Probably Case for the stop! A complaint that officers have to investigate! Guys are totally ******** with no respect to authorities but want authorities to have respect for them wow! Also there is a Judge on call it's called a Court Date! I believe the officers will be covered under the 4th Amendment!
A police officer doesn’t HAVE do do anything. They are under no legal obligation to respond to a “complaint“ or any crime for that matter. This is not an opinion, this is settled nationwide law. Do some research people!
 
Would’ve been easier to just show your footage if you weren’t in the wrong; oh wait, they might’ve been arrested if they showed that. You don’t need to identify yourself if you aren’t being detained or investigated for an unlawful act; always best to carry the laws of your land with you in regards to flying your UAV.

Police or not, pissing matches solve absolutely nothing.

It’s not like the footage taken is private anyway, DJI can access it anytime they want, you give them permission when you accept the agreement to download their app and use it on your tablet or phone.
 
Oh....i maybe wrong....I didnt think you had to show ID to police without a reason, if you are driving yes. Laws may have changed since i studied Legal Studies.
Even if you are driving, they still have to have a reason to pull you over and “looking suspicious” isn’t one of them.
 
Not sure what the rules are in the States but in the UK you are not obliged to give your details unless they are going to charge you for an offence.
Yup...that'd how it is here in Nevada....The police have to have a legit reason (Like, suspicion of having committed a crime) to detain and and ask for identification. I do believe there is a SCOTUS decision on that as well, came out of a lawsuit stemming from a hot looking babe, constantly being pulled over so that the police could check out her 'information' on her driver's license. And in the last 5 years or so, racial profiling has become the big buzz-word on asking for identification.
 
I stumbled upon this. Cops admit they don't know if flying over private property is a crime or not, but they proceed with the arrest of pilots who refuse to identify themselves. Lawsuit is pending, interesting how it will turn out.

Driver/PIC was acting like an ***.
 
Guys this happened or was posted in YT in Jan 8, 2017. Kinda old don't ya think .
Has been posted in here several times also .
Just saying .

Agreed, OLD news
 
Any law enforcement officer will tell you that 90% of all “evidence” used is obtained from people through what they voluntarily say during an interaction. Keep your mouths shut!!

Correct. Police are trained to ask certain questions, to elicit certain answers. My neighbor across the street, is a partner in one of the better law firms, here in my city. I heard him mowing his lawn just now so went and asked him what he recommends if pulled over or stopped or approached by a law enforcement officer and asked to produce ID, when just flying a drone, etc. (or doing anything innocent) His answer, Tell the questioning officer, "I have nothing to say" Do not say anything else, no matter what the officer is asking or saying, or insinuating. If he takes you in, then demand to see an attorney, but, other than that, say nothing more than, "I have nothing to say." Not, "I have nothing to say until an attorney is present." Those 5 words are the ***ONLY*** thing to say.

That *is* from a top notch criminal attorney, not an armchair mouthpiece!
 
I am sorry to say that this was nothing but bullying and the officers were acting outside of their remit. It is obvious from the comments by the police that they didn't really have
any jurisdiction here and they tried to justify themselves by eventually calling it a traffic offence. Obviously absolutely rubbish!
I disagree that the drone operator brought it on himself, he was quite simply protecting his rights in law.
 
Correct. Police are trained to ask certain questions, to elicit certain answers. My neighbor across the street, is a partner in one of the better law firms, here in my city. I heard him mowing his lawn just now so went and asked him what he recommends if pulled over or stopped or approached by a law enforcement officer and asked to produce ID, when just flying a drone, etc. (or doing anything innocent) His answer, Tell the questioning officer, "I have nothing to say" Do not say anything else, no matter what the officer is asking or saying, or insinuating. If he takes you in, then demand to see an attorney, but, other than that, say nothing more than, "I have nothing to say." Not, "I have nothing to say until an attorney is present." Those 5 words are the ***ONLY*** thing to say.

That *is* from a top notch criminal attorney, not an armchair mouthpiece!

Yes, This is exactly what I would expect an attorney to say. Because if you DONT make an issue with the police, he doesnt get to come to your "rescue" to the tune of probably $500 an hour. He is just giving you an answer that benefits HIM. Is NOT giving your ID worth the likely arrest, detainment, and legal bills? I dont think so. Unless you are on parole, a wanted person, or an unregistered sex offender. In those cases, it may afford you a few more minutes outside of the jail cell.
You cant get a plane ticket without your ID being produced, You cant get a loan or register a vehicle without showing ID, You whip out the ID on request when entering some nightclubs or making purchases at Liquor stores. But when the police approach you for whatever reason NOW you choose to remain anonymous? Why dont you private types tell us the REAL reason you dont want to show ID to LE officials?
 
I stumbled upon this. Cops admit they don't know if flying over private property is a crime or not, but they proceed with the arrest of pilots who refuse to identify themselves. Lawsuit is pending, interesting how it will turn out.

