Your opinions of this land trust drone policy

[Vic Moss]

I have said this before. They can and will have you arrested.

What can they have you arrested for? There needs to be a law broken first.

What law is broken here?

You will have to fight them in court. How deep are your pockets? These fights can get very expensive for your the average guy or girl. Best to have your funding in place before hand as they already have lawyers on the payroll and it don't cost them a red cent to fight you in court win or lose.

 

[AZDave]

I have said this before. They can and will have you arrested. You will have to fight them in court. How deep are your pockets? These fights can get very expensive for your the average guy or girl. Best to have your funding in place before hand as they already have lawyers on the payroll and it don't cost them a red cent to fight you in court win or lose.

Exactly this.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

What can they have you arrested for? There needs to be a law broken first.

What law is broken here?

Exactly.
If it ever got past filing a charge somehow, or a fine issued under some sort of relationship to trespassing, and a prosecutor let this go to court under some private mandate, a judge would throw it out pretty smartly.

If a 'city of' bylaw / byelaw mandating not to fly over a city park produced a fine, and you nominated to take it to court, a city admin should receive advice to effect that would be a waste of time and resources.
Usually it'd be dropped before a court date so not to set a precedent.
(IF they were smart and not in God mode.)

 

[Jagerbomb52]

What can they have you arrested for? There needs to be a law broken first.

What law is broken here?

Cops will not care until it is finalized. All they would do is read their rules and your done. Who do you think they will listen to? Not you thats for sure

 

[Jagerbomb52]

All you have to do is remember what they tried to do in Genesee County. It took a lot of money and time to get that straightened out. For the average Joe that does not have deep pockets all I am saying is good luck.

 

[Starz]

All they would do is read their rules and your done.

I have no experience with L.E. folks up north, but the ones in my area, in my opinion, are intelligent enough that they think before they react.
Every situation will have variables.

 

[Vic Moss]

Cops will not care until it is finalized. All they would do is read their rules and your done. Who do you think they will listen to? Not you thats for sure

They'll listen to me. I carry all of that with me. A cop can't arrest you for a private sign.

 

[BigAl07]

Cops will not care until it is finalized. All they would do is read their rules and your done. Who do you think they will listen to? Not you thats for sure

If you're not on their property they have nothing to "Arrest" for. At the very lmost they can cite you for something random (reckless behavior etc) which you could be. Chances are, once the case was reviewed it would be tossed out for being BullCrap to begin with.

Keep in mind LEO aren't out there just to arrest you for nothing. They have standard and policies to follow even though many on here seem to not think so.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

All you have to do is remember what they tried to do in Genesee County. It took a lot of money and time to get that straightened out. For the average Joe that does not have deep pockets all I am saying is good luck.

That's now set a precedent, and can be used to more easily get new cases of overreach rescinded.

 

[DoomMeister]

I have said this before. They can and will have you arrested. You will have to fight them in court. How deep are your pockets? These fights can get very expensive for your the average guy or girl. Best to have your funding in place before hand as they already have lawyers on the payroll and it don't cost them a red cent to fight you in court win or lose.

How in the world could they possibly have you arrested for overflight if you are not on their property to launch, control, or land the aircraft. That is comparable to me posting a sign along my property lines saying that overflight of my property is punishable by law. Ludicrous!

 

[DoomMeister]

That's now set a precedent, and can be used to more easily get new cases of overreach rescinded.

The person in Genesee County was on GCP&R property in that case which caused the original issue.

The case to overturn the rule about drone usage on park property was another matter and was spearheaded by the same person. That was expensive on the part of both parties as myself being a resident of Genesee County can attest to. Definitely glad this was tried in Judge Farah’s court and that he upheld the Michigan Statute that prohibits local government making their own rules about drone usage.

 

[Jagerbomb52]

How in the world could they possibly have you arrested for overflight if you are not on their property to launch, control, or land the aircraft. That is comparable to me posting a sign along my property lines saying that overflight of my property is punishable by law. Ludicrous!

Well yes you probably have a point there for sure. It would be interesting if someone would test the waters so to speak and see just what happens.

 

[BigAl07]

Well yes you probably have a point there for sure. It would be interesting if someone would test the waters so to speak and see just what happens.

@Vic Moss is working with a UAS operator who was indeed cited for Reckless Behavior (or something worded close to that). He can speak more about that if he's able to . . . .

 

[julian55]

I have said this before. They can and will have you arrested. You will have to fight them in court. How deep are your pockets? These fights can get very expensive for your the average guy or girl. Best to have your funding in place before hand as they already have lawyers on the payroll and it don't cost them a red cent to fight you in court win or lose.

Arrested by who ? Do US police arrest people on the request of others, surely they will only arrest someone if they are satisfied that an actual law has been broken?

 

[Jagerbomb52]

Arrested by who ? Do US police arrest people on the request of others, surely they will only arrest someone if they are satisfied that an actual law has been broken?

Since many fine LEO's still do not fully understand UAV laws one just might find a law he thinks you broke just like BigA107 said "cited for Reckless Behavior" Not saying it right but it seems it already has happened.

