PDA

View Full Version : When can a police drone fly over your property?


mud99
02-09-2012, 12:02 PM
When can a police drone fly over your property?

Are their limitations on height, distance, private areas, etc?

And under what circumstances can you legally take action to remove it from your property?

yellowfin
02-09-2012, 12:04 PM
It's an unlawful entry onto property. Deal with as appropriately. Which police have drones?

mud99
02-09-2012, 12:05 PM
*6) The suggesting or advocating of illegal activities is not allowed.*
*The suggesting or advocating of illegal activities is not allowed. It is
understood that some things may be said in jest, if there is a question of
intent your post will be removed until we can make sure it was in jest.
Repeated suggesting or advocating of illegal activities will result in
first a warning, then time off and finally closure of the account.*

rplusplus
02-09-2012, 12:07 PM
When can a police drone fly over your property?

Are their limitations on height, distance, private areas, etc?

And under what circumstances can you legally take action to remove it from your property?

IANAL... just googled and found an interesting article... may not answer all but it looks like they can fly as much as they want to.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1117/can-i-declare-a-no-flight-zone-over-my-house

mud99
02-09-2012, 12:07 PM
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/check-out-texas%E2%80%99-new-grenade-launcher-equipped-police-drone-in-action/

goldrush
02-09-2012, 12:08 PM
Whenever it wants. Courts will say you have no expectation of privacy for things done in the open. If you act to preserve your privacy by erecting a canopy, courts will find you a terror suspect.

rplusplus
02-09-2012, 12:11 PM
Have you seen what the government can see by satellite? Drones... meh.

mud99
02-09-2012, 12:11 PM
So by that logic, I can build a drone and hover it next to my neighbors window? Their must be some limit.

yellowfin
02-09-2012, 12:12 PM
Whenever it wants. Courts will say you have no expectation of privacy for things done in the open. If you act to preserve your privacy by erecting a canopy, courts will find you a terror suspect.

Or a greenhouse gardener.

1stGenRex
02-09-2012, 12:32 PM
Or a greenhouse gardener.

You must mean pot grower.

hammerhead_77
02-09-2012, 12:36 PM
So by that logic, I can build a drone and hover it next to my neighbors window? Their must be some limit.

No, you can't build a drone and fly it...well, much of anywhere. Police can fly over and stare in your neighbors window, and yours, and mine...

glockman19
02-09-2012, 12:49 PM
Sounds like a new reality series "Drone Wars".

Weekly Dogfights between LE & Civilian drones...

hammerhead_77
02-09-2012, 12:52 PM
Hellls, yeah! I'll buy tickets to that one!! Battle Bots aerial edition - American Idol won't stand a chance in the ratings.

GrizzlyGuy
02-09-2012, 1:03 PM
The airspace above your house is regulated by the FAA. When Obama signs this bill, expect to see many more drones in the future: Bill Authorizes Use of Unmanned Drones in U.S. Airspace (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/10807-bill-authorizes-use-of-unmanned-drones-in-us-airspace)

Big Brother is set to adopt a new form of surveillance after a bill passed by Congress will require the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to open U.S. airspace to drone flights under a new four-year plan. The bill, which passed the House last week and received bipartisan approval in the Senate on Monday, will convert radar to an air traffic control system based on GPS technology, shifting the country to an age where satellites are central to air traffic control and unmanned drones glide freely throughout U.S. airspace... The FAA Reauthorization Act, which awaits a signature from President Obama, requires the FAA to establish regulations for the testing and licensing of commercial drones, as well as expediting the authorization process for the use of drones by police and other agencies.

Saym14
02-09-2012, 1:03 PM
the courts have rules that you have no privacy from a police helicoptor flying over so drones should be the same.

goldrush
02-09-2012, 1:07 PM
So by that logic, I can build a drone and hover it next to my neighbors window? Their must be some limit.

There is a limit: you can't do it.

If you're not a cop, you're little people.

scarville
02-09-2012, 1:16 PM
Any time they want to. What are you going to do about it, little person? :TFH:

mud99
02-09-2012, 1:33 PM
I think I found at least part of my answer. For something to be allowed to fly, it has to be registered with the FAA and have a tail number, or otherwise fall under an exception.

It is legal for anything with a tail number, and also various manned ultralights, to overfly private property as long as they maintain 500 foot altitude, or are taking off or landing.

Remote control aircraft under 50 pounds do not require FAA approval or a tail number.
Remote control aircraft are not legal to fly over private property at any altitude without permission of the owner.

The way I read the various laws, if any sort of *unmanned* aircraft were to fly over your property, at any altitude, and did not have a tail number, you could treat it as any other unwanted item on your property, as it is either a model vehicle or an illegal aircraft.

Whether or not it has police markings seems to be mostly irrelevant as many remote control vehicles are fashioned to resemble military vehicles.

