Drone shot down in Kentucky, shooter arrested

[masraum]

I know we had the other thread on the what-ifs. Here, we are probably going to see some precedent set.

Kentucky man shoots down drone hovering over his backyard | Ars Technica

Just the beginning of the article

The way William Merideth sees it, it’s pretty clear-cut: a drone flying over his backyard was a well-defined invasion of privacy, analogous to a physical trespassing.

Not knowing who owned it, the Kentucky man took out his shotgun and fired three blasts of Number 8 birdshot to take the drone out.

"It was just right there," he told Ars. "It was hovering, I would never have shot it if it was flying. When he came down with a video camera right over my back deck, that's not going to work. I know they're neat little vehicles, but one of those uses shouldn’t be flying into people's yards and videotaping."

Minutes later, a car full of four men that he didn’t recognize rolled up, "looking for a fight."

"Are you the son of a ***** that shot my drone?" one said, according to Merideth.

His terse reply to the men, while wearing a 10mm Glock holstered on his hip: "If you cross that sidewalk onto my property, there’s going to be another shooting."

The men backed down, retreated to their car, and waited for the police to arrive.

"His only comment was that he hoped I had a big checkbook because his drone cost $1,800," Merideth added.

The Kentuckian was arrested Sunday evening in Hillview, Kentucky, just south of Louisville and charged with criminal mischief and wanton endangerment. He was released the following day. The Hillview Police Department did not immediately respond to Ars’ request for comment.

Clearly, he wasn't too concerned with firing a gun at his house, but maybe he should have been.

Here's the latest

New telemetry suggests shot-down drone was higher than alleged | Ars Technica

The pilot of the drone shot down Sunday evening over a Kentucky property has now come forward with video provided to Ars, seemingly showing that the drone wasn’t nearly as close as the property owner made it out to be. However, the federal legal standard for how far into the air a person’s private property extends remains in dispute.

According to the telemetry provided by David Boggs, the drone pilot, his aircraft was only in flight for barely two minutes before it was shot down. The data also shows that it was well over 200 feet above the ground before the fatal shots fired by William Merideth.

Boggs told Ars that this was the maiden voyage of his DJI Phantom 3, and that his intentions were not to snoop on anyone—his aim was simply to fly over a vacationing friend’s property, a few doors away from Merideth’s property in Hillview, Kentucky, south of Louisville.

"The truth is that this man lied and he's doubling down," Boggs said. "The video speaks for itself."

Merideth, meanwhile, continues to maintain that the drone flew 20 feet over a neighbor’s house before ascending to "60 to 80 [feet] above me."

When Ars asked how long he observed the drone before pulling the trigger, he responded by text message: "Not long, I watched it come in and when it stopped I took aim and fired."

The precise height of the drone may determine whether Merideth was justified in opening fire on the Phantom 3. The best case law on the issue dates back to 1946, long before drones were even technically feasible.

That year, the Supreme Court decided in a case known as United States v. Causby that that a farmer in North Carolina could assert property rights up to 83 feet in the air. In that case, American military aircraft were flying above his farm, disturbing his sleep and his chickens. As such, the court found he was owed compensation.

However, the same decision also specifically mentioned a "minimum safe altitude of flight" at 500 feet—leaving the zone between 83 feet and 500 feet as a legal grey area.

As the majority opinion wrote at the time:

The airplane is part of the modern environment of life, and the inconveniences which it causes are normally not compensable under the Fifth Amendment. The airspace, apart from the immediate reaches above the land, is part of the public domain. We need not determine at this time what those precise limits are. Flights over private land are not a taking, unless they are so low and so frequent as to be a direct and immediate interference with the enjoyment and use of the land. We need not speculate on that phase of the present case.

But in 2015, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) asserts its right to all airspace.

"The FAA is responsible for the safety and management of US airspace from the ground up," Les Dorr, an FAA spokesman told Ars in a statement on Friday.

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."

The lawyer also pointed out to Ars, through an online hunting course, that hitting an object at 272 feet with Number 8 birdshot would be feasible.

[UPDATE Monday 9:20am CT: A few Ars readers pointed out that this diagram assumes a horizontal shot, not one into the air—questioning whether Number 8 birdshot could reach so high into the air.]

