And it begins: man arrested for shooting down drone

[MillCreek]

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2014/09/30/new-jersey-man-accused-of-shooting-down-neighbors-remote-control-drone/

Article comments are interesting, too.

[bedlamite]

He's probably in more trouble because of Jersey's gun laws than destroying the heli.

From a few years ago:
http://www.suasnews.com/2012/11/19719/activists-drone-shot-out-of-the-sky-for-fourth-time/

[Jamisjockey]

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2014/09/30/new-jersey-man-accused-of-shooting-down-neighbors-remote-control-drone/

Article comments are interesting, too.

Really it should read "Man arrested for destroying neighbor's property"....

[Jocassee]

All I want to know is where the drone fell. Across the property line? Otherwise it's he said/he said.

[Balog]

Interesting case. If I stand on the sidewalk and take pictures of your house, that is legal. It seems like doing the same thing, but with an overhead drone would be legal as well. But is there an expectation of privacy that would be violated, if say the home owner was sunbathing in the backyard? Would that apply to manned helicopters or ultralights as well? Could be some new precedent about to be set here.

[Scout26]

Yes, you can stand on the sidewalk and take a picture of my house.  However, you cannot walk up to my house and take a picture through the front window.

That's the difference.

[bedlamite]

Interesting case. If I stand on the sidewalk and take pictures of your house, that is legal. It seems like doing the same thing, but with an overhead drone would be legal as well. But is there an expectation of privacy that would be violated, if say the home owner was sunbathing in the backyard? Would that apply to manned helicopters or ultralights as well? Could be some new precedent about to be set here.

http://rgl.faa.gov/regulatory_and_guidance_library/rgfar.nsf/bf94f3f079de2117852566c70067018c/91693c93525de33e862576c100763e31

c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

Drones are currently a gray area. FAA has another year to finalize rules for drones, but has already forbidden their use and been struck down in court.

http://rcflightline.com/drones-vs-radio-controlled-aircraft-a-look-at-the-differences-between-the-two/
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/03/faa-cant-regulate-small-rc-aircraft-as-drones-judge-rules/

[Tallpine]

Yeah, farmers are still trying to figure out whether they are legal to fly over their own fields 

Out here, I could blast one out of the sky no problem.

[Ben]

Yes, you can stand on the sidewalk and take a picture of my house.  However, you cannot walk up to my house and take a picture through the front window.

That's the difference.

Someone could also be on the sidewalk with a telephoto lens to get a picture through a window. It comes down to what they're doing with the camera or drone that counts, and that gets to be a sticky wicket. If I'm in front of someone's house with an 800MM lens, it doesn't mean I'm using it to look through a window. I might have just stopped to tie my shoe, or am shooting a picture of a bird in a tree. Or I liked the front yard landscaping and took a picture as a reference.

On the FAA altitudes, UAS altitudes are limited to <400' without a COA. So by law, they currently have to fly close to their targets (and thus potential surrounding targets). Not that altitude even needs to make a difference. With a good sensor, someone can see more at 1000' than a drone purchased at Amazon can see at 100'.

[Boomhauer]

Interesting case. If I stand on the sidewalk and take pictures of your house, that is legal. It seems like doing the same thing, but with an overhead drone would be legal as well. But is there an expectation of privacy that would be violated, if say the home owner was sunbathing in the backyard? Would that apply to manned helicopters or ultralights as well? Could be some new precedent about to be set here.

If I want to, it is perfectly legal (so long as I obey altitude limits and operate within the airspace rules) to set up a pylon orbit over a house and take all the pictures I want, and the property owner can't do a damn thing about it.

Most people do not understand that they do not own the airspace above their property.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Most people do not understand that they do not own the airspace above their property.

Even folks who should know better. They jailed a guy here who went through a chain of legal arguments after he threatened to " blast em from the sky" in a Sunday afternoon call to the local airport. One of his failed arguments was " they are below 500 feet"
They pointed out he's in a landing approach and the planes have to come down to land.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[MechAg94]

Just curious, what is the vertical range of a typical bird gun?  I didn't think bird shot had that much effective range.

[MicroBalrog]

Okay, just how low can they go?

Can I hover one just outside your window? Probably not.

[Nick1911]

Okay, just how low can they go?

Can I hover one just outside your window? Probably not.

Cujus est solum ejus est usque ad coelum et ad inferos has no legal authority in the United States when pertaining to the sky. A man does not have control and ownership over the airspace of their property except within reasonable limits to utilize their property. Airspace above a set minimum height is property of the Masses and no one man can accuse airplanes or other such craft within of trespassing on what they own.