What I do not know is what rights you have to remove/keep/destroy an unwanted item that has entered your property.

tzotzo
02-09-2012, 1:33 PM
You can bank on drone technology moving into the LE realm as the tech is getting more mature and real cheap. It will happen and within ten years you may even have autonomous drone swarms patrolling cities every night. Nice thing is they can be pretty quiet if they electronically powered, which might also be a bad thing since you won't know they are loitering overhead. Brave new world.

xLusi0n
02-09-2012, 1:37 PM
I guess the question should be: how are you going to get rid of the drone if it's hovering or flying ~500 feet above your house?

rplusplus
02-09-2012, 1:42 PM
...Remote control aircraft under 50 pounds do not require FAA approval or a tail number.
Remote control aircraft are not legal to fly over private property at any altitude without permission of the owner.

...

From what I've seen Mil drones have BUSER #'s (Mil version of a Tail Number)

mud99
02-09-2012, 1:43 PM
Maybe build my own drone and program it to follow the other one around?

As an FYI, 500 feet is 166 yards. I can't say more than that as I would be violating rule 6 of the calguns forums...

I guess the question should be: how are you going to get rid of the drone if it's hovering or flying ~500 feet above your house?

mud99
02-09-2012, 1:45 PM
You are correct! The military puts tail numbers on all of their drones thereby making them legitimate aircraft.

Will Joe LEO muddle through all the FAA paperwork and inspections to procure a tail number?

From what I've seen Mil drones have BUSER #'s (Mil version of a Tail Number)

gatesbox
02-09-2012, 1:46 PM
I guess the question should be: how are you going to get rid of the drone if it's hovering or flying ~500 feet above your house?

gonna have to use one of those assault rifles that can drop an airplane out of the sky I suppose.....

[moderators note: not condoning illegal activity but making light of the anti-gun lobbies FUD about rifles that can bring down aircraft]

zhyla
02-09-2012, 1:47 PM
As an FYI, 500 feet is 166 yards. I can't say more than that as I would be violating rule 6 of the calguns forums...

Because it's somehow useful to point out that you could deliberately damage police property if you wanted to?

mud99
02-09-2012, 1:52 PM
No, I was merely noting that is very easy to convert between two imperial units of measure.

I think drones are neat, I just need to know how far away they are so I can focus my spotting scope properly while I casually watch them...

Because it's somehow useful to point out that you could deliberately damage police property if you wanted to?

goldrush
02-09-2012, 1:54 PM
You can bank on drone technology moving into the LE realm as the tech is getting more mature and real cheap. It will happen and within ten years you may even have autonomous drone swarms patrolling cities every night. Nice thing is they can be pretty quiet if they electronically powered, which might also be a bad thing since you won't know they are loitering overhead. Brave new world.

They're planning on moving directly into home-entering and eye-scanning spiders which you will have no right to refuse entry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=901lYbPmqu4

llamatrnr
02-09-2012, 1:57 PM
When can a police drone fly over your property?

Are their limitations on height, distance, private areas, etc?

And under what circumstances can you legally take action to remove it from your property?

:smilielol5::rofl2::rofl:

goldrush
02-09-2012, 2:07 PM
You are correct! The military puts tail numbers on all of their drones thereby making them legitimate aircraft.

Will Joe LEO muddle through all the FAA paperwork and inspections to procure a tail number?

When he gets a DHS grant giving him the equipment, he sure will.

Most police departments are looking for every excuse to increase aviation budgets. These drones give cops everything they want: lots of surveillance without doing any real work or breaking a sweat.

LikeAllGuns
02-09-2012, 2:15 PM
You think you have privacy from the air. Dream on we lost that a long time ago.. We loose wrights every year...

WTSGDYBBR
02-09-2012, 2:27 PM
Drone's ? Moving targets ?

Timbob55
02-09-2012, 2:35 PM
Have you seen what the government can see by satellite? Drones... meh.

+1 on that.

jwkincal
02-09-2012, 2:35 PM
(slightly malfunctioning) HAM radio transmitter? Commercial heliarc welder? Broad-spectrum chemical MASER?

OK, that last one is a bit of a reach...

Once I drove up to Mt. Wilson, the remote for the car alarm was completely inoperable in the wash of EM noise. Make enough of it and you'll have as much privacy as you need... at least until the FCC finds out.

RobG
02-09-2012, 3:49 PM
So the airspace above your property belongs to you? Didn't know that:facepalm:

odysseus
02-09-2012, 3:57 PM
The airspace above your property is not subject to 4-A search or Warrant. Just like mentioned already, satellites and aircraft have been doing this for quite a long time. Now of course Drones do add more intense proliferation of 24x7 surveillance and open automated tracking by law enforcement upon citizens (like the recorded and database stored scanning of all cars operating on the road now in some areas), as we see the next chapter of their use in the world increase.

