Charges dropped against Kentucky Man Who Shot Down Drone

[jdc1244]

Am I missing anything that would make the decision make more factual sense?

No.

Shooting at drones is reckless, irresponsible, and should be subject to criminal prosecution.

It’s just as reckless, irresponsible, and criminal as shooting into the air to ‘celebrate’ the New Year.

 

[jmhyer]

My guess is that it's just a matter of time before the operation of drones falls under some sort of federal guidelines...probably under the purview of the FAA. And that's probably as it should be.

 

[NoSecondBest]

If I see one flying over my property and decide to shoot it down for some reason, who ever owns it will not have permission to enter my property to retrieve it. Simple as that. By the time they find anyone interested in listening to them about their "rights" it will have been placed in a land fill somewhere. Lots of people out there think they have a right to spy with these things and they're not any different than some peeping Tom looking in your window. I've got time to go to court.

 

[ShootistPRS]

Well, it's not shooting at drones that is dangerous, it's WHAT you shoot that determines whether it is dangerous or not. You can't use a laser at manned aircraft but what does the law say about drones?
How about a localized EMP? That only disables the drone and doesn't endanger any people. A wide band EMP can be home made but I wonder if it would fall under the FCC regs. It is not a navigational or communication frequency.?

A nice Van De Graff generator and a wire grid would be a passive system that could disable drones but it might also disable birds. A water cannon might work if you could get enough pressure in a stream big enough to wet down the drone.

I think the best way to do it is to fly another drone over the invader and drop a net on it. Drone falls out of the sky and crashes on private property. The property owner sues the pilot over public endangerment. Yep! that's the one I will go for.

As far as your rights to the airspace over your property there have been a number of cases that state you have undeniable rights to the airspace over your property that you can realistically use. If you are not near an airport then you can have an antenna 200 feet high according to G1B01, FAA and FCC rules. There is no limit to how many you can erect but local ordinances may have some restrictions.

 

[JohnKSa]

How about a localized EMP?

Not legal. FCC prevents broadcasting without a license except in limited bands and EMP is the definition of unlimited band broadcasting. Big fines if you are caught.

And every box of .22 short I've ever seen has a notice on the box: "Range 1 mile. Be careful!"

.22 ammo has a tremendously longer range than birdshot. Birdshot is considered to be completely safe at 400 yards from the muzzle--much shorter than the safe distance for any rimfire or centerfire bullet.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

And every box of .22 short I've ever seen has a notice on the box: "Range 1 mile. Be careful!"

.22 ammo has a tremendously longer range than birdshot. Birdshot is considered to be completely safe at 400 yards from the muzzle--much shorter than the safe distance for any rimfire or centerfire bullet.

That was pretty much my point. But there's .22 ammo, and there's .22 ammo. A .22 short doesn't have nearly the range or the down-range energy that even standard velocity .22LR has -- to make a .22 short carry a mile you'd have to really work at it.

Likewise bird shot. It may reach 500 yards, but it won't be doing much when it gets there. And, as someone has already commented, there's a big difference between carrying 200 yards horizontally vs. 200 yards basically straight up.

 

[shootbrownelk]

Some moron drone pilot flew his drone over a group of Elk at a feed line on the National Elk Refuge in Jackson Hole Wyoming. He caused 1,500 Elk to stampede. Winter is a critical time for wildlife, and scaring them and getting them to panic can cause cows to abort and cause injuries to others. The idiot was from Washington DC, which explains a lot. He was ticketed & fined for harassing wildlife. Fools and their toys.

 

[carguychris]

My guess is that it's just a matter of time before the operation of drones falls under some sort of federal guidelines...probably under the purview of the FAA.

They already do, under the fancy title "Unmanned Aircraft Systems." New rules were implemented late last year. Read away.

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

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Based on the summary found at the link provided by carguychris, the FAA wisely stayed out of the property rights arena. The maximum operating altitude is 400 feet AGL (above ground level). Nothing about "trespassing," but the summary does include the following:

Small unmanned aircraft may not operate over any persons
not directly participating in the operation, not under a
covered structure, and not inside a covered stationary
vehicle.

 

[carguychris]

Here is an interesting and very exhaustive report from the Congressional Research Service regarding drone operations that touches upon property rights, private owner liability, and privacy concerns.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R42940.pdf

Keep in mind that this was written prior to the FAA's enactment of the current UAS rules.

Based on the summary found at the link provided by carguychris, the FAA wisely stayed out of the property rights arena.

Correct. One vital thing to understand is that the FAA is a regulatory agency tasked primarily with promoting aviation safety and efficient air transportation and commerce. They are NOT a law-enforcement agency; ensuring citizens' privacy and property rights is not directly their job. These issues often emerge on the fringes of what they do, which has resulted in a patchwork of court precedents regarding various aviation issues, but few apply directly to drones.

The challenge posed by drones is that they've effectively detached safety concerns from privacy concerns. It's an obvious and egregious safety hazard to hover a Bell 407 next to someone's bedroom window, but this is not necessarily true of a DJI Phantom 4!

