So, there was a RC "drone" hovering above my house yesterday...I was kinda pissed.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
it's trespassing, right? He's been informed that he has to leave.
That's not trespassing in anyway. It's completely legal to do so.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
it's trespassing, right? He's been informed that he has to leave.
That's not trespassing in anyway.
It is according to an aviation lawyer: "If you were to take your Parrot drone over my house, I suppose at one level, it is a trespass," he said. "You were not invited there and could potentially have disrupted my quiet enjoyment of my home. I suppose I could sue."
What makes you feel that it is not trespassing? It meets all the qualifications of which I am aware.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
It's completely legal to do so.
According to whom? This isn't supported in anything I am finding. Since we've determined, according to the references at least, that you do indeed own the usable airspace around your house and that being in that airspace uninvited is trespassing and drones fall into that category.... where was an exception made for drones?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Looks like I was right. The drone was likely trespassing. It was within the airspace that you clearly own above your property.
No, you did not read the article fully if that's what you got out of it. 200ft would be out of the airspace you own. Also in the case of the article he was also trespassing for taking off from the land. This article was also written before the FAA re-wrote it's rules.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
it's trespassing, right? He's been informed that he has to leave.
That's not trespassing in anyway.
It is according to an aviation lawyer: "If you were to take your Parrot drone over my house, I suppose at one level, it is a trespass," he said. "You were not invited there and could potentially have disrupted my quiet enjoyment of my home. I suppose I could sue."
Sure you can sue for anything.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Looks like I was right. The drone was likely trespassing. It was within the airspace that you clearly own above your property.
No, you did not read the article fully if that's what you got out of it. 200ft would be out of the airspace you own. Also in the case of the article he was also trespassing for taking off from the land. This article was also written before the FAA re-wrote it's rules.
In the article it said that under 500ft was normally considered YOUR airspace, and the drone was well within that space.
-
Here is another article listing both trespass and nuisance laws and being potentially applicable when within your airspace.
http://www.agweb.com/article/legal_ease_drones_and_the_law_NAA_John_Dillard-john-dillard/
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Looks like I was right. The drone was likely trespassing. It was within the airspace that you clearly own above your property.
No, you did not read the article fully if that's what you got out of it. 200ft would be out of the airspace you own. Also in the case of the article he was also trespassing for taking off from the land. This article was also written before the FAA re-wrote it's rules.
In the article it said that under 500ft was normally considered YOUR airspace, and the drone was well within that space.
Re-read it. It did not say that. It said it considered changing to that. It said it was somewhere between 80-500ft depending on the height of the buildings.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Looks like I was right. The drone was likely trespassing. It was within the airspace that you clearly own above your property.
No, you did not read the article fully if that's what you got out of it. 200ft would be out of the airspace you own. Also in the case of the article he was also trespassing for taking off from the land. This article was also written before the FAA re-wrote it's rules.
In the article it said that under 500ft was normally considered YOUR airspace, and the drone was well within that space.
Re-read it. It did not say that. It said it considered changing to that. It said it was somewhere between 80-500ft depending on the height of the buildings.
Yes, but 500ft was the more commonly accepted.
Regardless, it is within the airspace that mostly is considered yours. Sure, any judge might hate you and rule something ridiculous, but the law seems pretty clear that the use of drones in ways that are generally a nuisance is likely trespassing.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Here is another article listing both trespass and nuisance laws and being potentially applicable when within your airspace.
http://www.agweb.com/article/legal_ease_drones_and_the_law_NAA_John_Dillard-john-dillard/
He also says that the law isn't clear about it being trespassing.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Looks like I was right. The drone was likely trespassing. It was within the airspace that you clearly own above your property.
No, you did not read the article fully if that's what you got out of it. 200ft would be out of the airspace you own. Also in the case of the article he was also trespassing for taking off from the land. This article was also written before the FAA re-wrote it's rules.
In the article it said that under 500ft was normally considered YOUR airspace, and the drone was well within that space.
