Hypothetical situation. I just have to know what is on a posted property. Not wanting to break the law, I would like to know about the use of remotely operated vehicles (ROV’s) to explore that property. I would ‘drive’ these ROV’s via a wireless connection and view on a screen what it ‘sees’.
Now if the ROV is land based (tracked or wheeled) is this legal to drive it remotely on a posted property? What about water based (if there is enough water on private property to make a boat or even a sub ROV practical)? I know if it is high enough, air based (plane or helicopter) would be OK, but just how low could I fly these things, could I hover a ROV helicopter at eye level on such land legally - perhaps moving it around at that level?
Also what about recovery operations, what happens if the ROV gets stuck or is somehow inoperative (shotgun blast from the landowner) on such posted property, what are the legal options for recovery? Can I send a 2nd ROV to recover the 1st?
I can say that if I find it on MY property, there’s not going to be anything to recover unless you bring a dustpan!
It might not be applicable here, but I been told by someone who flies hot air balloons that if they are forced to land on private property, the land owner cannot prevent them from recovering the aircraft. But they are responsible for any damages.
The intention is not to land on the property, but hover above, landing on it would be only for emergencies.
Well trespass in any of it’s legal forms. And what are the different forms anyway?
Gfactor you posted a bunch of quick answers, I would like more info, are you sure trespassing includes ROV’s as opposed to persons? As for waterways, if it were navigatable, I could just row a boat there, so a ROV would not be needed, so that water would have to be private property. As for recovery of a crashed or downed ROV why is this not covered in emergency aircraft landing recovery?
Recovery operations are permitted when the owner of a chattel (*e.g., * ROV) was not at fault in its arrival on the land in the first place. State v. Logsdon, (Ohio App. 2005) http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/1/2005/2005-ohio-1875.pdf (abortion protester permitted to enter clinic property to retrieve sign taken by clinic employee). In the hypothetical, the ROV was on the property because you sent it there. In that case, you would have to ask the landowner to give it back. If the landowner refused, you’d probably have to sue.
There’s civil (tort) trespass, which is described in my last post, and criminal trespass, which is discussed in the Logsdon case (linked in my last post). An example of a criminal trespass statute:
If the water is truly “private property,” then the same rules apply. The issue is what kind of water is it. Generally, man-made lakes and ponds, and those that are enclosed by private land belong to the landowner. And even if it wasn’t, you’d have to trespass to get onto the water, so you’d still be in trouble.
And of course, state water law varies tremendously
I’m not sure what you are referring to here. My Googling turned up no statutes permitting private individuals to conduct recovery operations on private property. I did find a lot of stuff like this, though:
Do the laws change if it were an autonomous vehicle, i.e., one the decides where to go by itself with direct human intervention? I guess this is analogous to livestock: if my sheep wanders onto someone else’s property, can I be charged with trespassing?
Interesting stuff thanks for the links and info Gfactor. There are 2 aspects I want to push further and a 3rd new one to explore.
It seems like you can fly over the property and not trespass, if you are ‘high enough’ not to interfere with the landowners enjoyment of the property, the altitude seems open to interpretation. Could a compelling argument be made that flying such a craft above a certain altitude is not trespassing. If the aircraft maunfunctioned, and I’m talking about a real malfunction causing a forced or crash landing on posted land - not a pretend or set up forced landing as a pretense to land there, wouldn’t recovery be covered under the link you gave:
and also touched on here:
Which I know is the case for hang gliders also.
The second is the watercraft, is it possible to have land locked lake/pond, where the landowner does not own the water, but all property around it? If so can I land a seaplane (ROV or real) so as long as I can land it while not interfering with the landowners enjoyment of his property around it?
Thanks Pleonast, while I did consider mechanical autonomous vehicles, I didn’t consider ‘web-cam sheep’, how does this option work?
Sure. Cf., Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/488/445.html (1989) (no reasonable expectation of privacy where police spotted pot in greenhouse while circling respondent’s property in a helicopter at the height of 400 feet because any member of the public could legally have been flying over Riley’s property in a helicopter at the altitude of 400 feet and could have observed Riley’s greenhouse).
So it seems.
Still haven’t seen a cite for any of this, although it does appear to be covered by the rule I mentioned before–if the crash was not your fault and you weren’t already trespassing.
Well, perhaps more relevant is the ownership of the bed. The law distinguishes between ownership of the water and ownership of the land under it in many cases. I don’t know of any state that does it that way, but it is possible. Another possible scenario would be if the landowner sold rights to some portion of the water or the bed to a third party. In either case, it’s very unlikely that members of the public would have rights to the bed or the water.
I haven’t had time to research this stuff thoroughly, so I could be way off here:
As I said, it’s pretty unlikely that such a body of water exists. But suppose some third party did own a large lake enclosed by a large estate in land owned by someone else. If the owner of the lake gave you permission to land a plane on it, that part would probably be fine.
It’d have to be a body of water large enough for your descent to be above the minimum altitudes for flight until you were not over the landowner’s property. Enjoyment of property generally includes the right to exclude others from the property and also the right to be free from excessive noise.
OK it seems like there may be some limited ways to crack the ‘No Trespassing’ barrior, but not really specific to ROV’s, though the argument can be made that a small ROV aircraft could fly lower then a piloted plane without disrupting the landowner’s enjoyment of the land, and seems cheaper too.
Now we get to this:
The reason for the overflight is not to spy on the people, but to get live pictures of the landscape. How do these rules apply?
I have nothing to add to the answers, but I must ask. What is it that you expect to find in that property that compels you to go through the trouble of all this? An RC helicopter hefty enough to carry a usable camera is no small expense. What will make this worthtwhile?
ETA: On review, I see that this is an old thread. Did you do it? What happened?