I get the sense that the FAA punted with regards to the privacy and property rights issues, probably since they were under pressure not to kill the goose that lays the golden egg by passing draconian regulations that stifle the United States UAS industry (and, by extension, prompt the industry to move to other countries that lack such regulations).

I predict that a few states will start regulating drones, and some of these regulations will go overboard, prompting a showdown with the Feds. Time will tell.

Of course, another glaring possibility is that there will be a mid-air collision between a drone and a commercial airliner resulting in loss of life, which may force the issue.

 

[f2shooter]

A number of cities have outlawed drone use in their jurisdiction and that usually includes use by law enforcement. Drones have given the FAA an excuse to try and govern all manner of RC aircraft use wanting those of us who fly to register with the FAA and put ID numbers on our aircraft. So far I have decided I have enough airman certificates that they already know who I am and where to find me if need be.The FAA holds the position that it controls all airspace in the US from ground level up no matter whose land is involved. One of my RC buddies in a neighboring state, also an enthusiastic shooter, had a problem with a drone hovering around his property until it finally crashed there. He decided he'd hold on to it until someone knocked on his door to claim it. So far no one has. And I've had some experience with current drone technology so I know I can program a flight mission to wherever I want it to go within battery range under autopilot operation. I can fly it using first person view video technology with similar range limitations. New drones have a return to home switch that brings them home on command and many of them will come home automatically when battery levels drop to the point where it has only enough power to get home. And I know of one person contracting with the federal government to disable any drone it doesn't want to see in operation. It gets better though. Using over the counter equipment I am able to program a fixed wing RC aircraft to fly anywhere I want it to go at any altitude I choose and return. Battery technology will give me 12-24 hours of use and on board generators are easy to set up and have been for decades. All that is needed is enough fuel and that is easily done. Autopilot technology will perform both takeoff and landing at gps coordinates. All this came from guys working in their garage and experimenting. Sooner or later this capability is going to be put to some nefarious use and I won't be surprised when a few get shot down.

Rick H.

 

[carguychris]

A number of cities have outlawed drone use in their jurisdiction and that usually includes use by law enforcement.

IMHO such regulations are sure to eventually run afoul of the Feds. There is court precedent; City of Burbank v. Lockheed Air Terminal Inc. (1973) held that a municipality may not prohibit aviation operations conducted in accordance with FAA regulations, and International Aerobatics Club Chapter 1 et al v. City of Morris, Illinois (2014) recently held that this precedent clearly applies to aviation conducted for nominally recreational purposes.

The FAA holds the position that it controls all airspace in the US from ground level up no matter whose land is involved.

True, and this is codified in 49 USC § 40103(a)(1).

The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States.

This strongly implies that the federal government intends to occupy the field of aviation regulation within (and over) the United States (field preemption). However, as discussed at length in the CRS report that I linked earlier, prevention of trespassing and invasions of privacy has traditionally been within the powers of the states, and the proverbial granddaddy of court precedents involving airspace in the U.S.—United States v. Causby (1946)—held that the federal government's sovereignty over airspace is NOT unlimited.

Although the case effectively nullified the common-law doctrine that property extends indefinitely upwards, it simultaneously held that a property owner retains rights to the airspace necessary for "full enjoyment" of the land, extending to the "immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere." However, Causby did NOT establish a definitive altitude or horizontal distance limit, nor any other "bright line" definition of where federal sovereignty ends and private property rights begin.

As it relates to the court case discussed here, the Restatement of Torts (Second)—widely relied upon in state courts for general principles of common law—states in § 159(2):

Flight by aircraft in the air space above the land of another is a trespass if, but only if, (a) it enters into the immediate reaches of the air space next to the land, and (b) it interferes substantially with the other’s use and enjoyment of his land.

It can certainly be argued that a low-altitude drone flight over someone else's property constitutes trespassing under this definition. Ergo, it is arguably also appropriate for the property owner to use a legally prudent level of force to stop the trespass.

This issue will surely have to be hashed out in the courts in the coming years.

Here's another discussion of airspace rights and drone flights that I found on the Interwebz: https://www.bu.edu/bulawreview/files/2015/02/RULE.pdf

 

[carguychris]

Highly unlikely that the homeowner could have shot down the drone if it was at 200 feet or higher, and moving. The purported telemetry "evidence" was supplied by the owner of the drone, not from law enforcement, thus immediately suspect.

After doing the research I've summarized, it occurs to me that the judge may have considered the property owner's ability to disable the drone with short-range birdshot as prima facie evidence that the aircraft was in fact within "the immediate reaches of the air space next to the land," and thereby concluded that the drone owner's telemetry was bogus.

 

[kilimanjaro]

Drone pilots are welcome to fly their drones in a linear fashion up and down the public roadways, like any pilot following the highway to the next town.

When you leave the public airspace and intrude on the private airspace controlled by the landowners adjacent to the public roads, you're trespassing. There are minimum altitudes for flight for a reason. One is that landowners are considered to control their airspace for a few hundred feet above their property in order that they be allowed to enjoy the full use of their land.