Re-read it. It did not say that. It said it considered changing to that. It said it was somewhere between 80-500ft depending on the height of the buildings.
Yes, but 500ft was the more commonly accepted.
Regardless, it is within the airspace that mostly is considered yours. Sure, any judge might hate you and rule something ridiculous, but the law seems pretty clear that the use of drones in ways that are generally a nuisance is likely trespassing.
No, it wasn't. You are seeing things the way you want to not, what they ACTUALLY say.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
He also says that the law isn't clear about it being trespassing.
He did, it is not completely clear. But the consensus seems to be that it is much more likely to be trespassing that to not be. But you said it wasn't and that it was completely legal. What makes it not trespassing and completely legal when the law leans the other way, apparently?
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
No, it wasn't. You are seeing things the way you want to not, what they ACTUALLY say.
I provided the quote.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
No, it wasn't. You are seeing things the way you want to not, what they ACTUALLY say.
I provided the quote.
Cool Story.
-
One of the lawyers: There are two common law legal protections that are available to prevent harassment from drones: trespass and nuisance. The law is not abundantly clear on where a landowner’s exclusive control of airspace ends and the public airspace begins. Modern interpretations of property law hold that property owners’ airspace rights extend to as much of the space above the ground that is occupied or used in connection with the land.
Nuisance claims can also be filed against drone operators if their activity leads to a "substantial and unreasonable interference" with the use of your property. Drones can be noisy, frighten livestock and annoy landowners, thereby creating a nuisance and reducing property value.
If it is interfering with your family, that would seem to apply. If you have to listen to it, watch it, worry about it crashing, etc. you are being nuisanced by it.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
No, it wasn't. You are seeing things the way you want to not, what they ACTUALLY say.
I provided the quote.
Cool Story.
I'm providing references and quotes from attorneys. You are free to disagree, but you are just stating over and over that I am wrong and that they are wrong. Or claiming that the quotes aren't quotes. I'm not sure why you feel that this information is wrong or why the law would not likely support homeowners. Do you have legal references that provide clarity on why you feel that you don't have any airspace and drones have full legal rights that homeowners do not?
-
No idea as to the expertise of these guys, but they have the same trespass information discussed when looking at liabilities for Amazon delivery:
http://wfpl.org/want-amazon-prime-air-package-kentucky-itll-take-while/
Unless the drones could drop straight down from federal airspace to your house, they will likely have to cross someone else’s property. Without a revision to regulations, that could qualify as trespassing or nuisance.
Notice that the changes in the law are needed to make it not trespass. The current law, they suggest, likely means that it is.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
One of the lawyers: There are two common law legal protections that are available to prevent harassment from drones: trespass and nuisance. The law is not abundantly clear on where a landowner’s exclusive control of airspace ends and the public airspace begins. Modern interpretations of property law hold that property owners’ airspace rights extend to as much of the space above the ground that is occupied or used in connection with the land.
Nuisance claims can also be filed against drone operators if their activity leads to a "substantial and unreasonable interference" with the use of your property. Drones can be noisy, frighten livestock and annoy landowners, thereby creating a nuisance and reducing property value.
If it is interfering with your family, that would seem to apply. If you have to listen to it, watch it, worry about it crashing, etc. you are being nuisanced by it.
Still that would mean it's nusiance or invasion of privacy, pepeing tom etc. Not trespassing.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
No, it wasn't. You are seeing things the way you want to not, what they ACTUALLY say.
I provided the quote.
Cool Story.
I'm providing references and quotes from attorneys.
Yes, and the links you provide did NOT agree that it was trespassing. You are skewing them.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
Still that would mean it's nusiance or invasion of privacy, pepeing tom etc. Not trespassing.
Each of the attorneys and the television station (maybe an attorney, who knows) mentions trespass specifically and nuisance as an additional course of potential legal action.
You keep saying definitively that it is not trespassing, but the attorneys seem to feel that it likely is. What's the basis for your belief that it definitely is not?
