Illegal to Fly Over My Neighbor's Back Yard?

Chuck

Chuck

Well-Known Member
Spork said:
You're mistaking me for someone else. I enjoy learning from people in all walks of life. Some of my favorite stories are from a friend on Dallas SWAT. I'm also the type of person to thank police officers when they give me a ticket because I know from the news and the stories of my LEO friends that they do not have an easy job and I'm glad they are out there doing it. Now mind you, I'm not happy about having to pay the ticket, but I know the officer has pulled me over because I was breaking the law and he/she is just doing their job. You will never hear me complain about getting in trouble for something when I knowingly break a law - I try to completely avoid situations that have even a hint of being against the law.

The part I believe you are missing is that @pdmike was specifically talking about whether the act was civil or criminal. You gave some great information, which I and others appreciated and @pdmike acknowledged in one of his previous posts. Where you lost me is when it appeared that you missed that and kept on and on about the various ways you could penalize someone - when you had already explained that and it had already been acknowledged.

I mean no disrespect, just pointing out how I saw it. Thank you for your service as a law enforcement officer. You guys are very much appreciated.
Click to expand...
Whether the act is civil, criminal or both (Yes, you can sue the actor civilly that robbed, assaulted, or harassed you. That is entirely seperate from a criminal prosecution and does not preclude criminal prosecution from occurring.), is a matter for a judge to ultimately determine after such legal action has been initiated (You can't rule on a case that does not yet exist....). And by the way. I have attorneys and other cops in my family, and even a judge. So in some respects, it's a game of anticipating how one or more of each other will interpret a case, and how they would react.
 
J

John Scott

Active Member
Chuck said:
This conversation is becoming one that I frequently saw as a cop. Somebody doesn't like the answer received because it doesn't go along with what they want to do. Then once they find themselves on the receiving end of the negative consequences they were warned about in advance, the drama begins about being oppressed, being picked on, being unfairly targeted, etc, etc, etc. Even when advised in advance of reasonable alternatives to the activity or activities that they insist on engaging in. What some refuse to acknowledge is that if I really wanted to see anybody here get jammed up, the easiest thing for me to do is sit back and watch silently, knowing what was coming. Nobody wants to hear the cop say: "Don't do this, because this is what will happen to you as a consequence." But everybody wants to scream that they are being picked on when what the cops warned them about happens.
Click to expand...
Retired LEO here and some people just refuse to listen . You can not Annoy, Harass, or Trespass under the guise of free airspace. Hand cuffs and standing before a Judge with mom and dad trying to post bail to keep your punk ass out of jail is just the reality some retards need because they think the know they law. FAA free airspace is not a defense for Trespassing or Harassment in the State of NY.
 
Last edited:
Rick M

Rick M

Absent-minded professor
Ok...I have tried so very hard to stay out of this. I'm also a retired cop. I know what it's like to be in the field and on the radio call and have to try to figure out how to be the arbiter of "right and wrong" while knowing your penal code and case law and what all you can get away with when you think you are on the side of the angels. We get it. I've spent the last oh, so many years trying to reconcile my post-LE life with my current life.

Arguing that the "A-hole rule" in the field translates to some kind of broad legal precedent is specious. Yeah, we have all stretched a point on a call when we believed we were doing the right thing for society as a whole. You do realize that by emphasizing how much discretion street cops have to put somebody in jail who is working very hard to demonstrate how much he deserves it...reinforces the arguments of everyone who is trying to handcuff good street cops who are trying to do the right thing in a world of greys, right? Raise your hand if you are spending swing shift in a patrol car and want to sort out the national airspace "federal versus local"issue. For the love of God, people....
 
J

John Scott

Active Member
Rick M said:
Ok...I have tried so very hard to stay out of this. I'm also a retired cop. I know what it's like to be in the field and on the radio call and have to try to figure out how to be the arbiter of "right and wrong" while knowing your penal code and case law and what all you can get away with when you think you are on the side of the angels. We get it. I've spent the last oh, so many years trying to reconcile my post-LE life with my current life.

Arguing that the "A-hole rule" in the field translates to some kind of broad legal precedent is specious. Yeah, we have all stretched a point on a call when we believed we were doing the right thing for society as a whole. You do realize that by emphasizing how much discretion street cops have to put somebody in jail who is working very hard to demonstrate how much he deserves it...reinforces the arguments of everyone who is trying to handcuff good street cops who are trying to do the right thing in a world of greys, right? Raise your hand if you are spending swing shift in a patrol car and want to sort out the national airspace "federal versus local"issue. For the love of God, people....
Click to expand...
What State where you a LEO Rick ? I'm surprised that it is one would allow harassment or violations of trespassing and invasion of privacy and property owners rights.
 
mozquito1

mozquito1

Well-Known Member
Been here done this. I'm staying out.
OK so what about this situation then.
Im in a public place keeping my distance from ppl & following the rules.
Only to be getting trolled by someone with a dog. Or someone just hinders you everytime you move on out there way.
When this happens I put my stuff away & follow them. I got footage of them following me so who the cops gonna believe.
 
