Suppose you are sitting in your car outside an abandoned amusement park or factory or somewhere else you want to explore. The place is fenced and has private property keep out signs. You send in your quadrocopter and fly around a bit to explore.
So you’re getting most of the benefits of trespassing (you get to check out this cool place you aren’t allowed to be in) without the risk of getting shot as an intruder or caught on the grounds.
But suppose a sharp eyed cop spots you putting away the control panel for the quadcopter and figures out you had been intruding. What crimes are you guilty of?
I think the FAA is crafting regs no this issue right now. Based on what we have been told so far as a drone using real estate company we expect the regulations to be quite restrictive. The reality is that even the little 900 dollar quad copter camera setup we have can easily zoom to 1000 feet or higher in seconds. I can see how this could be a real safety issue if a drone was in irresponsible hands.
Why should the law be any different whether it’s a quadcopter or a regular helicopter with a person in it? (Because that seems to be the assumption here.)
The linked article contains this gem : Whoops, I thought. But it’s not really that simple. Regardless of whether someone technically had the right to stop me from flying my little UAV over a house, “It’s quite another thing to exercise those rights in a court of law,” Ravitch said. “If someone does take a Parrot and fly it over your house every day for a year. Are you injured? What are the actual damages?”
If you fly buzz over someone’s property and take a few images, their damages are not very high. If the cops show up, are they realistically going to haul you off in handcuffs for trespassing? That also seems unlikely.
Apparently, in caselaw that dismantled the right to the airspace over your house, the planes were coming within 83 feet of the property. I don’t know if buzzing the barbecue at 20 feet would be illegal, but it sounds like 80 feet is.
I’m not talking about commercial air space. Common law has evolved to where planes flying over do not effect your quiet enjoyment of your property and the rights associated with it, so there is no trespassing there.
If I own a property with an abandoned building, I have a right to exclude people from that. Can the law be so easily skirted because you don’t touch the ground?
We aren’t talking about 30,000 feet or 100 feet off of a remote farmland. We are talking about eye level right near the things that are protected.
Right, so if you really want to do this, just go higher up. Manned helicopters are all over L.A. It has nothing to do with whether it’s a quadrocopter or not. This is nothing new.
In my opinion (not backed up by case law yet) yes. If you buzzed my backyard BBQ with a drone I’d shoot it down and deal with the “Discharge of a firearm within city limits” charge later.
“The problem with helicopters is the flight rules; there is no minimum altitude. As long as they are not knocking the antenna off your roof, they can fly anywhere they want.”
If that’s true, and you use a firearm to shoot down a drone, under current laws that might be felony destruction of an aircraft or something.
What is “felony destruction of an aircraft”, and how does it apply to UAVs? If I see your drone and turn on my signal jammer to immobilize it, am I breaking the law?
Perhaps the real question is whether LEAs have an open-ended snooping right, whether you can be cited for destroying a police drone, and if so, are you obligated to establish whether the drone was government property before you shoot it down.
^I read the OP as more directed at personal, rather than LEO, drone use.
Jurisprudence in this area is still developing and the outcome of these cases will be very fact specific (until legislatures start passing statues spelling out what is and what is not allowed). Nonetheless, the type of drone use described by the OP is potentially subject to not just trespass laws, but also nuisance claims.
Hot air balloon operators tend to not hover at a low enough elevation to make homeowners uncomfortable about their privacy. Hot air balloon use is also regulated by the FAA, which mandates aspects such as minimum safe altitudes, so trespass claims have likely not been a significant problem with their use.
If I remember correctly signal jammers are banned by the FCC. So, regardless of the legality of destroying a drone, using a signal jammer to do so is illegal.
I’m pretty sure private property doesn’t own the airspace above it? It would be interesting to research this.
If the airspace is publicly open then I see no legal issue with a drone or hot air balloon flying over my property.
There might be issues of voyeurism if they are deliberately taking photos of my family in the pool. Or noise issues if the drone is constantly hovering over my property. But these are issues outside the right to use the airspace over private property.
There are places with restricted air space. Military bases. Power plants. Maybe some government buildings. Flying through that air space is illegal.