Still, both Boggs and Merideth seem to just want a calm resolution to the entire affair.

"What he needs to do now is just say: ‘my bad man, I misjudged it, let's make it right," Boggs said.

Previously, Merideth said that he would like to tell the drone operator:

"I would just like [him] to get some education on his toy and learn to respect the rights of the people," he said.

I don't think the fella with the gun is going to fair too well in this instance.

[GWN7]

He originally claimed the drone came in under a awning and was hovering over his 16 yr old daughter who was sunbathing. Wanton endangerment for firing the gun in city limits and criminal mischief for shooting the drone. He admitted to doing both so it's going to be hard to claim innocence. He will be buying the other guy a new drone.

[aigel]

The issue is shooting within city limits. You just can't do that unless you are in self defense. I don't see the wanton endangerment, that looks just like the usual "let's slap everything on it, so we can have him plea down to what he deserves".

Now, looking at this story, it doesn't line up either way. 200 feet with a shotgun putting out #8 pellets is not going to happen, shooting straight in the air. That's 66 yards. The pellets will carry no energy, even if they reach the drone that far out.

Reasonable shotgun range is about 30 yards or less. Let's say 40. If something buzzes over my house 40 yards with a camera on it, I would also consider defending my privacy. The fact that the guy could go get his shot gun, load it up and then take out the drone means that it was hovering, not merely passing over flying to the friend's house.

There need to be some better laws on this. In the meantime, this fella should get an infraction for disturbing the peace and the drone guy needs to be sent packing.

G

[mikester]

I have a gps module in my jets, I can tell pretty accurately my aircraft's altitude avove sea level, ground speed and direction.

It's a small sensor about the size of a postage stamp square. I'm sure the phantom has that sort of thing on it as well.

[onewhippedpuppy]

Seems justified to me, especially if his teenaged daughter was sunbathing in the back yard. I agree with George, I suspect drone guy was closer than 200 ft. Probably admiring the view.

[ckelly78z]

I'll take my chances with the law, but that drone is coming down if it's hovering over my property (I have no neigbors within 1/4 mile). There is NO REASON WHATSOEVER for a drone to be on my property by accident.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Property owner should absolutely have the right to shoot it down IMHO. Sadly this will be used as another power-grab and another way to destroy gun rights in this country (and to portray gun owners as a bunch of irresponsible yahoos as an added bonus).

America is turning into a pussified land of surveillance. Stalin would be proud.

[cashflyer]

From what I understand, current law is that the property owner has exclusive rights to the airspace above his property up to 500' agl.

Also... isn't flying a drone or RC beyond line of sight still prohibited by the FAA ?
(I know it was as of January of this year.)

[911_Dude]

Drones hovering and "spying" is one thing. But we all just better get used to them passing over head. Drone use is at just the beginning of an exponential curve.

[GH85Carrera]

Something like this was inevitable to happen. Jerks will continue to use UAVs (drones) improperly and people will continue to defend their privacy. Until a lengthy expensive court battle and new rulings and new laws from Congress are enacted it will be a fight.

It will be interesting to see Seahawks input on the issue. He is a professional in the UAV industry.

My understanding that as of now all UAVs are very restricted near any airport, have a maximum altitude allowed of 500 feet and are line of sight. A commercial pilots license is needed by the operator to use it in a commercial manner,

I will bet big money that soon there will be a anti-UAV hunter killer or some defensive measures. The general public will not have that for a long time. The feds are terrified of UAVs used as a bomb delivery device. There will have to a defensive measure soon if it does not already exist.

[berettafan]

I'm on the side of the shooter here.

[mikester]

Originally Posted by cashflyer

From what I understand, current law is that the property owner has exclusive rights to the airspace above his property up to 500' agl.

Also... isn't flying a drone or RC beyond line of sight still prohibited by the FAA ?
(I know it was as of January of this year.)

The faa asserts their control of all agl airspace.

The faa also says that hobbiests should follow the AMA guidelines if you're a hobbiest. If you're a business flier then you need a waiver to do it regardless of line of sight or not.

