Charges dropped against Kentucky Man Who Shot Down Drone

[dakota.potts]

Bearingarms.com shared this article earlier which I find troubling https://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2017/0...ntucky-father/

A Kentucky man who shot a drone out of the sky last July as it hovered over his sunbathing daughter was arrested and charged with first-degree endangerment, firing a gun in a residential neighborhood, and criminal mischief.

The judge in the case, however, found that William H. Merideth had done nothing wrong, and has dismissed all charges.

On the surface, it would seem to be a good thing: hero dad saves sunbathing daughter from spying drone. Problem is, the evidence (which the judge didn't consider) recorded from the drone shows it flying at a height of over 200 feet and not "hovering" as claimed. While it may be true that the shooter's daughter was sunbathing outside, there seems to be no evidence that the drone operator was violating any kind of privacy via recording or taking still photos.

This website shows the video where the owner of the drone turned over flight data, which seems to directly contradict the claim made by the shooter that the drone hovered between 60-80 feet. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...ed/?comments=1

To further complicate things, it seems there's no current standard over how much space a person owns over their property, aside from a supreme court case made in the 1940's establishing the height to be at least 93 feet but not considering anything beyond that. So, if it was anymore than 93 feet above the property, there is not yet a considered standard for it to be considered trespass.

Maybe I'm confused, seeing the general responses, but it seems to me the judge ruled very heavily on the side of the shooter due to an emotionally biased response. The story of spying on the daughter sunbathing sounds good, but it appears the decision rendered in this case purposely ignored hard data provided by the drone operator in favor of conjecture and eyewitness accounts.

The drone operator does plan on taking it before a grand jury.

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

[Pahoo]

My buddy's wife in Cedar Rapids, was ding dishes and when she looked out the kitchen window, there was a drone looking back at her. She kept her cool and told her husband abut it. He went out and knocked it down, with a shovel. No one claimed the dead drone. .......

Be Safe !!!!

[Ricklin]

I enjoy both so hey it's the internet.....everyone is entitled to my opinion.

About 90% of the time if I am flying one of my quads there is no camera. It's on a quick release. The camera does not like crashes even less than the quad does.
The home owner took the law into his own hands, and should suffer the consequences.

Would the shooter shoot down the channel 6 news copter at 200 feet above his home, or even 50 feet above his home?

If I owned the drone in this case I too would be taking this up the legal chain. Get used to the drones gang, they are not going away.

I have had a couple of acquaintances claim they would shoot down my drone if it flew above them. I just said....see ya in court!
Knuckle draggers..........

[stephen426]

I have a 1 Watt Laser. If I had a drone hovering over my daughters, I would use the laser to damage the camera, but I probably wouldn't shoot it down with my shotgun. I have a fairly powerful air rifle that would easily take down a drone as well.

[RaySendero]

Good Judge - Good ruling!

Now if we could just get more like him,
Such that when drone operators sue they will also pay the court costs

We will then have a very target rich environment
with a bonus for accuracy.



.

[44 AMP]

There are a number of things being said that don't seem to add up. About the only thing not in dispute is that a gun was fired in an area where firing guns is prohibited.

I do find it dubious that a drone was shot down with #8 shot at a height of 200 (or 272??) feet. Possible? I suppose, but birdshot at 70 or 90 YARDS???

Something doesn't seem to add up here.

anyone else remember when "drones" were just RC aircraft??

edit to add:

I spoke with a friend about this, and he brought up the question, about the altitude of the drone, and GPS, and I'm curious, because he felt that the height of 200 (272?) might have been height above sea level, not height above the ground.

Anyone know if that's a possibility??

[pnac]

I agree with 44AMP, that's one helluva shotgun!

[dakota.potts]

I didn't consider whether that could have been height above sea level, and if it is it would bring up the question of height above the property.

The lawyer for the drone operator points to an online hunter safety course that establishes dangerous distance for #8 shot at well over 500 feet. Considering the drone appears to be molded plastic with thin carbon fiber propellers, it seems to be it would only need a good solid hit to cripple a propeller, given carbon's propensity to break due to its rigidity.

[KyJim]

As to height above sea level: "Bullitt county is in the Western Knobs region of Kentucky. The elevation in the county ranges from 385 to 998 feet above sea level." http://www.kyatlas.com/21029.html

[dakota.potts]

A big concern of mine is that we're allowing fear of spying "if a drone was spying on my daughter..." to replace the burden of actually proving such. A big problem with the decision in this case for me is that it doesn't seem like the actual factual evidence was considered in the case and that the standard was lower because of the capability that it could invade privacy.

I struggle to come up with a parallel because drones that can operate far away from the physical control of their owner are different than most, but it seems that the burden is viewed differently by nature of it being a drone.

If I were to place a camera with a high magnification lens in a place of public access (as it seems the air space in this case was), would someone be justified in shooting the camera because they thought it might be pointing in a direction to take illicit pictures of a person?

What if, instead of a drone allegedly peeping at the sunbathing daughter, a tree house in the adjacent yard allowed residents to look over the fence and see the same? Would the person in question then have a right to demand the tree house come down?

To me, it seems like allowing wanton destruction of private property under a situation with a very low burden of evidence.

