Dropping a drone flying over your property

[CraigS]

In the drone thread I mentioned this drone dropping 12ga ammo.
https://www.budk.com/12-Gauge-Skynet-Drone-Defense--3-Pack-35975
My SIL had told me about it yesterday when he mentioned his neighbor had gotten a drone. Cosermann brought up points about the legality of dropping a drone even if it is over your property. I admit I had not thought about that before. Seems to me there should be some protection for a person just like one can put up no trespassing signs on his property. Doesn't seem right that a drone should be able to fly so it can look in one's windows. With todays technology it could be pretty far away so not real obvious that is what is happening. Also I simply don't want someone spying on me from 1000ft up even if I am not doing anything illegal. Thoughts?

[NWshooter]

If they wanna spy on me they will be disappointed

I’m not that interesting

But if I had a concern about it, I’d go talk with my neighbor.

[TC215]

The United States government owns air space, you do not. I believe it would be illegal to shoot one down under 18 USC 32.

That being said, some states have enacted laws governing the flying of drones over private property.

[1slow]

Isn’t there an FFA reg about low flights being illegal ?

In this day of terrorism, stalking taking down a drone on your property would seem a precaution but is it legal ?

[GJM]

Calling the police about a low flying drone seems prudent. Shooting one down seems like something that could lead to lots of bad things happening.

[TC215]

Isn’t there an FFA reg about low flights being illegal ?

In this day of terrorism, stalking taking down a drone on your property would seem a precaution but is it legal ?

Drones are supposed to operate at or below 400 feet in most cases.

There are numerous regulations on minimum altitudes for aircraft.

[1slow]

Calling the police about a low flying drone seems prudent. Shooting one down seems like something that could lead to lots of bad things happening.

Agreed, but how is it different from operator planting a camera on your property etc…..

[Caballoflaco]

Agreed, but how is it different from operator planting a camera on your property etc…..

How is it different than google earth satellites and survey helicopters flying over your property Or google street view driving by and taking photos.

I’m not saying we shouldn’t look at updating laws, just tying to understand the current situation/laws first.

[mmc45414]

I know I have read enough about it to know it seems simple and it for sure is not. Turns out that just because they are unmanned, they are still aircraft and protected as such. I think there are a lotta conflicting regulations that were never an issue until you could get something so sophisticated and capable with just a few mouse clicks.

[gtmtnbiker98]

Drones are aircraft and any drone weighing over 250 grams require registration via the FAA. As stated, the FAA owns the airspace, even the uncontrolled. Local and state laws can only stipulate where the aircraft takes off from and where it lands it cannot regulate the airspace. Shooting down a UAC is a federal offense; however, seldom if ever pursued. Drone pilots flying recreationally require a Trust Certificate for legal flight, commercial flights require Part 107 FAA licensure.

A legal flight is within line of sight, 0-400 feet AGL. 500 ft below and away from any cloud. Part 107 pilots have a few different rules regarding max ceiling AGL when near large fixed objects.

Drones are a secondary hobby of mine.

[1slow]

How is it different than google earth satellites and survey helicopters flying over your property Or google street view driving by and taking photos.

I’m not saying we shouldn’t look at updating laws, just tying to understand the current situation/laws first.

The difference is:

Drones give the average user the option to look in your window, hover over your hot tub etc… at close range.

If I am correct Google earth is not real time and close range. I am sure NSA all sorts of capabilities but they are hopefully not the average thug or perv.

[RoyGBiv]

How is it different than google earth satellites and survey helicopters flying over your property Or google street view driving by and taking photos.

I’m not saying we shouldn’t look at updating laws, just tying to understand the current situation/laws first.

Google street view doesn't have the ability to hover inside my fence line and take photos through my windows or of my family enjoying our swimming pool/patio.

[gtmtnbiker98]

The difference is:

Drones give the average user the option to look in your window, hover over your hot tub etc… at close range.

If I am correct Google earth is not real time and close range. I am sure NSA all sorts of capabilities but they are hopefully not the average thug or perv.