United States v. Causby

[roo_ster]

Okay, just how low can they go?

Can I hover one just outside your window? Probably not.

Ph6s8cally yes.  Might bump into laws though.

[RevDisk]

He's probably in more trouble because of Jersey's gun laws than destroying the heli.

From a few years ago:
http://www.suasnews.com/2012/11/19719/activists-drone-shot-out-of-the-sky-for-fourth-time/

Notice that no one in Pennsylvania was arrested for it.   

Okay, just how low can they go?

Can I hover one just outside your window? Probably not.

No one knows. It's not settled law. If you had an awesome lawyer and a lot of money, you could indeed hover one outside a window. Or maybe not.


Since it's not settled law, it amounts to whatever the cops, prosecutor or judge thinks (in that order). The cops didn't think it was a crime to for hunters to shoot down drones operated by duck squeezers and tree huggers. Ergo, the exact legal status is moot because it's not enforced. But, in NJ, it apparently is.

[HankB]

. . . On the FAA altitudes, UAS altitudes are limited to <400' without a COA. So by law, they currently have to fly close to their targets (and thus potential surrounding targets).

I foresee sales of modern barrage balloons in the future with tethers of 399 feet or less . . . 

Can I hover one just outside your window? Probably not.

Some places have ordinances regarding "air rights" to deal with things like a neighbor's awning or roof overhang extending over the property line - exceptions are made for trees and utilities, but I know of instances where a dwelling had to be modified because of this. It wouldn't surprise me if some of these ordinances would extend to low-flying drones, particularly if they're both over the property line and below the neighbor's roof line.

[KD5NRH]

No one knows. It's not settled law. If you had an awesome lawyer and a lot of money, you could indeed hover one outside a window. Or maybe not.

So I can cruise around anyone's property in a hovercraft all I want?

Since it's not settled law, it amounts to whatever the cops, prosecutor or judge thinks (in that order). The cops didn't think it was a crime to for hunters to shoot down drones operated by duck squeezers and tree huggers. Ergo, the exact legal status is moot because it's not enforced. But, in NJ, it apparently is.

I'd be willing to bet that was seen as reasonable action to stop the intentional and illegal harassment, and had the treehuggers instead simply been the local R/C club out playing unaware of the hunters' presence, I suspect there would have been some misdemeanors filed, or at least a "you pay this guy for the damage, you stop buzzing his field, and we'll forget it happened."

[RoadKingLarry]

I'm thinking some kind don't of hand thrown bolo type device. If it's over my property close enough I could tag it with something li, e that it was too close.

[griz]

Just curious, what is the vertical range of a typical bird gun?  I didn't think bird shot had that much effective range.

Assuming it was bird shot, it probably couldn't have been much further than 100 feet.  I wondered about the proximity to his house too, since that makes it seems as if it was flying very close to him.  But one possibility (the only info I heard was the neighbor "told the police where the gunfire came from", so this is a guess) is the guy was near the property line when he shot.  I don't really know enough to do more than wonder about it.

[AJ Dual]

I foresee sales of modern barrage balloons in the future with tethers of 399 feet or less . . . 
Some places have ordinances regarding "air rights" to deal with things like a neighbor's awning or roof overhang extending over the property line - exceptions are made for trees and utilities, but I know of instances where a dwelling had to be modified because of this. It wouldn't surprise me if some of these ordinances would extend to low-flying drones, particularly if they're both over the property line and below the neighbor's roof line.

I predict tents of fine netting becoming popular for the wealthy or famous,  making mansions look like the local batting cage/mini-golf/go-cart/driving range place.

[Scout26]

Notice that no one in Pennsylvania was arrested for it.   

Which is sad.  There are hunter interference laws on the books for a reason.

[Tuco]

Just curious, what is the vertical range of a typical bird gun?  I didn't think bird shot had that much effective range.

Sixty yards with big lead shot, magnum loads.

[MechAg94]

Assuming it was bird shot, it probably couldn't have been much further than 100 feet.  I wondered about the proximity to his house too, since that makes it seems as if it was flying very close to him.  But one possibility (the only info I heard was the neighbor "told the police where the gunfire came from", so this is a guess) is the guy was near the property line when he shot.  I don't really know enough to do more than wonder about it.

That is about what I was thinking.  100 feet is not very far.  

I guess eventually there will be regulations on this for good or bad.  If not, there are lots of stupid people who like to push the limits of anything.  

[MechAg94]

Sixty yards with big lead shot, magnum loads.

I guess they didn't specify the size of the holes.