Now saying that, I loathe it operating outside of specific tactical use on already warranted individuals or for border, or open sea op surveillance. I know I know, the usual supportive crowd will say, "if you aren't doing anything illegal, what are you worried about?" - but then those people don't have a total grasp on what individual Liberty actually is. People should be concerned, and vigilant to put these things to test.

jdouglas
02-09-2012, 3:57 PM
I just love the loss of privacy. Each year the government comes up with something new that makes me feel so much safer and happier. Now I'll be able to live in peace, knowing that if there is a bad guy in the area, the police are watching his every move.

Not.

POLICESTATE
02-09-2012, 3:58 PM
I saw if they're low enough to reach with a baseball bat or a tennis racket just swat them out of the sky. Above that there's not much you can do.

old151
02-09-2012, 4:07 PM
It's an unlawful entry onto property. Deal with as appropriately. Which police have drones?

Take a look

http://privateinvesigations.blogspot.com/2011/11/la-lancaster-approves-police.html

BigDogatPlay
02-09-2012, 4:34 PM
Whenever it wants. Courts will say you have no expectation of privacy for things done in the open.

^^^ This ^^^

It's a long standing principle that if the officer (or drone) is in a place where they have every right to be, then the eye can not trespass. What they can see, they can write a search warrant and seize. A drone is no different from a LEA helicopter or airplane, such as a CAMP or DFG flight surveying for illegal activity. IIRC (my training on this was a long time ago) they have to maintain 1000 feet of altitude, and can use as much magnification as they can carry.

The airspace above you, more than arm's reach anyway, does not belong to you as part of your private property rights. Airspace is like the sea and is navigable to anyone with the proper equipment and licensure to operate that equipment.

I also agree with Odysseus... not at all in favor of open ended, let's go see what we can see, surveillance flights.

proclone1
02-09-2012, 4:36 PM
The airspace above your house is regulated by the FAA. When Obama signs this bill, expect to see many more drones in the future: Bill Authorizes Use of Unmanned Drones in U.S. Airspace (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/10807-bill-authorizes-use-of-unmanned-drones-in-us-airspace)

Wouldn't that be just wonderful. Imagine installing A/V surveillance cameras on every streetpost in the city, we'll all be so safe!!

Fellblade
02-09-2012, 4:39 PM
It is legal for anything with a tail number, and also various manned ultralights, to overfly private property as long as they maintain 500 foot altitude, or are taking off or landing.
Its actually a little more than that. Over "congested" areas, the minimum is 1000ft vertical and 2000ft horizontal of the largest obstacle. Congested area isn't very well defined, but suffice to say a neighborhood would defiantly fall into that category.
I'm worried about unmanned drones crashing into general aviation aircraft. Not all aircraft require transponders to report their position, most gliders and balloons for example.
What's next? "To facilitate drone overflights, the following regulations are now being placed on General Aviation:"

odysseus
02-09-2012, 4:43 PM
I'm worried about unmanned drones crashing into general aviation aircraft. Not all aircraft require transponders to report their position, most gliders and balloons for example.
What's next? "To facilitate drone overflights, the following regulations are now being placed on General Aviation:"

Me too, and I suspect that something might come down to more regulate general aviation. It is an area that fights break out on, and if it weren't for the lobbying force and lawyers of general aviation, a lot harder it would be to practice your liberty to fly.

There must be some protocols on the drones about how they handle general aviation, as of course their size is too small for effective visual, and I doubt the operators are communicating on local channels... I don't know...

Ron-Solo
02-09-2012, 4:48 PM
It's an unlawful entry onto property. Deal with as appropriately. Which police have drones?

False.

:TFH::TFH::TFH::TFH:

People need to add another layer, IMO.

Connor P Price
02-09-2012, 4:52 PM
The airspace above your home is considered a public highway. So long as aircraft fly high enough that they are outside of the immediate reaches above your home required by safety, you've got nothing to say as far as property rights that are concerned.

If the aircraft is being used by the government to record video or otherwise search your property you may have 4th amendment protection.

BigDogatPlay
02-09-2012, 4:54 PM
If the aircraft is being used by the government to record video or otherwise search your property you may have 4th amendment protection.

Go back to my post on page 1. So long as the aircraft is above the required minimum altitude they can record anything they see. There is no protection, and no REP. It's the plain view doctrine at work.

Connor P Price
02-09-2012, 5:07 PM
BigDogatPlay- That's a solid argument, but I think it would need to be litigated before we can be sure. Dispatching a drone specifically to search property which might not be seen otherwise may be seen as a search. For the plain view doctrine to apply, an officer must have legal physical access to the evidence in question. I'm not certain that arises from a search by a drone.

I'm thinking this one could potentially go either way.

The War Wagon
02-09-2012, 5:14 PM
When can a police drone fly over your property?