Just flying a drone and being a voyeur are two different things. In September, the new drone law requiring remote ID will become a requirement so at least it will be easier to identify those who cause discredit to the hobby. The remote ID will identify the aircraft and the controller location (assuming a legal aircraft after September).

[JCL]

This is a good resource.


https://www.faa.gov/uas/getting_started/b4ufly

[Borderland]

Google street view doesn't have the ability to hover inside my fence line and take photos through my windows or of my family enjoying our swimming pool/patio.

That's how I see it. Goggle has to operate on public property (streets and roads). That's why there is no images from the private road in our neighborhood. The road is posted Private Road No Thru Traffic.

I'm not sure about drones. I've never seen one. If I do.....

[Le Français]

In this day of terrorism, stalking taking down a drone on your property would seem a precaution but is it legal ?

Nope. It violates 18 USC 32 (20 year max sentence), as TC215 pointed out.


That being said, some states have enacted laws governing the flying of drones over private property.

Yes, and in some states harassing someone with a drone is itself a felony. As you know (but as others don't), that is a good reason to call the police, but never legal authorization to destroy the drone yourself.


Agreed, but how is it different from operator planting a camera on your property etc…..


The difference is:

Drones give the average user the option to look in your window, hover over your hot tub etc… at close range.

The "how is it different" argument is one you could make to your colleagues if you were a US senator or representative crafting drone related legislation, but it is a question that would provide you with cold comfort if you were facing a felony conviction for mistaking your 12 gauge for an anti-aircraft gun. The difference is in the law. Simple as that, I'm afraid.


Isn’t there an FFA reg about low flights being illegal ?

It's the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and it does regulate (via civil, not criminal, laws) where drones can fly. Whether or not a drone pilot was in violation of those regs at the time you shot down the drone does not impact the applicability of 18 USC 32.

[jh9]

So what's the legality on using a counter-drone drone and flying it as you see fit over your own property in such a way that might accidentally cause someone else to lose control of drone? Does the FAA have a drone-compatible reckless driving regulation?

The remote id mentioned earlier is interesting. I assume like a lot of drone laws as they exist, the people who are most troublesome will not be in compliance and identifying them will prove to be difficult. And enforcement will be more or less toothless in the cases where you do. I believe in TX it's a lower (class c?) misdemeanor and "oops I deleted the pictures I took" is a valid defense to prosecution.

[GJM]

So what's the legality on using a counter-drone drone and flying it as you see fit over your own property in such a way that might accidentally cause someone else to lose control of drone? Does the FAA have a drone-compatible reckless driving regulation?

The remote id mentioned earlier is interesting. I assume like a lot of drone laws as they exist, the people who are most troublesome will not be in compliance and identifying them will prove to be difficult. And enforcement will be more or less toothless in the cases where you do. I believe in TX it's a lower (class c?) misdemeanor and "oops I deleted the pictures I took" is a valid defense to prosecution.

Didn't Russia just do that. :(

[jh9]

Didn't Russia just do that. :(

That's OCONUS. Anything goes over there. :p

[Caballoflaco]

The difference is:

Drones give the average user the option to look in your window, hover over your hot tub etc… at close range.

If I am correct Google earth is not real time and close range. I am sure NSA all sorts of capabilities but they are hopefully not the average thug or perv.


Google street view doesn't have the ability to hover inside my fence line and take photos through my windows or of my family enjoying our swimming pool/patio.

Le Français basically said what I was trying to say in his reply.

[TGS]

The difference is:

Drones give the average user the option to look in your window, hover over your hot tub etc… at close range.

If I am correct Google earth is not real time and close range. I am sure NSA all sorts of capabilities but they are hopefully not the average thug or perv.

Generally, if you have a right to be somewhere, you have the right to see whatever you see; if you ever hear LEOs saying "right to be, right to see", this is what they're talking about....and it's why LEOs don't need a warrant to take surveillance photos through a window looking into your house while they're posted in a vehicle on the street, for instance. Some state laws whittle this down further and may place it under some sort of stalking statute based on specific actions, but the general constitutional answer is that if you don't want somebody looking through your window from a place they're legally allowed to be, then cover the window so that they can't look through it.

