Don't try and tell me this is legal...

[Tom S.]

And yet you chose to respond.

Nobody has proven to me that you can do whatever you want with your toy contrary to my rights as a private citizen.

Here you go: FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, enacted and approved by the President at the time, states in part:

In Class G (Uncontrolled) Airspace, an aircraft (such as a UAV) may be flown from the surface to not more than 400 feet above ground level and must comply with all airspace restrictions and prohibitions. See FAA Advisory Circular 91-57B at § 7.1.6 (May 31, 2019), https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_91-57B.pdf. UAVs cannot fly in controlled airspace without an FAA authorization. Id. at § 7.1.5.2.

Class G is unregulated airspace, such as that found above most people's private property. Regulated airspace A, B, C, D and E is generally at or around airports or other no-fly areas. As to your "Constitutional Right to Privacy", to date, the courts have ruled against it, in the case of drones, unless one can prove it was used for an unlawful purpose, such as taking lewd photos.

But it gets more complicated than that. The Federal government lays claim to regulating the skies - from above the surface of your land to outer space. Some states have set regulations both allowing and prohibiting drone flight over private land, but to date, none that I am aware of have been taken to the SCOTUS to be accepted or denied.

 

[sigp220.45]

Shoot one down and let us know how it goes.

 

[Rob613]

Thats actually FALSE..

The united states supreme court, an all state courts agreed to the following terms.

That if a person is standing in their yard they can be video taped or photographed without recourse. As in that situation they have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

If the person is standing in their yard, and they have a PRIVACY fence put up around the yard, then they have the reasonable expectation of privacy.

So in the first instance, taking a photo of this person is legal.

ERROR: The request could not be satisfied

But because of the second instance to the ruling, the person in the following part of the ruling, as shown in this image

ERROR: The request could not be satisfied

CANNOT be photographed because to get a photograph of them, whilst being outside the fence would require drilling a hole in the fence, or standing on a ladder, or standing in a taller building.
The supreme court also denoted that If you HAVE to stand on a ladder, or go to the second floor balcony to take a picture or video of someone inside a fenced in area, its an illegal photo or video.

The drone aspect is interesting as the FAA DID make rules about using over private property as each state has its own limitations.

I don't believe I said anything about a fence, yes that can change things. As would using a thermal or IR camera.

 

[sceva]

Every time there is a storm around here the parade of storm chasers wanting to check our roof starts. If there is even a tiny bit of hail it is worse. They all get the same answer, I'll contact the company that put it on not someone I never heard of.

 

[dockmurgw]

We certainly don't need laws to tell us if something is right or wrong.

And there lies the rub. Unfortunately to many people are incapable and/or unwilling to know the difference between right or wrong. And then there's the ones that just don't care. We have a law here that would drive most of you crazy, relating to hunting on private property. I can go anywhere, on anyone's property and drop a deer as long as the property is not LEGALLY posted. Legally means that the sign size, wording and spacing are prescribed, and the signs must be registered with the local town clerk...complete with fee. A sign nailed to a tree doesn't cut it. I wouldn't consider doing that, and always check with property owners, but many don't because the law says they don't have to.
And when everyone is done talking about drones, start a conversation on cellular trail cams on other peoples property. Around here, they are allowed on public property, but if you find one on your property you can seize it.

 

[gjgalligan]

And I doubt there is a specific law saying it's illegal for me to enter your house if the front door is wide open but I'm sure you would take issue with it.

We certainly don't need laws to tell us if something is right or wrong.

Yes there is in Michigan

 

[Lee in Quartzsite]

All Drones have to be registered with the FAA, commercial or not. Drone pilots have to pass an FAA test and carry a "Small USA Certificate of Registration" while operating a drone. The rules set forth by the FAA are very specific.

This applies to all RC aircraft as well.

https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/small-unmanned-aircraft-systems-uas-regulations-part-107

https://www.faa.gov/uas/commercial_operators/operations_over_people

 

[Bald1]

Under Virginia law, intentionally operating a drone in ways that infringe on another person's property and privacy is a Class 1 misdemeanor. This includes flying a drone within 50 feet of a dwelling without consent.