If you're trespassing with a camera, you're invading someone's privacy.

 

[carguychris]

There are minimum altitudes for flight for a reason.

According to the FAA, the primary reason is safety, not the prevention of trespassing. From what I've read, the FAA and its predecessor agencies have carefully avoided directly addressing the trespassing issue.

FAR/AIM § 107.51 (also codified in the corresponding section of 14 CFR) establishes no minimum altitudes for small unmanned aircraft.

For that matter, neither does FAR/AIM § 91.119 establish any minimum altitudes for helicopters, powered parachutes, or weight-shift-control aircraft "if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface." This safety-hazard prohibition—together with various general prohibitions on reckless flying—makes it difficult to justify short-range surveillance of an occupied structure from a full-size helicopter (as I facetiously noted already), but this case is harder to make when talking about a drone weighing only a pound or two.

...landowners are considered to control their airspace for a few hundred feet above their property in order that they be allowed to enjoy the full use of their land.

Not exactly; as discussed earlier, AFAIK there is no simple cut-and-dried minimum altitude or proximity limit that defines trespass by an aircraft, either in the FAR/AIM, common law, or federal court precedent.

 

[5whiskey]

After doing the research I've summarized, it occurs to me that the judge may have considered the property owner's ability to disable the drone with short-range birdshot as prima facie evidence that the aircraft was in fact within "the immediate reaches of the air space next to the land," and thereby concluded that the drone owner's telemetry was bogus.

^^^This is my thought on the matter. 200 feet almost straight up at a moving drone with #8 is probably doable, but doubtful. That's nearly a 70 yard shot with a shotgun, and #8 is losing a lot of steam at that point. I would probably err to the argument that places the drone a good bit closer and slower moving than this "evidence."

It’s just as reckless, irresponsible, and criminal as shooting into the air to ‘celebrate’ the New Year.

While I agree that shooting in the air, or into a berm for that matter, to celebrate the New Year is a little "redneckish" in my opinion; I do not agree that it is always reckless and irresponsible. If it is always reckless and irresponsible to shoot into the air, then no one would ever bird hunt with a shotgun. Or shoot clays. This tradition is haphazardly practiced by many, but there may be some that partake responsibly. In other words, they live in the country and they send a few rounds of low brass # 8 into the air on New Years. Nothing reckless or irresponsible about that.


With all of this being said... I have 3 daughters and I would fight and die for any one of them. I would probably exhaust all other alternatives for dealing with a drone trying to spy on them before I shot it down with a shotgun. You have to know that you will be inviting a legal fight on your hands at that point. If I can find a way to prevent that, I will.

 

[Pathfinder45]

That Ain't Right.....

I, for one, am glad this subject came up. I'm also glad the shooter was exonerated. You do own the airspace over your home and property, to a reasonable distance. If it's in shotgun range, that is well within that reasonable zone. Even if the law says otherwise, it doesn't make it right. This issue is a legal frontier at the moment, and I'm sure the score will fluctuate to one side or the other before it gets fully hashed out. I'm glad there is a precedent being set by this that leans towards privacy rights. Only 93 feet of airspace? Heck, the trees here are a lot taller than that. If someone's drone is violating the airspace and rights of another, they should have no recourse if they lose their drone, to a shotgun, or other means of protection. In fact, they should be held liable for tangible consequences, perhaps even be fined, at least, for the trespass. But that involves the law, which has an imperfect interpretation of right and wrong. This fellow took matters into his own hands at peril of being arrested, which he was. The law would have done nothing about it. Now, because of this man's actions, the law has to face the matter. I admire his guts. I wouldn't have done it, because I'm not willing to go to jail if I can avoid it. So, he has my applause. It doesn't matter how expensive a drone is; it has no rights. And it's owner has no right to violate your rights. One may have a right to own and operate a drone; but that right is forfeited if is used to violate the rights of others.

Now that I've expressed my sentiments and been emboldened in this matter, I think I should go down to Bi-Mart and see if they got those new Super-X Drone Eliminator 12 gauge shells in stock.

"Ah say, that was a joke, son."

 

[Ricklin]

Clays

Back fence loads of #8 can break clay pigeons @ 70 yards. It's not easy, but can be done.
I would think it's easier to take a drone down vs. a clay pigeon. I pellet striking a rotor will probably do the trick.
I often walk the field picking up clays for use in a hand thrower. Lot's of them have one or two holes in the dome. Again, it just takes a couple pellets to take out a drone. All it takes is to damage one of the four rotors, and down they come.

 

[ttarp]

Coming from the RC plane world, I was pretty surprised when I found out about "drones", and how folks were flying them pretty much anywhere they wanted with minimal repercussions.

If you want to fly a small RC vehicle, go to a park, a club, or your own property, its just common courtesy.

As to shooting "drones", I'd suggest trying to express your concerns to the pilot first, if thats too hard to accomplish, please keep your surroundings in mind and be safe.

 

[pnac]

Common courtesy has gone the way of common sence, rare indeed.

Does someone make a jammer for these things?