[randyho]

... using a counter-drone drone and flying it as you see fit ...
YES!

[Cheap Shot]

So what's the legality on using a counter-drone drone and flying it as you see fit over your own property in such a way that might accidentally cause someone else to lose control of drone? Does the FAA have a drone-compatible reckless driving regulation?

The remote id mentioned earlier is interesting. I assume like a lot of drone laws as they exist, the people who are most troublesome will not be in compliance and identifying them will prove to be difficult. And enforcement will be more or less toothless in the cases where you do. I believe in TX it's a lower (class c?) misdemeanor and "oops I deleted the pictures I took" is a valid defense to prosecution.

My counter-drone (this is genius, FU FAA) will absolutely have audio playing the ride of the Valkyries, mini-flame throwers, and two glock G18's as it swoops down on the neighbors kids toy, errr intruder drone, .......I mean enemy aircraft.

[RoyGBiv]

Generally, if you have a right to be somewhere, you have the right to see whatever you see; if you ever hear LEOs saying "right to be, right to see", this is what they're talking about....and it's why LEOs don't need a warrant to take surveillance photos through a window looking into your house while they're posted in a vehicle on the street, for instance. Some state laws whittle this down further and may place it under some sort of stalking statute based on specific actions, but the general constitutional answer is that if you don't want somebody looking through your window from a place they're legally allowed to be, then cover the window so that they can't look through it.

Interesting.

So, if I like to swim in the nude and get frisky in the yard with Wife, my expectation of privacy beyond my 8-foot fence is just an illusion?

[wvincent]

Interesting.

So, if I like to swim in the nude and get frisky in the yard with Wife, my expectation of privacy beyond my 8-foot fence is just an illusion?

Didn't realize you had an Only Fans account :D

[Blades]

Can I use a laser pointer against the drone? Or will I be arrested for "drone harassment".

[Borderland]

Can I use a laser pointer against the drone? Or will I be arrested for "drone harassment".

How does that work? Does that fry the camera lens?

[Borderland]

Interesting.

So, if I like to swim in the nude and get frisky in the yard with Wife, my expectation of privacy beyond my 8-foot fence is just an illusion?

You need to move to the country if you're doing that.

[Joe in PNG]

You need to move to the country if you're doing that.

Yeah- most community pools do tend to look down on that sort of thing. Especially when they're trying to hold the water aerobics classes.

[1slow]

Generally, if you have a right to be somewhere, you have the right to see whatever you see; if you ever hear LEOs saying "right to be, right to see", this is what they're talking about....and it's why LEOs don't need a warrant to take surveillance photos through a window looking into your house while they're posted in a vehicle on the street, for instance. Some state laws whittle this down further and may place it under some sort of stalking statute based on specific actions, but the general constitutional answer is that if you don't want somebody looking through your window from a place they're legally allowed to be, then cover the window so that they can't look through it.

I get this but, you do not have the right to be on my property looking in my window or as mentioned on my property looking over an 8 foot privacy fence that is well within my property .

[TC215]

I get this but, you do not have the right to be on my property looking in my window or as mentioned on my property looking over an 8 foot privacy fence that is well within my property .

The airspace above your property does not belong to you.

[Borderland]

I might add that when I lived on the pavement my neighbor had a few GF's stay over after his bar encounters. They did some sans vêtements lounging in his backyard. My shower window had a view of his back yard. He had good taste in pick-ups.

[Blades]

How does that work? Does that fry the camera lens?

No, it would just flare the picture a little. It would annoy the person who was recording. Hopefully.

[Caballoflaco]

I get this but, you do not have the right to be on my property looking in my window or as mentioned on my property looking over an 8 foot privacy fence that is well within my property .

