Despite a 1946 United States Supreme Court Decision related to ownership of airspace above private property, the question of whether or not it’s considered trespassing if you fly over your neighbor’s property remains one that doesn’t yet have a clear answer. A federal judge recently sided with the man, who later deemed himself as the “Drone Slayer,” in a case involving a drone that was shot down while hovering over the man's sunbathing daughter.
Man Shoots Drone Out Of The Sky
In 2015, David Boggs piloted his drone over his neighbor, William Merideth’s backyard, where Merideth’s daughter was sunbathing. Merideth states that his daughter came into their home and alerted him to a drone flying overhead. After fetching his trusty twelve-gauge shotgun, Merideth proceeded to shoot the drone out of the sky.
I went and got my shotgun and I said, ‘I’m not going to do anything unless it’s directly over my property,’ Within a minute or so, here it came. It was hovering over top of my property, and I shot it out of the sky. I didn’t shoot across the road, I didn’t shoot across my neighbor’s fences, I shot directly into the air.
Apparently following shooting down the drone, Boggs approached Merideth.
I had my 40mm Glock on me and they started toward me and I told them, ‘If you cross my sidewalk, there’s gonna be another shooting,’
Long story short, after that, they took me to jail for wanton endangerment first degree and criminal mischief…because I fired the shotgun into the air.
The Lawsuit Dismissed
The 2016 lawsuit that was brought against Merideth by Boggs for shooting down his drone has recently been dismissed by Senior US District Judge, Thomas B. Russell. The judgment ruled in favor of Merideth’s motion to dismiss, finding that federal court is not the proper venue for this claim.
Boggs claimed that Merideth should pay for the damages to his drone, which he estimated a total value of $1,500. Who do you side with? Should the nosey drone pilot consider himself lucky for not being injured himself, or should he be compensated for damages to his drone?
[via arstechnica.com]
Actually, no. Part 107, the FAA regulations regarding drone usage DOES NOT prohibit flying near or over structures. While people can't just walk into your backyard. They can legally fly over it.
Now, before you jump on me for saying this. Realize this is a law that was passed. If you disagree with it, discuss it with your local counsellor.
In our state; you're not even breaking any laws by merely entering someone's yard. Trespass laws are not applied until the intruder is notified that they are not welcome. If they open a door and enter, like a gate, then they are most certainly trespassing, but just wondering into an open back yard is perfectly legal.
Do we even know what kind of drone it was other than the price? At that price it could easily have been a drone with a M4/3 or DSLR mounted on it, at which point the user could mount virtually any lens they want on it. Its not like it was a cheap drone with a webcam. Hovering low enough for a shotgun to take it down means it was quite close, all it would need would be a light plastic 50mm to easily get peeping tom footage. (not arguing that shooting it out of the sky was the right choice, just that we can't assume it had a mega super wide angle on it)
I may be wrong, but please show me where I can buy a drone capable of lifting a m4/3 for $1500, camera and lens included. That'd be a steal!
EDIT: It was in fact a Phantom P3. And the SD card is interestingly, missing.
http://www.wdrb.com/story/29675427/drone-owner-responds-to-claims-of-pri...
For reference, The Walkera QR X800 retails for just over $1600, could reasonably be found on sale for $1500 or so. It is capable of carrying a DSLR and light lens.
PS: The Phantom 3 does have interchangeable lenses but I don't think DJI sells any that are even remotely tele.
I'm no gun nut, but I wouldn't for a second buy the story that this guy with the drone wasn't scoping the girl out. Because the guy had a gun, he decided to use it. I would've also taken it down anyway I could (I don't own guns).
Ah... guns. I still don't get it.
Perverts. I don't get it.
1) Was this ever confirmed that the drone operator was being a pervert here? 2) Even so... call the cops / confront him in person / literally do anything besides discharging a weapon.
I don't know anything about drones but it's my understanding they can be operated from a great distance, making it difficult or impossible to identify/confront the pilot. As someone else noted, shooting the drone out of the sky is dangerous and foolish but, someone messes with my daughter, I'm liable to act dangerously and/or foolishly.
@Tom Lew You live in a city that has conditioned young people like you to not see the usefulness of guns by fascist politicians who have concealed carry permits and armed bodyguards. Think long and hard about that.