This seems less like a drone flying issue and more like an animal rights person provoking the cops. I don’t judge,but it seems to me that he easily could have foreseen the trouble coming. He surely knew he’d provoke the people at the “farm” by flying over (to gather evidence of wrongdoing I assume). My point is, he wasn’t just flying over a field for fun and enjoyment and then stopped by cops.it seems like he wanted to provoke something or make people aware of another issue. The drone flying was just a side story imo.
I kinda don’t see why this was posted in a Mavic Pro drone forum.
 
Yes, This is exactly what I would expect an attorney to say. Because if you DONT make an issue with the police, he doesnt get to come to your "rescue" to the tune of probably $500 an hour. He is just giving you an answer that benefits HIM. Is NOT giving your ID worth the likely arrest, detainment, and legal bills? I dont think so. Unless you are on parole, a wanted person, or an unregistered sex offender. In those cases, it may afford you a few more minutes outside of the jail cell.
You cant get a plane ticket without your ID being produced, You cant get a loan or register a vehicle without showing ID, You whip out the ID on request when entering some nightclubs or making purchases at Liquor stores. But when the police approach you for whatever reason NOW you choose to remain anonymous? Why dont you private types tell us the REAL reason you dont want to show ID to LE officials?
All of the examples of “show your ID“ you constantly give are purely voluntary! You CHOOSE to engage in these activities. You are tedious
 
All of the examples of “show your ID“ you constantly give are purely voluntary! You CHOOSE to engage in these activities. You are tedious
The real issue is some of you CHOOSE to make trouble instead of identifying yourselves to LE officials. When there is no harm done in doing so. Most of the time you wont have any idea why you are being approached, maybe they are following up on a complaint, and you fit the description. By avoiding the ID process, you are leading them to believe you ARE a person of interest. I know a guy that played this game with police. They asked him if he wasnt going to identify himself should they just mark him down as "John Doe" ? He told them YES. He was arrested on the spot, because John Doe is wanted for questioning in almost every community in the united states. He now also has an official alias of John Doe. WORST mistake he ever made. Takes a good amount of time to ruled out as the wanted JOHN DOE nation wide.
Bottom line, if you refuse to ID yourself you are perceived to be hiding something. NOT just by police. Bystanders will have the same view.
IMO, I have better things to do with my time than fight to remain unidentified for 20 or 30 minutes. ESPECIALLY when I have nothing to hide.
 
Look what happened at Starbucks 2 days ago with 2 (black) guys getting arrested for not buying something whilst waiting for a friend. Yes by law they should buy something....but give me a ferkin break....really...arrest them.

The Starbucks story is controversial, two sides to every story. The two guys in question (I don't care what color their skin is) were hanging out at Starbucks for quite some time, allegedly waiting for a friend. They were not buying anything, and one of them wanted to use the restroom. They were politely told that the restroom is for customers only. A confrontation ensued and they were asked to leave, and when they refused, police showed up and also politely asked them to leave, and when they refused, they were arrested for trespassing.

Plenty of businesses in big cities, to combat loitering and homeless people occupying their bathrooms, post signs that restroom use is for customer use only. If you are hanging out a coffee shop for at least 5 minutes and you have still not ordered anything, you are not a customer. Assuming these guys' story was true and they were waiting for a friend, what prevented them from pre-ordering their coffee, buying a cookie or a sandwich, to establish right their to be in that establishment?

Plenty of teens, bums, other sorts of people, get kicked out of places every day. Why did these 2 guys have to make a scene and a racial issue out of this?

I was at this one McDonalds in the city once, which had signs that if you order a meal, you are given 30 minutes to eat it and then you must leave if you don't order anything else. Controversial? Yes. But I'm sure it's their response to previous problems of having teens loiter that place after school and use it as a hangout, taking up space and not leaving any space of regular customers who come and go to sit. Remember, every rule has been enacted in response to a problem that has arisen previously.

Now, if that Starbucks has allowed non-blacks to hang out there without ordering anything and use the bathroom, then yes, it's a racial issue, and is shameful.
 
Last edited:
A police officer doesn’t HAVE do do anything. They are under no legal obligation to respond to a “complaint“ or any crime for that matter. This is not an opinion, this is settled nationwide law. Do some research people!

Are you serious? Can you cite the law?

In my state, there is a statute in the criminal code requiring both the police and/or the coroner, who have knowledge of a felony, to pursue the suspected felon, or be found guilty of a class B misdemeanor. Firefighters have a legal obligation to put out fires, police have a legal obligation to come to the aid of citizens.

Here's that law I just described:

(725 ILCS 5/107-15)
Sec. 107-15. Fresh pursuit. When the fact that a felony has been committed comes to the knowledge of a sheriff or coroner, fresh pursuit shall be forthwith made after every person guilty of the felony, by the sheriff, coroner, and all other persons who is by any one of them commanded or summoned for that purpose; every such officer who does not do his or her duty in the premises is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor.
(Source: P.A. 89-234, eff. 1-1-96.)
 