Think of it as living with a navigable River in your back yard. People are free to pass through the river whenever they want and somebody living on that river has no legal ability to stop them. Same goes for the air above your house it’s also open to navigation, and you have o rights to close that space.

Eta: it was (and still is) also perfectly legal for someone to fly over your house in a plane or helicopter or hot air balloon with a big telephoto lens and and take all the pictures they want to.

I’m not saying the current laws regulating drone use are good, just stating that right now this is what they are.

[Borderland]

No, it would just flare the picture a little. It would annoy the person who was recording. Hopefully.

And inform the pilot that his drone was spotted and may be targeted in the future. ;) I believe the naval equivalent is the shot across the bow.

Where I live I doubt the wreckage would be found.

[mmc45414]

The drone dogfighting sounds like the most fun, but I wonder if an ECM aproach might be more practical? Something that puts out disruptive noise on the typical frequencies? Low enough power to avoid legal issues?

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

[Clusterfrack]

https://va.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_run6ts1Vnb1w5pr9j.mp4

[Borderland]

Some drone counter measures here. Looks like the spoofing equipment is illegal and dangerous in a civilian area but detection and controller location can be identified.

https://www.robinradar.com/press/blog/10-counter-drone-technologies-to-detect-and-stop-drones-today

[joshs]

The airspace above your property does not belong to you.

Some of it probably does. While we no longer own the common law "to the heavens" airspace, parcels will still include some air rights above the surface. Parcels have to include air rights because that's the only way to build structures on land. Since the structure extends into the air, that air has to be included in the parcel.

[Chuck Whitlock]

I get this but, you do not have the right to be on my property looking in my window or as mentioned on my property looking over an 8 foot privacy fence that is well within my property .

Your neighbor can erect and climb a 10 foot ladder and gander all he wants.

But then he can't call the police and accuse you of indecent exposure.

Well....he can, but that isn't going to go anywhere. And he may open himself up to charges like voyeurism, depending on state/local statutes.

[TC215]

Some of it probably does. While we no longer own the common law "to the heavens" airspace, parcels will still include some air rights above the surface. Parcels have to include air rights because that's the only way to build structures on land. Since the structure extends into the air, that air has to be included in the parcel.

Is the right to build really what we’re talking about here?

The FAA owns all “navigable” air pace. There have been court decisions where this starts at 500 feet, but that was before the proliferation of drones. With a drone, nearly all airspace is navigable. An airplane is supposed to remain 500 feet from any person, vessel, structure, etc except as necessary for takeoff and landing. A drone does not have this restriction.

I realize there have never been clear answers and decisions on this (I’m guessing that will change sooner rather than later because of drones), but at the end of the day, Class G (uncontrolled airspace) extends from the surface up to the controlled airspace above it, per the Federal Aviation Regulations.

[Blades]

And inform the pilot that his drone was spotted and may be targeted in the future. ;) I believe the naval equivalent is the shot across the bow.

Where I live I doubt the wreckage would be found.

The little play drone I have the camera is small. I doubt I could hit it with a laser pointer on purpose. Accidentally? Yes, my twitching and weak fingers can’t hold my phone steady while I type this. LOL

[TheRoland]

In this day of terrorism, stalking taking down a drone on your property would seem a precaution but is it legal ?

Does your suburban town get targeted by a lot of terrorists?


I think this entire discussion is pretty silly as a practical matter.

[joshs]

Is the right to build really what we’re talking about here?

That's how SCOTUS has looked at it in the past:

"We have said that the airspace is a public highway. Yet it is obvious that if the landowner is to have full enjoyment of the land, he must have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere. Otherwise buildings could not be erected, trees could not be planted, and even fences could not be run. The principle is recognized when the law gives a remedy in case overhanging structures are erected on adjoining land. The landowner owns at least as much of the space above the ground as the can occupy or use in connection with the land." United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256, 264 (1946).


I realize there have never been clear answers and decisions on this (I’m guessing that will change sooner rather than later because of drones), but at the end of the day, Class G (uncontrolled airspace) extends from the surface up to the controlled airspace above it, per the Federal Aviation Regulations.

