Small drone with camera hovering outside my window today.

[Joe Louvar]

To be clear, I am participating in this thread purely for discussion purposes, which the OP invited early in the thread. I am not admitted as an attorney in California and am not purporting to give the OP any specific legal advice. With that said, it seems unlikely that his local PD or Sheriff would give him advice on the application of a civil statute; for that type of advice, he should consult an attorney licensed in California.

Huh? Why the disclaimer Febs - are you a legally practicing attorney (or paralegal) in PA or any state in the USA? His local PD/Sheriff won't give him legal advice, but they will tell him if the drone invasion was/is legal or not and what (if anything) can be done. Unless Stewie has money to burn, court would be a total waste of time and money - paintball guns are legal and much cheaper.

 

[Joe Louvar]

Stewie: before you get locked into a court battle - is the neighbor in question an attorney or have boat loads of money to burn?

 

[duff beer]

The drone was on public property and no one knows for sure if it was even recording. But, even if it was, that's perfectly legal, in spite of what all the armchair human rights lawyers are claiming.

Time to give it a rest. Go on Google Street view and you can see your house which was legally photographed.

 

[Stewie26]

So the drone quite possibly was not even OVER your property?

If it wasn't over your property, you likely have very little legal recourse.

It would be hard to prove either way as 100 feet away from my widows is a best estimate on my part. I don't think this is a trespassing issue. I think of it more of a reasonable expected privacy issue and an soon to be an FAA issue. As a pilot, I am very familiar the FAA airspace in the area. Since there is an airport with a control tower about 3 miles away, the FAA has classified the airspace above my house as Class Delta which means they control the airspace all the way down to the terrain surface. BTW... In more rural area the airspace is Class Gulf airspace, which only gives the FAA control of airspace down to 700 feet AGL. (Above Ground Level)

 

[Joe Louvar]

The drone was on public property and no one knows for sure if it was even recording. But, even if it was, that's perfectly legal, in spite of what all the armchair human rights lawyers are claiming.

Time to give it a rest. Go on Google Street view and you can see your house which was legally photographed.

And no one even knows who the operator was for sure.

 

[GregC]

The drone was on public property and no one knows for sure if it was even recording. But, even if it was, that's perfectly legal, in spite of what all the armchair human rights lawyers are claiming.

Time to give it a rest. Go on Google Street view and you can see your house which was legally photographed.

I like how you say with certainty that the drone was on public property when the OP, who was actually there, isn't sure one way or the other. And then you call others armchair experts--that's rich.

 

[gustobassman]

To the OP, have you yourself decided to video the drone and take the time to see where it is coming from? I know it may be a waste of a day, but you could always set up your own camera and at least get an idea where the drone is coming from... quite possibly the suspect neighbor. Bring that video with your complaint to the authorities. Couldn't hurt.

 

[Stewie26]

Hmm. I don't know Stewie. Did you call your local PD/Sheriff and ask if its illegal or not in your area yet? Febs seems to strongly believe the current CA laws in place already cover drone and camera technology, so maybe its really only a matter of enforcement - yes, no?

Since it has only happened once that I know about, I did not call the police. Actually, my neighbors are much more upset about it than I. If the drone becomes a regular then I will pursue it. With that said, it did get me to thinking about how technology is changing things we take for granted and that alone would make a worth wild conversation here on TBOT. Think about how many more drones will be around in 10 or 15 years used by companies, police departments and government, private citizens, etc. Kind of scary to me.

 

[ChrisB2]

The drone was on public property and no one knows for sure if it was even recording. But, even if it was, that's perfectly legal, in spite of what all the armchair human rights lawyers are claiming.

Time to give it a rest. Go on Google Street view and you can see your house which was legally photographed.

Google street view has no relevance in this situation... taking pictures from a public street. Anything that can be viewed from a public street is fair game. If the drone was over public property and looking into a window you can see from the street, there would be no issue and I doubt OP would have even started the thread if that were the case.

It all hinges on the "expectation of privacy."

The back of my house faces many dozen acres of woods. There is no way you can see in my back windows without trespassing on my property which means I have an expectation of privacy at those windows. If a drone flew over my back yard and took pictures in the window, IMO it would be violating the law quoted below. That is, if I lived in Californication....

1708.8(b) A person is liable for constructive invasion of privacy when
the defendant attempts to capture, in a manner that is offensive to a
reasonable person, any type of visual image, sound recording, or
other physical impression of the plaintiff engaging in a personal or
familial activity under circumstances in which the plaintiff had a
reasonable expectation of privacy, through the use of a visual or
auditory enhancing device, regardless of whether there is a physical
trespass, if this image, sound recording, or other physical
impression could not have been achieved without a trespass unless the
visual or auditory enhancing device was used.

And yeah, it would be offensive to me, and I think most reasonable people, to have a drone hovering over my yard taking pictures in my window. What about you?

 

[Stewie26]

To the OP, have you yourself decided to video the drone and take the time to see where it is coming from? I know it may be a waste of a day, but you could always set up your own camera and at least get an idea where the drone is coming from... quite possibly the suspect neighbor. Bring that video with your complaint to the authorities. Couldn't hurt.

If I see it again and have my camera within reach I will video it.

 

[aborgman]

It would be hard to prove either way as 100 feet away from my widows is a best estimate on my part. I don't think this is a trespassing issue.