pdmike

pdmike

Extremely Popular Member
John Scott said:
Retired LEO here and some people just refuse to listen . You can not Annoy, Harass, or Trespass under the guise of free airspace. Hand cuffs and standing before a Judge with mom and dad trying to post bail to keep your punk ass out of jail is just the reality some retards need because they think the know they law. FAA free airspace is not a defense for Trespassing or Harassment in the State of NY.
Click to expand...
Nor is it a defense for trespassing or harassment in the state of California. The civil statute mentioned in the OP covers invasion of privacy, trespassing, harassment, etc. by a quad pilot, flying his quad over someone else's property. It creates a civil cause of action for such activity. The aggrieved homeowner who feels that his privacy is being invaded, may sue the quad pilot civilly for the invasion of privacy, trespass, or whatever.

But this is an entirely CIVIL remedy. There is no CRIMINAL sanction that can be imposed on a quad pilot in California for flying his quad over someone else's house PROVIDED the quad takes off and lands from either public property or private property with the permission of the property owner and further provided that no other criminal laws are violated during the flight. Once the quad "lifts to the sky" from the described takeoff point, the State of California has no criminal jurisdiction over where the quad flies or what it does merely because the quad passes over someone else's house. Now, if a quad pilot intentionally flew his quad into this neighbors plate glass window, he would be guilty of vandalism, and could be criminally punished for such.

To sum up: If a quad pilot takes off from a proper takeoff point, gets his quad up to a reasonable height (so it is obvious he isn't trying to peek into his neighbor's window) and flies it over his neighbor's house, in California anyway, he cannot be criminally charged with anything.
 
HiDesertHal

HiDesertHal

Well-Known Member
What about flying at an altitude that takes in a full city block, just so you can see how many swimming pools are in your neighborhood? That's not spying on any one property...is it?

HiDesertHal
 
Spork

Spork

There is no spoon
Spork said:
While that's a good rule of thumb, it's not completely true. You are allowed to fly 400' over structures within a 400' radius of the structure. If there was a 300' building, you could fly at 700' AGL as long as you were within 400' of it - assuming you are also meeting other FAA rules like being 500' below clouds, 2000' away from clouds horizontally, have 3 SM visibility, etc, etc.
Click to expand...

I know this thread is oldish, but I'm the type of person that doesn't mind admitting when he's wrong. I came across a thread on another forum that pointed this out to me.

What I said in the quote about regarding maximum altitude is correct if you a Part 107 UAS pilot. @Chuck comment above where he said the 400' is the absolute max is true for non-107 pilots. I had incorrectly assumed the altitude limit was the same for both when I fact checked by looking at the 107 information. Just an FYI.
 
GlassKnees

GlassKnees

Well-Known Member
When I lived in a retirement community, I contacted all my neighbors before attempting any flights with the idea that if even one objected I would not fly. Everyone was interested, especially when I posted videos of my overflights of the woods behind our houses.

I live in Colorado now and I take great pains to fly over fields where nobody will object. I flew once over Windsor Lake when it was frozen over but contacted authorities of my intentions beforehand - nobody objected. I think if you make an attempt and reach out to people beforehand, you may get good results. BTW, somebody in my neigborhood has overflown our houses with a Phantom and I'm not aware of any complaints...
 
ArmyVet

ArmyVet

Well-Known Member
GlassKnees said:
When I lived in a retirement community, I contacted all my neighbors before attempting any flights with the idea that if even one objected I would not fly. Everyone was interested, especially when I posted videos of my overflights of the woods behind our houses.

I live in Colorado now and I take great pains to fly over fields where nobody will object. I flew once over Windsor Lake when it was frozen over but contacted authorities of my intentions beforehand - nobody objected. I think if you make an attempt and reach out to people beforehand, you may get good results. BTW, somebody in my neigborhood has overflown our houses with a Phantom and I'm not aware of any complaints...
Click to expand...

Courtesy and Common Sense! How refreshing..:)

I applaud you for going the extra step. Not sure I would go that far.:cool: I do try to be legal and not create problems. Take the path of least resistance.

Have fun!
Bill
 
SNSTRLefty

SNSTRLefty

Well-Known Member
RENOV8R said:
This doesn't really come into play here in Canada as we're heavily restricted including:
No closer than 75M from any structure, person or animal
No higher than 90M
LOS only with max distance of 500M
No night flying
No flying above clouds regardless of height

I try to adhere to these regs as best I can, but I have been known to do quick test hovers in my backyard.
Click to expand...
Does that include your home as well?
 
Spork

Spork

There is no spoon
RENOV8R said:
Sure. I'm not exempt from the law just because I'm on my own property. That being said, try to tell me that I can't test hover a new build for a couple minutes outside my backdoor..........
Click to expand...

LOL - I'm right there with you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top