These quad copters (what people call drones but aren't really) are really encouraging poor flying behavior and as a lifelong RC flier I get really pissed about them.

[tevake]

I don't know, in this case the shooter said that he watched it come in and as soon as it stopped he shot it down.
Sounds like he had the shotgun at hand. So very little hovering time over his place.

The height discrepancy is an issue.
Is 200 feet in range for a shotgun using small shot?

I didn't see the part about the daughter in the news story .

This issue needs clearer guidelines so folks using drones know what the allowable limits are.

Seem like out of shotgun range would be a good height limit at least :-)

[Baz]

Maybe he should have shone a laser in the pilot's eyes instead?

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Nope, AFAIK there are no "air rights" typically extended as part of real estate transactions and the federal government has the right to regulate air use right down to the surface. There are numerous references in the FARs (Federal Aviation Regulations) that involve activity / regulations / whatever going right down to the surface.

500' AGL is typically the "minimum allowable altitude" for routine (not takeoff or landing, or emergency situation) aircraft operation other than over a congested area (in which case it's 1000' above the highest obstacle within 2000' horizontally).

[FLYGEEZER]

Hillview is about 10 miles from my home. Most of the folks here are on the side of the shooter. Haven't seen one over any of my property yet............but if I do....it's going down.

[cashflyer]

Originally Posted by mikester

The faa asserts their control of all agl airspace.

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

AFAIK there are no "air rights" typically extended as part of real estate transactions and the federal government has the right to regulate air use right down to the surface.

The FAA is attempting to assert authority over all airspace, however Congress needs to clear up the laws IMO.

The US Surpreme Court has ruled that a property owner has exclusive control over airspace over their property up to 83 feet AGL. The only exception is when that airspace is necessary for airport operations (takeoff/landing).

So, I would say that up to 83 feet has already been decided. By the Supreme Court. (United States v. Causby)
The clarification is needed, IMO with regards to the altitude from 83 to 500' AGL.

The ruling also decided that "The air above the minimum safe altitude of flight* ... is a public highway and part of the public domain, as declared by Congress" and "Flights below that altitude are not within the navigable air space which Congress placed within the public domain".


Per current federal regulation, the purpose of the FAA is to "develop plans and policy for the use of the navigable airspace"

14CFR 1.1 defines navigable airspace as "... airspace at and above the minimum flight altitudes prescribed by or under this chapter*, including airspace needed for safe takeoff and landing"


*What are those minimums?

14 CFR 91.119 states that, except for takeoff and landing, no person may operate an aircraft below 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.


No matter what we say about the altitude of jurisdiction, this rule specifically states that "the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure."


Was the drone closer than 500' to the guy, or his house?
Sounds like it.

Was shooting it down a proper response? IMO, yes.
If you send a complaint to the FAA, they are at most going to send a cease and desist letter. And probably will do less than that. They will likely say that they cannot act until the laws are clarified and the last donut is gone from their break room.


Oh - and is a drone (or quadcopter, or RC airplane) considered an aircraft?

14CFR 1.1 defines aircraft as "Aircraft means a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air. "

[flipper35]

Originally Posted by GWN7

He originally claimed the drone came in under a awning and was hovering over his 16 yr old daughter who was sunbathing. Wanton endangerment for firing the gun in city limits and criminal mischief for shooting the drone. He admitted to doing both so it's going to be hard to claim innocence. He will be buying the other guy a new drone.

In the original story it was the neighbor's awning that they all claimed it dropped down under. Not his. He did have kids out back in the open.

[Manda Racing]

I parked my plane at the local Airport fly In --15 planes. When I returned to retrieve it in the afternoon, two guys where flying these above my plane just above roof level. Hovering and weaving in circles.

It didn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling thinking about them crashing into each other.

Wait until we get a few hovering over a concours del elegance.

[GH85Carrera]

One day soon one will crash into a human and kill or severely injure that person. Several have crashed into structures and caused some damage.

It is all going to come down to Congress to write some new legislation. The way Congress works it will be a 250,000 word law and require every UAV operator to buy a $1,000 license and operate the UAV on alternative Wednesdays between 8:00 AM and 3:47 PM only.

Logic and reason will not have anything to do with that law.