People often cite Causby as creating a bright line rule of at least 83 feet above the surface, but I'm not totally sure that's an accurate reading of the case. The Court actually applied a multi-factor test to determine if the air travel interfered with the owner's usage and enjoyment of the land.

[CraigS]

Wow, this is much more serious than I realized. Never had much interest in a drone so never looked into the legalities. I assumed there would be some restrictions re; someone flying one over my house and property but so far it doesn't seem so.

[1slow]

Your neighbor can erect and climb a 10 foot ladder and gander all he wants.

But then he can't call the police and accuse you of indecent exposure.

Well....he can, but that isn't going to go anywhere. And he may open himself up to charges like voyeurism, depending on state/local statutes.

My point which I evidently have not made clear is:

If in the middle of my land , large area, I have a 8’ privacy fence surrounding whatever, if you come up to the fence to peep over it you are on my land and thus illegally there.

If you are off my land and erect a tower to look over my fence you are within your rights.
If you use a drone that is not over my property, you are still line of sight but not over my property kind of like the tower.

By using a drone over my land you are violating my space in a way that would be illegal if you were there in person.
This is a problem that needs addressing in some fashion. I am not sure how.

[TC215]

That's how SCOTUS has looked at it in the past:

"We have said that the airspace is a public highway. Yet it is obvious that if the landowner is to have full enjoyment of the land, he must have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere. Otherwise buildings could not be erected, trees could not be planted, and even fences could not be run. The principle is recognized when the law gives a remedy in case overhanging structures are erected on adjoining land. The landowner owns at least as much of the space above the ground as the can occupy or use in connection with the land." United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256, 264 (1946).



People often cite Causby as creating a bright line rule of at least 83 feet above the surface, but I'm not totally sure that's an accurate reading of the case. The Court actually applied a multi-factor test to determine if the air travel interfered with the owner's usage and enjoyment of the land.

I’m familiar with the Causby case, and 1946 was obviously a long time ago, before the proliferation of drones and before the current airspace system. It comes down to “navigable airspace,” Class G airspace, etc, which the FAA owns. It will have to be decided via court case or new regulation.

[TC215]

By using a drone over my land you are violating my space in a way that would be illegal if you were there in person.
This is a problem that needs addressing in some fashion. I am not sure how.

How is this different than an airplane or helicopter?

[1slow]

Drone can be a lot closer than FAA regs would let an aircraft overfly.

Plane or Helo is not in your yard looking in your window.

FAA
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.

[joshs]

I’m familiar with the Causby case, and 1946 was obviously a long time ago, before the proliferation of drones and before the current airspace system. It comes down to “navigable airspace,” Class G airspace, etc, which the FAA owns. It will have to be decided via court case or new regulation.

What do you mean by the FAA "owns" airspace? They have authority over it, but they certainly don't own all of Class G airspace. If a new FAA reg tries to define airspace down to a very low level as "navigable," then they'll be dealing with a lot of takings claims.

[TC215]

Drone can be a lot closer than FAA regs would let an aircraft overfly.

Plane or Helo is not in your yard looking in your window.

FAA
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.

Well aware of the regs, but 500 feet is pretty low, and a lot can be seen on private property from that altitude with the naked eye or camera.

[TC215]

What do you mean by the FAA "owns" airspace? They have authority over it, but they certainly don't own all of Class G airspace. If a new FAA reg tries to define airspace down to a very low level as "navigable," then they'll be dealing with a lot of takings claims.

The FAA has exclusive sovereignty over airspace in the United States. According to federal regulations and the FAA, Class G airspace goes to the surface (not 80 feet, not 500 feet).

Other than the Causby decision, the courts have held that “navigable airspace” begins at 500 feet (based on the FARs for minimum altitudes referenced earlier). Drone flights are not restricted by that minimum altitude. This causes conflict between previous court decisions and actual regulations, and something will have to be done about it.

Plenty of articles out there about the differing opinions and interpretations about this.