When PIGS FLY!!! :tt2: GET it?!?! :facepalm:

BWAH HA HA HA HA HA HA!!! :rofl:

I kill me... :D

ojisan
02-09-2012, 5:20 PM
Thank you for the comic relief!
:D

Now back to figuring out how to put a thermal imaging proof tarp over my whole property.
:TFH:

POLICESTATE
02-09-2012, 5:22 PM
Wouldn't that be just wonderful. Imagine installing A/V surveillance cameras on every streetpost in the city, we'll all be so safe!!

They do this in the UK. Some cities in the USA have explored this option, it's a wee bit expensive though :D

There are ways to mess with cameras, a mirror positioned in the window to flash a camera with sunlight for instance. I don't believe that is against the law, well it would become so I'm sure in due course.

Still, I think the youth in America would vandalize those things anyway, it's what happened in France when they started putting up speed cameras on their highways, people just wrecked them.

OTOH, it seems people in France care more for their limited freedoms than we do ours so who knows for sure?

Databyter
02-09-2012, 5:29 PM
When can a police drone fly over your property?

Are their limitations on height, distance, private areas, etc?

And under what circumstances can you legally take action to remove it from your property?

Q When can a police drone fly over your property?
A When I am not firing rockets or shotgun pellets into the air.

Q Are their limitations on height, distance, private areas, etc?
A I usually like the woman to be shorter and nearby. Private areas are always in season.

Q Under what circumstances can you legally take action to remove it from your property?
A When it crashlands into your car.

Sorry for the tongue and cheek response. :D

jwkincal
02-09-2012, 5:33 PM
Now back to figuring out how to put a thermal imaging proof tarp over my whole property.

Do you know anyone who has ever used a thermal imaging scope? They really can't see though roofs and walls and stuff like that. Especially if you have insulated your house properly for heating and cooling purposes. All that stuff you see in the movies where the guy in the helo is telling the ground team, "there's 5 people in the house, two in the back bedroom, three in the kitchen.." is pure hollywood fiction.

ETA: what would concern me is when the local LE decide they need this: http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/wasp.html

ojisan
02-09-2012, 5:47 PM
^ My comment was a joke...however...
My Dad used to work for the Skunk Works...U2 and SR71 spyplane stuff.
He told me how the Russians would hang tarps over their submarine pens to hide the subs from satellite and airplane photos.
When we got thermal imaging, we could see through the tarps.
When the Russians figured out we could see the subs again, they started constantly pumping cold sea water over the tarps to defeat the thermal imaging.

So...back to my thermal-proof tarp idea again...
:1eye:

jwkincal
02-09-2012, 5:58 PM
^ My comment was a joke...however...
My Dad used to work for the Skunk Works...U2 and SR71 spyplane stuff.
He told me how the Russians would hang tarps over their submarine pens to hide the subs from satellite and airplane photos.
When we got thermal imaging, we could see through the tarps.
When the Russians figured out we could see the subs again, they started constantly pumping cold sea water over the tarps to defeat the thermal imaging.

So...back to my thermal-proof tarp idea again...


Heh heh... my dad used to support a bunch of those programs. He talked about the guys showing up to buy these exotic parts made of rare metals in a beat-up pickup truck, paying cash for high-dollar aerospace components, then driving them around the city for days before taking them to Burbank (or Edwards or Groom Lake or whatever). Funny stuff.

Anyway, I think you want mylar with quilting for that application...

Kid Stanislaus
02-09-2012, 5:58 PM
Whenever it wants. Courts will say you have no expectation of privacy for things done in the open. If you act to preserve your privacy by erecting a canopy, courts will find you a terror suspect.

I which case a drone with a bomb will take out said canopy, and probably your house along with both houses ajoining it!!:(

Kid Stanislaus
02-09-2012, 6:01 PM
I guess the question should be: how are you going to get rid of the drone if it's hovering or flying ~500 feet above your house?

OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! Yes, that is an intriquing question, isen't it?:D

Kid Stanislaus
02-09-2012, 6:06 PM
You think you have privacy from the air. Dream on we lost that a long time ago.. We loose wrights every year...



Yeah, and we lost the Wright brothers DECADES ago!!:D

Falstaff
02-09-2012, 6:49 PM
Best way to deal with this is by doing what Copwatch does on a grass roots widespread basis. Example: When the supreme court ruled that use of thermal imaging cams to spot houses likely to be growing illegal plants required a warrant. The court said you can't just fly over the city and raid houses solely on the observation that they were emitting more heat than their neighbors. Of course, the various police departments just do it anyway, as apparently the courts jurisdiction is not recognised by them. (given their actions, what other conclusion can I reach?) ANyways, Copwatch decided to plant a legal plant in a house they rented, hilarity ensued. There was nothing else in the house but a plant, a large light and an extensive secure source surveillance system. Soon a group of men knocked on the front door with a 60lb metal pipe and and proceeded to slice the pie in an otherwise vacant house (1 plant, 1 light, 6 cameras) BUSTED!