As it should be….. I think the lines are blurred. Why is it not stalking ? Why is it not harassment ? It's an invasion of privacy.

 

[sigp220.45]

Under Virginia law, intentionally operating a drone in ways that infringe on another person's property and privacy is a Class 1 misdemeanor. This includes flying a drone within 50 feet of a dwelling without consent.

So a drone 51 feet high is legal.

 

[326MOD10]

If you look at the screenshots posted in Post 32 you will see Virginia IS NOT that cut and dry.

It takes more than just being within 50 feet.

 

[Tom S.]

All Drones have to be registered with the FAA, commercial or not. Drone pilots have to pass an FAA test and carry a "Small USA Certificate of Registration" while operating a drone. The rules set forth by the FAA are very specific.

This applies to all RC aircraft as well.

https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/small-unmanned-aircraft-systems-uas-regulations-part-107

https://www.faa.gov/uas/commercial_operators/operations_over_people

That is not how I read the rules:

§ 44809. Exception for limited recreational oper-
ations of unmanned aircraft
(a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in sub-
section (e), and notwithstanding chapter 447 of
title 49, United States Code, a person may oper-
ate a small unmanned aircraft without specific
certification or operating authority from the
Federal Aviation Administration if the oper-
ation adheres to all of the following limitations: (emphasis added)
(1) The aircraft is flown strictly for rec-
reational purposes.
(2) The aircraft is operated in accordance
with or within the programming of a commu-
nity-based organization's set of safety guide-
lines that are developed in coordination with
the Federal Aviation Administration.
(3) The aircraft is flown within the visual
line of sight of the person operating the air-
craft or a visual observer co-located and in di-
rect communication with the operator.
(4) The aircraft is operated in a manner that
does not interfere with and gives way to any
manned aircraft.

There are additional paragraphs, but these are the more relevant ones.

 

[Lee in Quartzsite]

That is not how I read the rules:

Everything that flies is now regulated by the FAA. I've been flying all types of RC Aircraft; gas, electric, jets, gliders, for the past 23 years. I belonged to an AMA sanctioned club where all 30 members had to submit to FAA testing in order to continue flying. I had enough last year when the FAA began requiring Remote ID..the ability to track anything flying. I quit the club and sold all of my RC planes and equipment because I won't submit to the current rules imposed by the FAA on hobby aircraft.

Most people who buy drones in a toy store, hobby shops or online have no idea of the new FAA regulations or the penalties for violations.

FAADroneZone

 

[LVSteve]

dont think someone doing something illegal will leave you a voice message

I can tell you've never lived in Vegas.

 

[coltle6920]

From Tom S.

But it gets more complicated than that. The Federal government lays claim to regulating the skies - from above the surface of your land to outer space. Some states have set regulations both allowing and prohibiting drone flight over private land, but to date, none that I am aware of have been taken to the SCOTUS to be accepted or denied.

My understanding is that ones property "space" can extend upward as far as any useable object constructed there. I.E. 100ft silos on a farm. That is the definition of vertical ownership of space the way I read it. Don't know if that extends the meaning horizontally over ones property.

 

[Skeet 028]

Certain structures on the ground are required to have warning lights/systems at certain heights. I don't remember the regulations anymore and they may have been changed Wind generators are one especially

 

[Nevada Ed]

In Nevada, if your tree over hangs my fence, or your kite is in my yard and "Air Space".

you may have a problem, if I am in a bad mood.

Feel luck?

 

[JMD999]

I think this is an evolving "problem". These are intrusive. My neighbors insurance co. Nit picked via drone/sat imaging - what's this pile?, what's that behind the garage? Why do you have 3 trucks?..... I asked if he wanted my agents #. ...I'll be next!

 

[LVSteve]

Why do you have 3 trucks?.....

That sort of question drives me nuts.

When I bought my first 4x4 SUV, the insurance drone kept asking me who else was in the household. I told him three times that I was the only one at my address, but he kept saying, "But who is driving the second vehicle?" Even when I explained that one was a sports car and not suitable for my weekend trips into the desert, he seemed confused. Eventually he asked point blank, "Why do you want two vehicles?" My reply was swift and a smidge aggressive, "Maybe I make more than you." Turned out this was the only thing that made him shut up.