Very interesting arrest of drone pilots

[motopokep]

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.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[swooshdave]

Failure to cooperate, not the drone flying is what escalated it.

 

[Just_nick]

I doubt the lawsuit will go anywhere. The "pilot" was being an ***, he got treated like one.

 

[gnirtS]

I doubt the lawsuit will go anywhere. The "pilot" was being an @ss, he got treated like one.

He got what he deserved. Being obnoxious and obstructive is nothing to do with operating a drone. No sympathy for him there at all.

 

[dirkclod]

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 .

 

[Memphis3]

We should have a AI judge or a actual judge on call. When there is not a threat to the public or private property the police have no more rights than a bum on the street. In this case it was a flock of bums and they act as a mob. In this case the police were trying to be judge and jury. Police were no longer good guys they are guys with guns and should have a judge on call and have the judge decide what is legal and right and wrong.

 

[TrayBoz]

Refusing to identify yourself to a police officer, immediately, when asked to do so, is saying "Please Arrest Me".

 

[darren6270]

Refusing to identify yourself to a police officer, immediately, when asked to do so, is saying "Please Arrest Me".

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.

 

[MavicMoira]

These people were animals rights activists. It was in their interest to escalate the situation for publicity purposes. Having said that, the police response was totally over the top given the number of police officers involved. Turning it into a traffic violation stop was a blatant abuse of police power.

The issue of privacy is always going to be a grey area for us, but in this case, where they were using a drone to spy on the activities of Marshall Farms, they almost certainly were at fault. I don't know what the law is in the US but if I suspected a drone attempting to photograph my property without my permission, I would want to take action.

I think that Sharkonline came out of this much better than the police!

 

[BIGDAVE]

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.

didn't want to get in on this but you are 100% right darren6270

 

[jedburgh01]

It was police harassment

 

[TrayBoz]

in the UK you are not obliged to give your details unless they are going to charge you for an offence.

Understood. Obliged or not, why would you want to refuse to identify yourself to an officer of the law unless you just wanted to make them angry, make their jobs more difficult, or if you really had something to hide? Or just felt like being an ***?

(As if they already had a fun, safe, job, that pays well.)

If you believe that simply telling someone (of authority) your name is somehow violating your rights or your privacy, I think you have issues, IMO.

Some policemen might abuse their power, sure, but I'm not going to change that by being more difficult.

 

[motopokep]

both sides have valid points and my guess is that the drone pilots were flying very low to take pictures and video. However, this video presents a very interesting and narrow legal issue: can the police demand i.d. when they have no reasonable suspicion that you have, are, or about to committ a crime? In most states, including NY, the answer is no.

If I was the cop, I would have said "yes, I have reasonable suspicion that you have committed a crime of recklessly endangering other's safety, including people and animals on that farm, by flying low over them, and have broken FAA rules, as codified in the CFR, by flying over people and not maintaining visual line of sight of the drone". The burden would then shift to the drone pilots to try to negate that with more than just a simple "no".

I'm not 100% positive they flew very low and out of VLOS, but if they got the farm's workers' attention, they were probably flying low enough...what's the rule, have to be above 200 feet over someone's private property? Aside from FAA rules, there are blanket rules about endangering someone's life, property, invading privacy in their own home or business, and the cops could have proceeded on suspicion of those violations.

In any event, had the officers have been a bit more educated on drones, they would have been able to articulate a probable cause or a reasonable suspicion, and mention that they need to confiscate the drones as evidence to review the video.

If it was me and I felt I've done nothing wrong, I would have showed my i.d. to just be on my way.

 

[TrayBoz]

If it was me and I felt I've done nothing wrong, I would have showed my i.d. to just be on my way.

Exactly.

 

[darren6270]

Understood. Obliged or not, why would you want to refuse to identify yourself to an officer of the law unless you just wanted to make them angry, make their jobs more difficult, or if you really had something to hide? Or just felt like being an A**?

(As if they already had a fun, safe, job, that pays well.)

If you believe that simply telling someone (of authority) your name is somehow violating your rights or your privacy, I think you have issues, IMO.

Some policemen might abuse their power, sure, but I'm not going to change that by being more difficult.

I wasn't judging whether it was right or wrong, merely stating that they were perfectly within their rights to not give their identities. If that upsets an officer of the law then that says more about the officer of the law than the person respecting their rights.

 

[zwt100]

Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t it against the law to operate a drone for surveillance purposes? It seems to me like that is what they were doing here. I love animals and am sympathetic towards any cause that might curb abuse but from what I can tell these guys were violating the law and the cops had every right to pull them over. And as others have said why not just cooperate? The cop was fairly courteous at first, no reason to give him a hard time.

 

[Defiante]

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.

both sides have valid points and my guess is that the drone pilots were flying very low to take pictures and video. However, this video presents a very interesting and narrow legal issue: can the police demand i.d. when they have no reasonable suspicion that you have, are, or about to committ a crime? In most states, including NY, the answer is no.

If I was the cop, I would have said "yes, I have reasonable suspicion that you have committed a crime of recklessly endangering other's safety, including people and animals on that farm, by flying low over them, and have broken FAA rules, as codified in the CFR, by flying over people and not maintaining visual line of sight of the drone". The burden would then shift to the drone pilots to try to negate that with more than just a simple "no".

I'm not 100% positive they flew very low and out of VLOS, but if they got the farm's workers' attention, they were probably flying low enough...what's the rule, have to be above 200 feet over someone's private property? Aside from FAA rules, there are blanket rules about endangering someone's life, property, invading privacy in their own home or business, and the cops could have proceeded on suspicion of those violations.

In any event, had the officers have been a bit more educated on drones, they would have been able to articulate a probable cause or a reasonable suspicion, and mention that they need to confiscate the drones as evidence to review the video.

If it was me and I felt I've done nothing wrong, I would have showed my i.d. to just be on my way.

In most states in the US a police officer may detain you until your identity is confirmed if they "reasonably suspect that such person is committing, has committed or is about to commit either (a) a felony or (b) a misdemeanor defined in the penal law.

In NY its Criminal Procedure Law Article 140 (140.50)

Now the problem arises around the "reasonable suspect " part of the law. Flying a drone usually does not qualify, but invasion of privacy or public nuisance can

 

[The Real Heavy Metal]

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.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Wasn't a traffic stop. Untill they acertain whether a law exists they had no right to detain. Unless they have knowledge of a law and suspect it was possibly broken they have no right to ask for I'd. Without a definate law and evidence it was broken they have no right to arrest. Cooperation means working with police and upholding the law. Last I checked that does not require you to surrender your rights so police can break the law. Planes fly over my property weekly. If I call the police will they go stake out the airport's? The laws aren't just there for the rights of he person complaining. Complaint without a cited law. Stopped and detained without a cited law and then arrested for a completely seperate reason. That is illegal a cracker Jack law degree could beat the charge and win the suit. I have a question. If no law was broken should the complainant be charged for making a false complaint? Should the officers be charged with false arrest kidnapping and false imprisonment? If not then why not? If no law was broken by flying the drone then all of those crimes were committed against the pilot for obeying the law.

 

[BaNZ]

I feel that the police was very polite and just doing their job. He probably would've been shot if he was black and refuse to comply.

 

[dirkclod]

I feel that the police was very polite and just doing their job. He probably would've been shot if he was black and refuse to comply.

We Will Not Get Race Into This .