So what do we do about the flood of drone aircraft (many almost indistinguishable from large insects) soon to cloud our skys in their search for the ever elusive, White Al Qaeada? Well, remember how the british convinced the germans that the allies had more divisions, tanks, etc than they actually did? (Carboard and inflatable tanks and artillery pieces, phantom division patch insignias, etc) perhaps we could flood the drone armys with useless information, visual cycle wasters a' la carnivore (remember when FBI first unleashed carnivore back in the 90's, where they scanned all email and usenet postings for keywords like "ar-15" "waco" "ruby" etc etc. People started putting the entire keyword list in their sig lines so EVERY post got a hit, this made the Carnivore software useless for awhile.

Another very simple thing is to pay cash for everything you possibly can, they hate that, and per the FBI; paying cash for starbucks, using proxy search engines like startpage, and making frequent references to the constitution are all signs of White Al Qadae!! But what if we ALL behave like White Al CIAda? (ie; pay cash, respect the US Constitution, build gardens and greenhouses, eschew social media, etc etc.) Then what? They wont be able to separate the wheat from the chaff!

Of course technology like autonomous drones is a 2 edged sword. Perhaps, while its still legal (rule 6 notwithstanding) we could adopt the drone technology and make our own. Afterall, the expensive part (research and development) has been done already, soon if this technology follows the same pattern as most others, we'll all have access to cheap little drones!. They might all start bumping into each other, one could envision a scenario where multitudes of cheap 99 cent drones (smart pebbles!) begin accidentally bumping into $300K airborne surveillance platforms...

scarville
02-09-2012, 7:05 PM
This will only get cheaper and smaller:

http://www.diydrones.com/profiles/blogs/ardupilot-mega-home-page
http://www.diydrones.com/profiles/blogs/apm-2-0-release

That is both good news and bad news.

GrizzlyGuy
02-09-2012, 7:24 PM
I think I found at least part of my answer. For something to be allowed to fly, it has to be registered with the FAA and have a tail number, or otherwise fall under an exception.

It is legal for anything with a tail number, and also various manned ultralights, to overfly private property as long as they maintain 500 foot altitude, or are taking off or landing.

That sounds right. I once conducted aerial surveillance of MC Hammer's old mansion in Fremont. I had launched from Mission Peak in my hang glider and spotted what appeared to be a scantily clad and attractive female figure lying motionless next to one of his swimming pools.

As a good samaritan I felt duty bound to investigate further so as to make an assessment of her health and welfare. After silently loitering in the airspace above her for a good long while, making observations and forming impressions... she finally spotted me and waved. I waved down to her, then promptly made a beeline back to the ridge before MC could come out and try anything "funky".

Fuhget about the drones, its those manned ultralight aircraft without noisy engines that will get you every time. :D

Scotty
02-09-2012, 7:31 PM
Some of you are assuming they need to be over your house to spy on your. WRONG. The current camera technology allows them to watch you from a mile away.

I worked with a helicopter test pilot who would watch his daughter in the playground at school from over a mile away while testing a LE helicopter.

The current crop of drone pilots are not real pilots. They tend to crash a lot. Just wait till the first one ends up in a populated area. That'll put an end to things.

Paul S
02-09-2012, 9:13 PM
I which case a drone with a bomb will take out said canopy, and probably your house along with both houses ajoining it!!:(

Shades of the effort to oust those in the MOVE movement in Philadelphia years ago. Satchel charge from helo. Ended up burning down several row houses. :mad:

BigDogatPlay
02-09-2012, 11:17 PM
BigDogatPlay- That's a solid argument, but I think it would need to be litigated before we can be sure. Dispatching a drone specifically to search property which might not be seen otherwise may be seen as a search. For the plain view doctrine to apply, an officer must have legal physical access to the evidence in question. I'm not certain that arises from a search by a drone.

I'm thinking this one could potentially go either way.

I think it's not going to go anything but against your argument. Naked eye aerial surveillance targeting a specific individual without warrant was litigated in the 1980's, California v. Ciraolo (http://openjurist.org/476/us/207/california-v-ciraolo). From the syllabus:

(b) On the record here, respondent's expectation of privacy from all observations of his backyard was unreasonable. That the backyard and its crop were within the "curtilage" of respondent's home did not itself bar all police observation. The mere fact that an individual has taken measures to restrict some views of his activities does not preclude an officer's observation from a public vantage point where he has a right to be and which renders the activities clearly visible. The police observations here took place within public navigable airspace, in a physically nonintrusive manner. The police were able to observe the plants readily discernible to the naked eye as marijuana, and it was irrelevant that the observation from the airplane was directed at identifying the plants and that the officers were trained to recognize marijuana. Any member of the public flying in this airspace who cared to glance down could have seen everything that the officers observed. The Fourth Amendment simply does not require police traveling in the public airways at 1,000 feet to obtain a warrant in order to observe what is visible to the naked eye.