Are you serious? Can you cite the law?

In my state, there is a statute in the criminal code requiring both the police and/or the coroner, who have knowledge of a felony, to pursue the suspected felon, or be found guilty of a class B misdemeanor. Firefighters have a legal obligation to put out fires, police have a legal obligation to come to the aid of citizens.

Here's that law I just described:

(725 ILCS 5/107-15)
Sec. 107-15. Fresh pursuit. When the fact that a felony has been committed comes to the knowledge of a sheriff or coroner, fresh pursuit shall be forthwith made after every person guilty of the felony, by the sheriff, coroner, and all other persons who is by any one of them commanded or summoned for that purpose; every such officer who does not do his or her duty in the premises is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor.
(Source: P.A. 89-234, eff. 1-1-96.)

That is pretty much the law EVERYWHERE. You are correct.
 
The real issue is some of you CHOOSE to make trouble instead of identifying yourselves to LE officials. When there is no harm done in doing so. Most of the time you wont have any idea why you are being approached, maybe they are following up on a complaint, and you fit the description. By avoiding the ID process, you are leading them to believe you ARE a person of interest. I know a guy that played this game with police. They asked him if he wasnt going to identify himself should they just mark him down as "John Doe" ? He told them YES. He was arrested on the spot, because John Doe is wanted for questioning in almost every community in the united states. He now also has an official alias of John Doe. WORST mistake he ever made. Takes a good amount of time to ruled out as the wanted JOHN DOE nation wide.
Bottom line, if you refuse to ID yourself you are perceived to be hiding something. NOT just by police. Bystanders will have the same view.
IMO, I have better things to do with my time than fight to remain unidentified for 20 or 30 minutes. ESPECIALLY when I have nothing to hide.
OK, here it is. At the end of the day I couldn’t care less how I am “perceived“ by LE and if they want to arrest me then they better have EVIDENCE that I have committed a crime. It is that simple!

Now, let’s get this back to drones. If a police officer approaches me about drone operation then they need to cite what LAW they suspect me of breaking. Either they can or they can’t.... there is no 3rd option. If they can then I’m not going to help them in prosecuting me, I shut up. If they can’t then the interaction is pointless and I shut up..... wow, see how that works?? In both cases, I shut up. That was simple
 
  • Like
Reactions: zero1981
OK, here it is. At the end of the day I couldn’t care less how I am “perceived“ by LE and if they want to arrest me then they better have EVIDENCE that I have committed a crime. It is that simple!

Now, let’s get this back to drones. If a police officer approaches me about drone operation then they need to cite what LAW they suspect me of breaking. Either they can or they can’t.... there is no 3rd option. If they can then I’m not going to help them in prosecuting me, I shut up. If they can’t then the interaction is pointless and I shut up..... wow, see how that works?? In both cases, I shut up. That was simple

If they approach you for flying a drone, JUST LIKE IN THE OP VIDEO, it will be because some other law abiding citizen has made a complaint about it. They are required (allthough you obviously dont believe that) to contact BOTH parties involved in the complaint and decide THEN if any laws have been broken. Refusing to identify yourself in this situation is CRIMINAL. Period. Test it at your leisure! :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dizzy1971
That is pretty much the law EVERYWHERE. You are correct.
You guys are mixing community “expectations” and the LEGAL “duty to act”. It is settled law that LE has NO duty to act. This went to SCOTUS nearly 40 years ago. Look it up for yourselves, the case law is voluminous
 
All these comments about rights are admirable, however your playing with the wrong rule book.

Once your in the vehicle driving your rights are amended to privileges to a degree and fall under the vehicle laws that are applicable in each state differently.

Regardless of the state you must present identification, registration and insurance when requested by the officer.

What I would have done is, 1.shut the **** up. Your Miranda rights allow you to shut up. Use that right. It will help you more than hurt you.

2.made a complaint about the companies men following and harassing you and you feel for your safety

3. Not have passengers get out of the vehicle. Nothing good will come out of this and although each state is different, some states cannot require the passengers to present I.D. As they are not operating a motor vehicle, thus they have not broken any motor vehicle laws.

4. Not have gotten into a vehicle to start with had I thought I was going to be encountering the police. Here’s where your rights to privacy come into place. Most states do not require a pedestrian to have to present I.D. As you have the constitutional right to liberty, which is freedom of movement within our country. Here’s where everyone is correct with the don’t show I.D. Argument.

Being behind the wheel is where the cops got this guy, talking is where he gave them traction in their complaint.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bad karma
Status
Not open for further replies.
Lycus Tech Mavic Air 3 Case

DJI Drone Deals

New Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
130,587
Messages
1,554,127
Members
159,591
Latest member
Albrecht0803