I agree.

I think of it more of a reasonable expected privacy issue

I really doubt there is any argument there, I don't think you have any expectation of privacy from a legal standpoint - but you are in California with their completely ridiculous 1st amendment violating 'anti-paparazzi' laws, so I could very well be wrong.

and an soon to be an FAA issue. As a pilot, I am very familiar the FAA airspace in the area. Since there is an airport with a control tower about 3 miles away, the FAA has classified the airspace above my house as Class Delta which means they control the airspace all the way down to the terrain surface.

Now THAT is a whole other kettle of fish.

That is an avenue that will likely get him shut down real quick.

 

[Joe Louvar]

Since it has only happened once that I know about, I did not call the police. Actually, my neighbors are much more upset about it than I. If the drone becomes a regular then I will pursue it. With that said, it did get me to thinking about how technology is changing things we take for granted and that alone would make a worth wild conversation here on TBOT. Think about how many more drones will be around in 10 or 15 years used by companies, police departments and government, private citizens, etc. Kind of scary to me.

Yup. For example, checkout the "Parrot AR 2.0" drone - they're really cheap, a child can fly it, and it sports both live and memory card video and audio. The downside is - short fly time, short range, and they're show.

 

[Febs]

A law that may be unConstitutional, that has almost always resulted in victory by the defendant, and can't be cited because none of the cases involving it have been "published"... and you're talking about getting the neighbor (who possibly wasn't even violating the law in question) to quit out of fear of legal costs.

I'm afraid that sort of legalist wrangling, while perfectly legal and all too common, is blindingly unethical.

My earlier post was not meant to suggest that the fear of legal costs was the only deterrent, and I would not ever advise anyone to bring a meritless claim for that purpose. I was assuming (and I'm sorry if this was not clear from my post) that the plaintiff had a bona fide claim under the existing statute, and that the defendant would be defending against the statute on the basis of a challenge as to its enforceability, rather than by arguing that there was not a violation of the statute as enacted. The primary risk to the neighbor is the liability that attaches if he is violating the statute by engaging in the proscribed conduct. The point of my earlier post was simply that even if we assume that there is a constitutional challenge available to the neighbor, there is still a significant risk to him.

There is nothing unethical about bringing a cause of action under a statute that was duly enacted by the legislature specifically to allow that cause of action, so long as the plaintiff has a good faith belief that the facts bring him within the purview of the statute. The fact that prior cases decided under the statute are unpublished is irrelevant; trial court decisions are frequently unpublished, and if anything, the fact that the decision is unpublished indicates that the case was decided on the specific facts of that case and did not involve any issues regarding interpretation or enforcement of the statute that would apply to other cases. The fact that other cases under the statute have "almost always resulted in victory by the defendant" (if true) is not remarkable either. Putting aside the implication that some cases did result in a verdict for the plaintiff, it may simply reflect that bona fide cases are more likely to settle than to go to trial. Finally, the fact that there is a hypothetical constitutional challenge available to a defendant does not make it unethical to bring a claim under a statute authorizing a civil claim.

 

[car_man65]

Can we keep it simple and say, If you see it, follow it home? It HAS to return sometime, batteries don't last forever...

 

[Febs]

I really doubt there is any argument there, I don't think you have any expectation of privacy from a legal standpoint - but you are in California with their completely ridiculous 1st amendment violating 'anti-paparazzi' laws, so I could very well be wrong.

Right. The fact that this took place in California is definitely relevant. I can look up the case when I have a second, but New York, for example, takes a completely different approach.

 

[car_man65]

Right. The fact that this took place in California is definitely relevant. I can look up the case when I have a second, but New York, for example, takes a completely different approach.

The laws here in California can get quite stupid..

 

[Tennesseemick]

It's a growing concern everywhere.

Invalid Link Removed

 

[Stewie26]

I guess our future privacy rights boils down to the question. Do you want private, police and government camera's checking out your wife, GF or daughter when they are sunbathing in your private backyard? I can just see all the guys in some command & control room grouped around a video monitor perving on your love ones. Or they might even catch me scratching my butt or something. As these drones get more prevalent, we need laws anticipating the future problems and abuses that will come with them.

 

[Joe Louvar]

I guess our future privacy rights boils down to the question. Do you want private, police and government camera's checking out your wife, GF or daughter when they are sunbathing in your private backyard? I can just see all the guys in some command & control room grouped around a video monitor perving on your love ones. Or they might even catch me scratching my butt or something. As these drones get more prevalent, we need laws anticipating the future problems and abuses that will come with them.

Oh well. Hmm. I don't know - I guess I'm just not that paranoid or as scared about it as you.

 

[Joe Louvar]

View attachment 412316

A little eye candy for this thread.

The one on the far right is almost 5 years old. Probably a thousand flights - no crashes. So about 250 flight hours on a hand wired frame.

The middle one has a brushless gimbal which is basically a stedicam. Endless possibilities for filming music videos.

On the left is the discovery frame designed for longer distance with full outboard wireless camera gear for a gopro. The video transmits at 5.8ghz at 500mw which is good for about 1-2 miles of range. So it does not interfere with all the 2.4 ghz transmitters out there.

This is only half of them. Look out!

Way fun - what was the made (manufacture) and model number of the lightening fast drone that was in the chicken fight video that you posted?