Police Chief Trying To Find Some Way To Charge Drone Operator Who Didn't Break Any Laws
from the I-AM-THE-[NONEXISTENT]-LAW dept
Don't let the fact that no crime occurred stop you from attempting to prosecute someone, Sparky. (via PINAC)Naperville Police Chief Robert Marshall said he is consulting the city's legal department after the three-minute video posted on YouTube by user JPDrone came to his attention. Shot at night, a drone camera flies over City Hall and several downtown streets, providing a unique view of seasonal decorations while cars and pedestrians move around city streets below.Photography Is Not A Crime points out that there is no law in Illinois that addresses what happened here. The closest the state gets to private drone prohibition involves a very specific set of circumstances.
While Illinois has passed a law making it a crime to use a drone to interfere with hunting and fishing, there are no other state laws preventing the public from using “drones,” more appropriately called RC (remote-controlled) copters.If the local lawyers can't figure out some way to nail John Pauley for his not-illegal act, Chief Marshall is willing to go over his own head.
"Obviously, if they're flying over a public area, you have to ask if there's any risk to public safety, who's the operator and if he's abiding by the regulations set in place by the FAA," Marshall said. "There was a request from an individual who wanted to fly a drone camera overhead at Ribfest last summer, and we did not allow that."Ah, "public safety." The one-size-fits-all hammer for every annoying nail that refuses to fit neatly into existing legal confines. The thing is, John Pauley has been very careful about his drone usage ever since his run-in with the Geneva (IL) police department officers, who expressed concern about his flying camera. Since then, Pauley has made an effort to notify proper employees before taking to the air. This includes the Naperville Police Department.
He said he called Naperville police before doing the nighttime video, which he said was filmed from less than 200 feet above the city.This statement remains unaddressed. Neither confirmed nor denied or even acknowledged. So, it's Pauley's word against the Naperville PD's, the latter of which hasn't offered any words contradicting his claim.
Maybe Chief Marshall is just suffering from drone envy. Illinois state laws do prohibit the use of drones by law enforcement.
Section 10. Prohibited use of drones. Except as provided in Section 15, a law enforcement agency may not use a drone to gather information.The Section 15 exceptions (and there are a lot of them) are: preventing a terrorist attack, with a warrant, imminent harm to life, locating a missing person (but notably, not as part of a criminal investigation), and crime scene/crash photography. Flying over private land for the latter also requires the acquisition of a search warrant. "Freedom from drone surveillance," as the law is titled. That applies to law enforcement only. It says nothing about private use.
The FAA may choose to fine Pauley if Chief Marshall decides to rat him out (the FAA restricts private drone usage to daytime hours), but it appears there's little he can actually do about this from his end. Marshall appears to believe that if he thinks something's illegal, it must actually be, even if all evidence points in the other direction -- really not the sort of attitude you want in a law enforcement official.
As of yet, no charges have been filed, but never underestimate the creativity of law enforcement personnel whose common sense has been shouted down by their desire to prosecute.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: drones, john pauley, laws, naperville, police, robert marshall
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
You're a fucking idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Last time I checked, that was illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is no such law. There is an FAA rule that says this. Which means that enforcing it is well outside of a cop's jurisdiction. The most the cop can (and should) do about this is to collect evidence and send it over to the FAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=81244
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
FAA is a federal agency and there maybe some issue about jurisdiction when a local Barney goes off making arrests for the fed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Got a citation for that, or are you just full of cop shit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The rule is that the operator must always be able to see the aircraft, not that night flying is disallowed. If your aircraft has lights, that would satisfy the "must see it" criterion.
It is true that state and local laws can add additional restrictions to R/C aircraft operations on top of FAA rules -- but in the story at hand, that's clearly not the case or the police wouldn't have to hunt around for some law they could twist to apply to the guy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Also: http://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/2850/where-is-rc-aircraft-flying-allowed-in-the-us
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And most the rc drones out there are so small, with puny little propellers they wouldn't hurt you if they hit you anyway. (As long as they don't poke your eyeballs out)
A friend has flown his led lit airplane out at night, and it looks really cool.
NOTE: I wouldn't fly my $10,000 jet after dark (if I had one).
But Then....
Some idiot is going to do something stupid, and then they'll pass a law to throw us all in jail for owning rc planes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This is true. The actual rule is that the aircraft must always remain visible to the operator. If darkness prevents that, then the rule is being broken. If not, then it's not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
R/C airplanes/copters have limited payload for the explosives making them unsuitable for causing terror.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And since prisons are privat and states give some "fun" guarantees like "90% filled" they cant even stop provide new inmates if they wanted to, breach of contract and all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(In case he's looking for something else that "oughta be illegal.")
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why?
So clearly the police chief has an intense dislike of this action. But he never tells us why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why?
Well because this is Naperville Illinois, what the hell else do you have to do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why?
The police are probably constantly dealing with calls about this guy (because people are selfish assholes) and they can't make him stop. Back when I was in NC, I had the police called on me about a BL nCPx heli (it's literally only a 7" rotor diameter), and near-silent because they thought I was going to damage their car. I can't imagine if I flew larger helis or drone...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why?
Police everywhere are constantly dealing with calls about things that they can't do anything about, but they don't get their panties in a twist over that stuff. There must be something more to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Why?
However, this guy is pretty obviously in violation of AMA regulations -- if I recall correctly, you aren't supposed to fly RCAVs over people. As long as it is adequately lit, flying after dark isn't an issue as long as it is always in line of sight with the operator. But the operator can't fly it into controlled airspace, nor can they fly it over populated areas. People get reported (and fined) for doing this all the time -- usually by people like this PD Chief and concerned citizens who don't think that it should be legal to have remote controlled surveillance equipment in the hands of the public at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?
There is no actual rule about flying over other people specifically, although it is considered extremely bad form in the model aircraft community and most model aircraft associations (such as the AMA) prohibit it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A cops job
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This seems kinda knee-jerk-reaction-y, guys.
"Obviously, if they're flying over a public area, you have to ask if there's any risk to public safety, who's the operator and if he's abiding by the regulations set in place by the FAA," Marshall said.
Someone mentioned that they could be 'collecting evidence to send to the FAA.' Maybe that's all he's doing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Naperville Overflight Video
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why doesn't Marshall just shoot Pauley?
BLAM! Problem solved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Proof of conversation
Oh, wait....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]