This is still operative case law to my knowledge, but I've been out of the game for a couple of years now. Basically, if the officer can see it, and it was reasonable for him to be at the place where he did see it, no REP... essentially plain view doctrine. I believe there have been additional cases since which cover cameras, binoculars, etc. but I don't have Lexis Nexis available to me right now.

Maestro Pistolero
02-09-2012, 11:43 PM
The police were able to observe the plants readily discernible to the naked eye The Fourth Amendment simply does not require police traveling in the public airways at 1,000 feet to obtain a warrant in order to observe what is visible to the naked eye.The camera on a drone is not the naked eye, anymore than a conversation overheard via a bug on your phone line constitutes earshot.

redcliff
02-10-2012, 12:10 AM
A little bit of misinformation in this thread, so heres the Federal Aviation Regulations regarding minimum operating heights. Basically helicopters can be operated at almost any altitude which doesn't create a hazard:

Sec. 91.119 — Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

(d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface—

(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and

(2) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section.

SVT-40
02-10-2012, 12:38 AM
So much TFH going on. Besides LEO's have better surveillance capabilities currently without drones. Here's a pic from back in 2001 when I flew as a crew member on a pretty sophisticated surveillance bird. Notice the 5316ft on the right side of the pic? That photo was taken from over one mile away while traveling at 184 knots.

The pic is a low resolution screen capture and not indicative of actual image quality. Besides today the images are DVD quality.

The camera used for this pic also had great thermal imaging capabilities also.

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w201/SVT-40/Scans%20%20Photos%20ect/FLIR01422-1.jpg

odysseus
02-10-2012, 12:51 AM
Besides LEO's have better surveillance capabilities currently without drones.

Absolutely. However the question in regard to drones is more sophisticated and nuanced. The autonomous automated nature of drone surveillance coupled with increasing high rendering ability is something that is going to push concepts of what law enforcement's mission is. Pull this also with the cutting edge trends in civilian LE of automated systems that are storing virtual tracking information of "public" information on servers - networked, and accessible, again automated and "non targeted" (en mass) via a web of cameras and integrated systems, and well the picture is perhaps an important one for people to test.

It's always the case, technology always is faster - and as decades go by exponentially faster to execute as time progresses, than the system of civil government to react to it and public awareness. While of course there is the benefit, needed, to improve criminal capture which is of course the big selling points of these very expensive tools, they are not outside the realm of specific abuse - to then also a larger narrative in regards to individual Liberty and societal freedom - which also includes some of the better surveillance capabilities you elude to as well.

sreiter
02-10-2012, 1:04 AM
Do you know anyone who has ever used a thermal imaging scope? They really can't see though roofs and walls and stuff like that. Especially if you have insulated your house properly for heating and cooling purposes. All that stuff you see in the movies where the guy in the helo is telling the ground team, "there's 5 people in the house, two in the back bedroom, three in the kitchen.." is pure hollywood fiction.

ETA: what would concern me is when the local LE decide they need this: http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/wasp.html

false - a friend of mine works at pt magu - 15 years ago he told me his company developed real time imaging that saw through 5 feet of concrete

sreiter
02-10-2012, 1:07 AM
I think it's not going to go anything but against your argument. Naked eye aerial surveillance targeting a specific individual without warrant was litigated in the 1980's, California v. Ciraolo (http://openjurist.org/476/us/207/california-v-ciraolo). From the syllabus:



This is still operative case law to my knowledge, but I've been out of the game for a couple of years now. Basically, if the officer can see it, and it was reasonable for him to be at the place where he did see it, no REP... essentially plain view doctrine. I believe there have been additional cases since which cover cameras, binoculars, etc. but I don't have Lexis Nexis available to me right now.
well, if speeding tickets from overhead planes are legal....after all, how else they gonna get your tag number unless they use some sort of magnifying something

goldrush
02-10-2012, 5:29 AM
When PIGS FLY!!! :tt2: GET it?!?! :facepalm:

BWAH HA HA HA HA HA HA!!! :rofl:

I kill me... :D

F.......T........W!

goldrush
02-10-2012, 5:37 AM
The current crop of drone pilots are not real pilots. They tend to crash a lot. Just wait till the first one ends up in a populated area. That'll put an end to things.

Nope. They'll see it as a sacrifice in the homeland war on terror, and they'll elevate the injured to hero status. The ones who reject the label and protest will be tagged with "why were they watching you, in the first place?" Stasi meets psyops.

So much TFH going on. Besides LEO's have better surveillance capabilities currently without drones. Here's a pic from back in 2001 when I flew as a crew member on a pretty sophisticated surveillance bird. Notice the 5316ft on the right side of the pic? That photo was taken from over one mile away while traveling at 184 knots.

