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]
In a global world, it is incredibly difficult for those in other countries, or even in other parts of the country, to understand the place property rights have had in the politics of the US. Property rights have been historically quite strong. It is why the US Constitution and Bill of Rights (and later jurisprudence) are pretty thorough on said rights.
It also connects to the confrontation that occurred after the drone was shot down. What the defendant did, while some construe it as a threat, was actually remind the plaintiffs of the Castle Doctrine. He informed the plaintiff that:
“I had my 40 mm [sic] Glock on me and they started toward me and I told them, ‘If you cross my sidewalk, there’s gonna be another shooting,’ ” Mr. Merideth told the station.
This is a reminder of the Castle Doctrine. If you trespass in a threatening manner while I am armed, I am allowed by law to defend myself as this is my property and I can expect both safety and privacy here.
While this sort of right is alien and even unfathomable to many, this is something that is regarded in varying levels of esteem across the US.
While many of the US's laws and beliefs (particularly the right of gun ownership) befuddle many, it is often intrinsic to American identity. However, they are often quite divisive. And the divide really hinges on a difference as simple as rural vs. urban. Its the same debate that has been going on since Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. Moreover, it is a mistake to assume the US can simply change its laws to reflect the will of the people. Because the US isn't a Democracy, it is a Constitutuinal Republic, and as such changing the Constitution is a very involved process, requiring a 2/3 majority votes of both houses of Congress, OR 2/3 of the state legislatures must call for a Constitutional Convention.
From Wikipedia on the Castle Doctrine:
A Castle Doctrine (also known as a castle law or a defense of habitation law) is a legal doctrine that designates a person's abode or any legally occupied place – e.g., a vehicle or home, as a place in which that person has protections and immunities permitting one, in certain circumstances, to use force (up to and including deadly force) to defend oneself against an intruder, free from legal prosecution for the consequences of the force used.[1] The term is most commonly used in the United States, though many other countries invoke comparable principles in their laws.
I agree with the father. Shotgun pellets that miss the target (being fired into the sky) arent going to hurt anything else when they come back down. If you hit the drone, the falling pieces are going to be small and light enough to not cause any damage to anything or anyone on the ground. I would have the drone mounted and hung on my wall if it were my daughter being spied on.
While I generally agree with shooting down the drone, falling pellets can harm others. When I was really young and REALLY stupid (now I'm just stupid) I shot some BBs into the air with a slingshot. They fell down around a young mother and her infant in a stroller. They didn't, but could have, seriously harmed the baby and especially had one or more fallen into her open eyes. :-(
Wrong for shooting a firearm in the air to shoot down a drone, also wrong on the pilot for flying over private property. Both parties should have used common sense in the situation, if you see a drone hovering call local law enforcement and let them know where the drone is or where it landed and have them deal with the pilot. All drone users know that once you purchase one there is a website where you have to register your device if anything it's labeled as a disclaimer on the box. If the drone isn't properly registered at the time law enforcement is called then it should be confiscated in my opinion. Also if you have a drone fly it around the beach or something instead of someone's property
Based on what I read, it seems the drone flew over the garden where the girl was sunbathing and then left, but then came back again, which to me seems ominous enough. Why did the drone owner return to the same place knowing a girl was there sunbathing?
I would have left the area immediately. Not sure about shooting it down but I would have approached the owner of the drone and asked him to move.
Meredith was arrested for the correct reason. Boggs should've been arrested for voyuerism.
Exactly! The biggest issue with Meredith's reckless actions is that he destroyed any and all evidence that could be used to convict Boggs of voyeurism, that is if Boggs even had the camera pointing down at her.
I will say this, if the pilot was filming the daughter sun bathing, he is already broken Voyeurism laws in the U.S., which is a felony in some states. Shooting a weapon into the sky is dangerous and illegal in most cases, as it results in accidental deaths around the world every year.
Is it legal to shoot at car that decides to turn around in your driveway; how is shooting a passing drone any different?
Is it legal to shoot somebody using binoculars to look over your fence from their yard, as creepy as they are?
You have no right to fire a gun at anyone or their property unless it is proving immediate risk to your life or in some cases, your property. Guns are real, and simply following the drone back to the pilot (these things have a 20 minute battery life at the most) and taking a photograph of their plates so you can call the cops and have them search the cards for incriminating photographs is the far more responsible and reasonable approach. If this guy is found with photos or videos of your daughter in a bikini in your backyard, he's looking at serious jail time and having to register as a sex offender for the rest if his life. You shooting the drone down only destroys all evidence that could convict him in this case, and opens you up to potential civil lawsuits for damaged property or even loss of life.
Wanna have some fun?
Grab a fishing rod and get some nylon wire wrapped around his rotors, then you can legally look through his memory card in an attempt to identify the owner so you can "return" the drone, and opps.. you happened to find creepy photos of your daughter on there, call the cops and have them confiscate the drone as evidence!
In the short of it; be careful with guns. Shooting into the sky is stupid, and flying over your back yard is no different than a car turning around in your driveway. If they're hovering, call the cops for harassment and suspicion of a peeping-tom.
The drone pilot was a perv and got caught trying to record footage of the man's daughter tanning. No different as if he just had a video cam shooting over the fence.
A pervert is a pervert regardless.
What bother s me every one is discussing the drone when we should be discussing him recording the daughter tanning. Sick.
There is a federal law that says everything above 83ft and under 400ft is not considered to be private property. Drone flyer should have hired better lawyer and that shooter had to go to jail. Nobody should care whats under drone if you are above that limit and in OK to fly zone.
I have a daughter. I'd use a slingshot instead. :)
This is just more dumbassery all around. Shooting at the drone? Was that really necessary? Flying your drone into someone's yard with their child out there was, again, really dumb. But, not to the point of taking that drastic a step. If the shooter had injured someone, or worse, we'd be looking at a whole different kettle of fish. Are drones required to have identifying markings/numbers similar to other aircraft? If so, noting those numbers or photographing the drone and reporting it to authorities would have put the fire of god into the pilot. THAT would have been the adult thing to do. Oh, and yes, I am a parent.