@Vic Moss is working with a UAS operator who was indeed cited for Reckless Behavior (or something worded close to that). He can speak more about that if he's able to . . . .

 

[Vic Moss]

@Vic Moss is working with a UAS operator who was indeed cited for Reckless Behavior (or something worded close to that). He can speak more about that if he's able to . . . .

Paul has a court appearance tomorrow morning (10/12). We'll watch it closely.

He was cited for "Reckless Endangerment in the Second Degree" for this flight: https://youtu(.)be/CpM-sl3BO20. In order to watch it, copy and paste that link and remove the parentheses. Paul has it disabled as to not be able to play on other sites.

Apparently the cops didn't like him "buzzing" their boat. I see nothing reckless in the flight. Not one I'd have done, but not really reckless.

We'll see.

There is also a GoFundMe page set up to help him with a lawyer, but we aren't allowed to post those kids of links here. Email me and I'll send you the link if you'd like to help. He's trying to raise $5k. He has enough for a retainer at $3K for now, but he needs more still.

 

[karlblessing]

"This prohibition on drone operations or use extends to any drones launched or operated from xxxxxxxxx Land Trust property, as well as drones launched from private property outside of xxxxxxxxxx Land Trust property."

My first thought was that they should at least let a lawyer glance at their policies, but then I remembered that a lawyer probably did and just doesn't know or care enough to make the policy align with the actual law. But really this is just about preemptively bullying people who might not know better.

Exactly, if they tried to sue/enforce, that last part is going to invalidate the whole thing. They can only dictate land use of their own land.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

Apparently the cops didn't like him "buzzing" their boat. I see nothing reckless in the flight. Not one I'd have done, but not really reckless.

Police boat at 0:44 2: 03 and 1:06 ?
Looks like they stopped to possibly record 'evidence' and maybe work out where the pilot might be.

That last loop of the boat looked a little purposeful after the first 2 passes, but with FPV gear he might not have even known it was a police boat until later.

Anything FPV like that might look a little reckless to a regular consumer drone pilot I guess, certainly the general public might see it as that . . . but not what I'd call reckless endangerment of 'any degree'.

I think yhis might be a 50/50 thing in a court of law, some of the flight was close to / over canoe - kayak paddlers, and some of the outer distances could be construed as BVLOS, at least he had a spotter . . . it might come down to how the judge views drones and their use (though it shouldn't of course), as much as he / she considering 'what if' the drone had failed at this point, or that point etc.

Be interesting to here of the outcome (I hope he gets off, even if it is with a mild 'warning').

 

[Vic Moss]

Police boat at 0:44 2: 03 and 1:06 ?
Looks like they stopped to possibly record 'evidence' and maybe work out where the pilot might be.

That last loop of the boat looked a little purposeful after the first 2 passes, but with FPV gear he might not have even known it was a police boat until later.

I talked with Paul this afternoon. He had no idea it was a police boat until he watched the video at home. He mentioned he can see the person standing on the boat pointing at him in the video too.

But he had no idea at the time.

Anything FPV like that might look a little reckless to a regular consumer drone pilot I guess, certainly the general public might see it as that . . . but not what I'd call reckless endangerment of 'any degree'.

I think yhis might be a 50/50 thing in a court of law, some of the flight was close to / over canoe - kayak paddlers, and some of the outer distances could be construed as BVLOS, at least he had a spotter . . . it might come down to how the judge views drones and their use (though it shouldn't of course), as much as he / she considering 'what if' the drone had failed at this point, or that point etc.

I would probably not have flown this close to people, but I just don't see any recklessness either. I even see him changing course to avoid flying over people.

If he loses, it could very well have poor ramifications for all of us.

Be interesting to here of the outcome (I hope he gets off, even if it is with a mild 'warning').

Also, he heard from the court today (that's why I called him), they've postponed tomorrow's court date until November 9th. They are looking into complying with his ADA requirements.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

I talked with Paul this afternoon. He had no idea it was a police boat until he watched the video at home. He mentioned he can see the person standing on the boat pointing at him in the video too.

But he had no idea at the time.

I thought as much . . . just like it's almost impossible for us to see such detail on our devices until playback on a larger computer screen.

He'd probably have avoided them as far as possible if he knew.

I would probably not have flown this close to people, but I just don't see any recklessness either. I even see him changing course to avoid flying over people.

Yes, he swerved through other boats etc on those long low sections of flight, will help his case I'm sure.

I wonder if Paul will use his video as a defense ?
Or if he plans to just make the Police use whatever video they must have taken to try and prove their case ?

Sometimes it's best to keep things to yourself, like deciding not to take the stand in your defense.

I guess that the Police have to provide their evidence to the defense attorney and they can decide form there how bad it might look from the waters surface.
Paul's video might look a whole lot more reasonable.

If he loses, it could very well have poor ramifications for all of us.



Also, he heard from the court today (that's why I called him), they've postponed tomorrow's court date until November 9th. They are looking into complying with his ADA requirements.

Well, best of luck to him, maybe a new thread for an update when it's all done and dusted.