The pic is a low resolution screen capture and not indicative of actual image quality. Besides today the images are DVD quality.

The camera used for this pic also had great thermal imaging capabilities also.


Could you see a fellow cop's motorcycle parked outside his girlfriends' house? Did you go to silent mode?

http://www.beyondhollywood.com/stillsx/2008/02/roy-scheider-blue-thunder.jpg

Catch you later.

rudigan
02-10-2012, 6:14 AM
This will only get cheaper and smaller:

http://www.diydrones.com/profiles/blogs/ardupilot-mega-home-page
http://www.diydrones.com/profiles/blogs/apm-2-0-release

That is both good news and bad news.

Yes, naturally followed by them becoming much more prevalent. Heard an interesting piece on this on NPR Science Friday (I know, but pick through the bias and there are some good stories/info), and it sounds like unmanned commercial aircraft are just around the corner. Kind of cool, kind of creepy.

Sooner than you think:

"The FAA is also required under the bill to provide military, commercial and privately-owned drones with expanded access to U.S. airspace currently reserved for manned aircraft by Sept. 30, 2015. That means permitting unmanned drones controlled by remote operators on the ground to fly in the same airspace as airliners, cargo planes, business jets and private aircraft.

http://www.diydrones.com/profiles/blog/show?id=705844%3ABlogPost%3A778055&commentId=705844%3AComment%3A778688&xg_source=activity

haole_50
02-10-2012, 7:28 AM
I'm getting me one of the "camo" tarps like Cheech & Chong had in "Nice Dreams"! Can't see what you can see!

VaderSpade
02-10-2012, 8:31 AM
https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/02/09-6#.TzUZmassnD4.facebook

This says drones under 4.4 pound MUST fly UNDER 400 ft??
https://www.commondreams.org/sites/commondreams.org/files/imce-images/drone-bird_1925091c_0.jpg

VaderSpade
02-10-2012, 8:36 AM
I have heard that they are going to start using drones a lot up here, there was a news article recently that said a drone company from NC is moving to northern CA. They talked about the open space needed for testing, and focused on the jobs it would ceate.

Living in the hills and on top of a hill at that, I will say I see problems coming.
The helicopters are BAD up here and getting worse every year. Being at the top of a hill they usually barely clear my house and pay NO attention to any “safe” ceiling.

glockman19
02-10-2012, 9:00 AM
This will end up being a hackers wet dream...:p

"We don't need no stinking bullets"... ;)

All we need is a little code and the frequency they transmit on... :D

scarville
02-10-2012, 9:07 AM
This will end up being a hackers wet dream...:p

"We don't need no stinking bullets"... ;)

All we need is a little code and the frequency they transmit on... :D
I do wonder what will happen when the motto, "all dot-gov data nodes must die" is on the lips, fingers, and soldering iron of every freedom-loving hacker on the continent.

a1c
02-10-2012, 9:10 AM
Where is John Connor when you need him?

Blaze Kenobi
02-10-2012, 9:10 AM
Just cross your fingers and hope one of the new unmanned stealth drones crashes in your property..... I heard Obama will let you keep it!

Connor P Price
02-10-2012, 10:35 AM
I think it's not going to go anything but against your argument. Naked eye aerial surveillance targeting a specific individual without warrant was litigated in the 1980's, California v. Ciraolo (http://openjurist.org/476/us/207/california-v-ciraolo). From the syllabus:



This is still operative case law to my knowledge, but I've been out of the game for a couple of years now. Basically, if the officer can see it, and it was reasonable for him to be at the place where he did see it, no REP... essentially plain view doctrine. I believe there have been additional cases since which cover cameras, binoculars, etc. but I don't have Lexis Nexis available to me right now.

Brand new to me, thanks for the cite.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk

Kukuforguns
02-10-2012, 11:03 AM
The use of unmanned aircraft is governed by federal law. You can go to the FAA for the relevant regulations. I provide just a few such links:

http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/uas_faq/index.cfm?print=go
http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/reg/media/frnotice_uas.pdf
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/1ACFC3F689769A56862569E70077C9CC

While the regulations will probably evolve significantly in the short term, my bet would be that municipalities will have the right to fly unmanned aircraft for surveillance purposes. If this bothers you, get involved in local politics and form a lobbying group. The police are public servants subject to civilian control.

With respect to whether aerial surveillance constitutes a search, the answer is yes. However, it is not an unreasonable search if limited to visual surveillance (i.e., wavelengths visible to the human eye). People don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to areas that are visible to the naked eye from a vantage point where the searcher has a legal right to be. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (actually, this dealt with a phone tap, but it is the genesis of the reasonable expectation test).

If using infrared (or some other technology) to look inside a home, the search may very well be considered unreasonable which would mean that a warrant would be needed. Kyllo v. United States. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00pdf/99-8508.pdf

HBrebel
02-10-2012, 11:06 AM
Drone's ? Moving targets ?