"...by fascist politicians who have concealed carry permits and armed bodyguards..."
...and tanks, planes, UAVs, and entire armies at their disposal, among other resources. The futile-ness of gun ownership arguments are, at best, laughable.
The utility of a gun obviously isn't limited to deterring a tyrannical government, something that in the hands of millions it can most certainly do. Thousands of people in America every year successfully defend themselves from potential harm and criminals. The utility of a gun is indisputable and obvious.
Yes, but that's not the point that you made, now was it? ;-) You're not deterring any government with your gun.
Over 300 million guns and billions of rounds of ammunition in the hands of any populace is most certainly a deterrent to any government. I say that also as retired military, and a fan of military history.
The funny part is that you're serious.
Simply be amused is not a rebuttal.
In news this morning. Three home invaders killed by homeowners son. What were you saying?
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/27/us/oklahoma-three-dead-home-burglary/
Peter, we get it, you're a gun fanatic and probably a member of the NRA. But you've take the discussion here in the article off topic my friend.
It's not off topic since the motivation to use in a gun, like in this drone scenario, is certainly affected by the value that someone sees in owning a gun.
Calling me "a gun fanatic and probably a member of the NRA" takes it off topic. Objectively, logically, factually, a person that owns a gun doesn't have to be a "gun fanatic" and they certainly don't have to be "a member of the NRA."
I own two guns, a 9mm pistol and an AR-15. Both are shot once a year, at most. Nope, not a gun fanatic. I prefer taking photos over shooting guns. But thank you for the "fanatic" insult.
One last thing, you do not equal "we." Other people here are more than capable of speaking for themselves.
You haven't denied being an NRA member so ill take that as a confirmation.
Yes, you are off topic. Your argument has drifted from the original topic specifically to do with whether or not shooting down the drone was justified to the justification of guns in general.
I'm not insulting you by calling you a fanatic. You're choosing to be insulted. It's simply a label that accurately fits people like you. For example I consider myself to be fanatical about photography - this is certainly not insulting. Given your opinions on guns I stand 100% by the label.
End of disc. WE get it.
What on earth does being an NRA member have to do with anything at all? The question that was posed in the article had to do with whether or not anyone should be compensated for losses associated with irresponsible piloting. I think it's safe to say we all have differing views regarding firearms and their use. Cheers fellas
I'm not an NRA member, but I certainly don't see anything wrong with being one. Obviously you do.
The justification of guns in general (something you obviously wish to discuss, or more accurately make snarky comments about) is obviously a part of the discussion since that *obviously* always comes up in such topics.
Besides, if you were truly concerned about the discussion going off-topic then why didn't say the same thing to the person I was responding to? Oh, that's right, because he was condemning guns in general.
Calling someone a fanatic, especially in the manner that you have, is an insult. You clearly meant to insult me. At least be honest about that. Don't worry, I'm a big boy; I can take it. I will also not respond with an insult of my own.
That you choose to call yourself "fanatical" is irrelevant. You can call yourself cupcake if you want, but I recommend not calling other people that.
You do not equal "WE." You don't get to speak for others on this site.
One last thing. You're not American. The American right to own guns and our NRA are none of your business.
We can counter argue each other all day but we shouldn't. Let it remain that I am entitled to, and stand by all of my comments 100% and disagree with yours equally. Cheers!
Actually, you're not "entitled to" butt into the domestic affairs of other democratic countries.
Having an opinion is not butting in. And yes, I am entitled to one.
People with your kinds of opinions have obviously crossed the line over to butting in.
Firstly I'm no expert. I admit that. And honestly I do see the value in being allowed to own guns as a society but I DON'T see how anybody can honestly justify blasting a drone out of the sky with a gun and thinking that it was a safe and well reasoned thing to do......
It can be safe depending on the type of shotgun round being used.
Agreed. There is zero justification here.
Under the right circumstances and with the right kind of weapon and ammunition, it can easily be justified. You're simply anti-gun so it isn't surprising that you would see no justification.
Nope on both counts.
As I said, you're simply anti-gun so of course you would disagree.
You're also showing your ignorance in regards to guns, specifically types of ammunition. A shotgun shell with birdshot fired straight up isn't going to harm anyone on the ground.
If a shot gun can shoot the drone down, it's probably flying too low.