[Tinbucket]

If it has a camera and over my property and lingers, it is suspect.
They are not the same category as model remote controlled airplanes, of ten years ago.
They have cameras so they can see what there is over your property, through your windows etc.
Privacy trumps curiosity or nefarious intent. Drone shot down game over.
If it is my neighbor that I know, I'll let it be.
Don't be surprised that a lot of stuff is or will be showing up on the net, invading your privacy and perhaps embarrassing.
If you can build a ten watt laser you can but the camera out.

[44 AMP]

I struggle to come up with a parallel because drones that can operate far away from the physical control of their owner are different than most, but it seems that the burden is viewed differently by nature of it being a drone.

As noted, we don't currently have a law or court ruling specifying just where in the air over your property you rights end. Its wonderful new technology, opening up its own can of worms.

Manned aircraft have restrictions about minimum altitude, registration numbers, licensed pilots, and the FAA (and possibly other) government agencies to enforce the law. A manned helicopter hovering over your sunbathing daughter can be reported to the FAA and the police.

But a drone is just a THING. And while its wanton destruction of property to the operator, its someone else's TRASH on MY PROPERTY to the landowner, and we don't have clear legal rulings on this, so far.

drones that can operate far away from the physical control of their owner

Considering the ones I have seen for sale, I think the language used here is incorrect. Drones do not operate without the physical control of their owner, they are under the control of their operator/owner. What they do is operate far away from the physical LOCATION of their owner.

Where is this going to take us in the long run, I wonder? Also remember that this ruling happened in Kentucky. Where a peeping tom might wind up with a butt full of rock salt and a judge ruling it justified. One might get a much different judge's ruling in CA or NJ.

I am having visions of estes model rockets being made into anti drone SAM batteries....or perhaps something more modern, anti-drone drones...

there's just so much possible now that we're in the 21st century...

[JohnKSa]

Drones do not operate without the physical control of their owner, they are under the control of their operator/owner.

Although it seems unlikely in this case, some drones can be programmed to perform a certain flight path and then can operate autonomously until that flight path is completed. I suppose that could include flying to a specified point, aiming a camera straight down, hovering for a specified amount of time and then returning to the takeoff point.

[ThesNazud]

Model rocket anti-drone SAMs... 44amp, you might be on to a good market idea in today's society...

[JimPage]

No one was hurt, the man accomplished his purpose. We do not know all the facts. Presumably the judge knows more about the case than we do. I'll agree with the judge. I'm just sorry the father had the expense of all the legal mess.

[TXAZ]

Many jurisdictions have Peeping Tom ordinances, and more are setting up anti drone ordinances. No law guarantees compliance, but enough drone peepers could, in some areas, could lead to a private right of action. It wouldn't surprise me to see no drone bag limits in places that finally have had enough.

[Aguila Blanca]

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.

Peter Sachs, a Connecticut-based attorney, private investigator and drone advocate, concurred.

"There is no defined aerial trespass law," he told Ars. "You do not own the airspace over your own property."

If Mr. Sachs is an attorney in Connecticut, he should certainly be aware that Yale University and the City of New Haven (Connecticut) own and operate a parking garage built over what was supposed to be a highway spur off Interstate 95. The garage is widely known as the "air rights" garage because it was built in air space "owned" by the State of Connecticut over the highway right-of-way.

If you don't own the air space, how is that you can build a skyscraper that may extend 500 or more feet into the air space above your property?

Dakota, where did you see that the drone operator is going to take it to a grand jury? He doesn't have that option. A grand jury is a criminal proceeding, and it seems the criminal case has now been disposed of. The drone owner may sue in civil court, but that would not involve a grand jury.

Originally Posted by Dakota.Potts

The lawyer for the drone operator points to an online hunter safety course that establishes dangerous distance for #8 shot at well over 500 feet.

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

[lockedcj7]

Would the shooter shoot down the channel 6 news copter at 200 feet above his home, or even 50 feet above his home?

Not the same thing. News helicopters have to obey FAA regulations or the pilot faces severe penalties, including the loss of their license (and job). CFR 91.119 (c) "...the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person..." and that only applies to sparsely populated areas. The minimums for congested areas are higher. If you do see a news helicopter operating lower, take a picture and report it.

Every aircraft has to display their N-number which allows a complaint to be filed. Heck, you can go to the FAA website yourself and look up who the aircraft is registered to. It's a simple matter for an investigator to figure out who was flying it on that day, at that time.

Trying to figure out who is operating a drone, and hold them responsible for any problems they cause, is virtually impossible. Unfortunately, some drone operators think they can do whatever they want and they are causing big problems for responsible drone owners.

Kind of like irresponsible and criminal gun owners.

[Mr. Hill]

I wonder if the judge held the airspace immediately above the land was part of the land. And whether the use of force as self-help by a landowner against a tresspasser was justified. Kentucky law, I have no idea. Interesting though.

[FITASC]

Possible? I suppose, but birdshot at 70 or 90 YARDS???

Absolutely, I break clay targets at 70 yards readily with 7.5 or 8s. Drones aren't that much tougher.

As to airspace - when I lived out West the utility I worked for had to run a transmission line over the UP's railroad tracks . We had to pay "rent" on the airspace above the tracks that our lines used. In that part of the West, they owned every other section on both sides of the tracks.

[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.