I like it! I like it alot

HBrebel
02-10-2012, 11:09 AM
Can we please have our drone back? It fell into your back yard.

And if they can hack a drone out in the sandbox just imagine what the hackers here will do.

POLICESTATE
02-10-2012, 11:10 AM
I was just thinking about the little mini or micro drones, just grab a slingshot and some spitwads. Relive your childhood.

SFgiants105
02-10-2012, 11:19 AM
Time to start buying 1:8 scale laser-guided AA at my local hobby shop. Maybe even some 12 ga flak rounds :)

POLICESTATE
02-10-2012, 11:38 AM
Time to start buying 1:8 scale laser-guided AA at my local hobby shop. Maybe even some 12 ga flak rounds :)

Just upgrade one of these bad boys:

http://www.geekalerts.com/u/usb-rocket-launcher-cam.jpg

jwkincal
02-10-2012, 2:32 PM
false - a friend of mine works at pt magu - 15 years ago he told me his company developed real time imaging that saw through 5 feet of concrete

...and he jeopardized his security clearance, thereby his livelihood and possibly his freedom, to impress you?

I expect that it wouldn't have been a passive thermal imaging system, the wavelengths of the temperature range of the human body just aren't the right size to penetrate that way. In any case, what he said is probably true, but it does bring to mind a paraphrasing of Arthur C. Clarke: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo." Concrete is a special case and it can be formulated in many ways, some of which are remarkably transparent to certain wavelengths. (ETA: yep, radar... here's the Chinese hack on the technology http://www.nightvisioncn.com/sdp/625512/4/cp-5246844/0.html; but this particular implementation does require 60 seconds to ID a human behind 16 meters of concrete. I'd guess that by now SOCOM has fielded something more tactically relevant but Barney Fife won't have it anytime soon.)

I doubt any such high-end stuff would be available to the Fuzz for some time anyway; besides which SVT-40 probably has it right: for the really high-tech imaging they're gonna send out the chopper... so tell us, SVT-40, how well can you see through the roof of the house with that thermal imaging scope?

Lc17smp
02-10-2012, 3:25 PM
134518 My son and I will be ready for them.

BRANCHER
02-10-2012, 4:33 PM
There is already a CA SWAT team with an iPad and a modified Parrot AR Drone... http://store.apple.com/us/product/H1991ZM/A/Parrot_AR_Drone?fnode=MjUxMDA5MDg and is used for surveillance at times. I heard of it being used up to a car with a stand off to get a look (and it records too).

Mstrty
02-10-2012, 5:26 PM
Why not just go and fly it in their backyard. Dont worry just go get your own.


KOxh9dbkNT4

MUGvlMDRC98

SVT-40
02-10-2012, 5:36 PM
I doubt any such high-end stuff would be available to the Fuzz for some time anyway; besides which SVT-40 probably has it right: for the really high-tech imaging they're gonna send out the chopper... so tell us, SVT-40, how well can you see through the roof of the house with that thermal imaging scope?

Yes the "Fuzz" get the good stuff too...As I said now the images available are DVD quality....
Screw the chopper when you absolutely positively have to invade someones privacy or violate someones constitutional rights you use this.;) Thats me in front of our "clean" RC-26.

If this bird is watching you you will never know it!!!! It flies high enough so it's silent and really can't be noticed

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w201/SVT-40/Scans%20%20Photos%20ect/doc100-1-1.jpg

Another in it's non spook paint.

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w201/SVT-40/Scans%20%20Photos%20ect/110707-NG_firefighters-full-1.jpg



Thermal imaging does not truly see "through" any object. It is "Dumb" and sees only temperature at the surface of any solid object. The best Thermal imaging cameras use cooled sensors which are far far more sensitive than standard thermal imagery. A thermal image camera cannot see through roofs or glass, as it only records the temperature of the roof or glass surface and displays that as a image.

If a house is "blossoming" with heat as most grow houses do the entire house will stand out compared to others around it.

jwkincal
02-10-2012, 5:42 PM
So I assume that's millimeter-wave synthetic-aperture radar installation slung beneath the bird there? And isn't the "non-spook" bird in USAF livery?

SVT-40
02-10-2012, 6:47 PM
So I assume that's millimeter-wave synthetic-aperture radar installation slung beneath the bird there? And isn't the "non-spook" bird in USAF livery?

Yup it is....

greasemonkey
02-10-2012, 7:13 PM
Some of you act like it's news to be under surveillance from the air, that's been going on for many, many years via satellite & manned aircraft. Have a look at Patriot Technologies (http://www.ptgllc.com/). Only thing that's changing with a drone is the time-range that the bird can be airborne. The cameras are so good that the birds fly high enough, you'll never even know they're there.