If pilot did not have a licence to fly a drone on that particular area, at that particular time. He's not only invading neighbours privacy and airspace.
Imagine that, if a foreign aircraft flying over your country's airspace, what would you do? That's right. Warning should have been given. It proves that the shooter was in some kind of anger.
People don't get along well with their neighbour do they?
You actually are not required to attain any sort of license to fly a UAV in the U.S. for hobbyist purposes, But a foreign national operating on U.S. soil for the purpose of espionage, like you're suggesting is a totally different story..
If this thing was at my property (in an annoying way). It's at my mercy to do what I want.
I totally agree but the NPS disagrees, unfortunately. There is an outright ban on flying in national parks within the US. Up here in Canada as well. Yes, you can request permission to fly in the parks but good luck on getting it. Here's an attempt https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iPzovlo1Ac#
It doesn't make sense to me. We're told to fly in sparsely populated areas with big open spaces. That describes parks to a 'T' but a different arm of the governments prohibits flying in wide open, sparsely populated areas.
ROFL!!
I see people flying them at local parks all the time. No problems.
I'm okay with that outcome. The way some people hate Apple products, it's exactly how I feel about drones, it's a very irrational hate.
I would have used a paintball gun or a high pressure hose to deter it.
Fishing wire is also very effective!
I think it's time the ammunition manufacturers designed a shotgun round specifically designed to much more safely shoot down drones. Plastic or rubber pellets would work.
Why do so many people assume that Boggs was filming Merideth’s daughter? Merideth could have been filming the area, the camera may have been pointing horizontally now down. Also he may not have been filming at all but just flying his drone. She could have been an adult. Remember that in court these thing would have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Another question, why are people assuming the sunbathing daughter was just a child? Saying the girl was just a child raises very emotive issues, which are not mentioned in the article.
So the issue is can you use extreme force against a possible privacy breach? If so where do you draw the line? Suppose Boggs had set up a tripod on the street to photograph a friend. If Merideth looks out the window and thinks the camera is pointed at his daughter’s bedroom.
Does he now have the right to shoot the camera on the (empty) street?
My daughter is an adult. You spy on her, drone or no drone, we're going to have a problem!! And this was the most obvious example of spying.
I understand what you are saying, but how do you prove he was spying? He could just as easily be not filming or watching the girl. If this goes to court it may not be possible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was 'spying' on the girl.
Now, if it can be proven that he was spying on the girl then the courts should look on this just as they would if he was leaning over a fence with a camera filming her.
Here is another question, did the drone have a camera? If not is it still ok to shoot it out of the sky?
We're approaching this from different perspectives. My main points are thus:
1. Flying drones, like a lot of activities, require responsible use. You need to "look around" and make sure you're doing the right thing and not give the appearance of doing the wrong thing. For example, if you happen to see a buxom young lady wearing a shirt with writing on it, it would be far better to not read it in order to not give the appearance of ogling her.
2. The legal ramifications here are irrelevant. The court looked at it and made a decision. No judge or policeman is going to read this article for guidance. For the purposes of this blog, the question is a moral one.
a) Should the perv (um, I mean drone pilot :-)) have flown in a residential area over an area where a young lady was sunbathing? He came back...he knew. Obviously, NO.
b) Should the girl's father have shot the drone out of the sky? No. Would I (or some fathers of daughters) have done it? Hell yes!
And you say?
It's actually highly illegal to film or photograph somebody in a state of undress while they have reasonable expectation for privacy. In some states it's even a felony to photograph or film somebody for sexual purposes, without their consent. Merideth destroyed any and all evidence that could be used to convict the pilot under voyeurism laws, not to mention the reckless endangerment he caused by shooting a firearm into the sky.
People tend to not realize that privacy laws still exist, and that UAV pilots are subject to them just as much as anyone on the ground is. Photographing a woman sunbathing in her private backyard is a potential sex crime and Boggs will never be charged with it (if he even had the camera pointing down) because of Merideth's reckless actions.
Is wearing a bikini (which I don't believe it specifically states) considered a "state of undress"? Although, she certainly had a "reasonable expectation for privacy".
You're completely right, and by Merideth taking action to eliminate the UAV he deterred any evidence that his daughter was being filmed.
What would have prevented the the drone operator from deleing the video file under different circumstances?