What Happens If You Shoot Down a Delivery Drone? (techcrunch.com) 152
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: As deep-pocketed companies like Amazon, Google and Walmart invest in and experiment with drone delivery, a phenomenon reflective of this modern era has emerged. Drones, carrying snacks and other sundries, are being shot out of the sky. Incidents are still rare. However, a recent arrest in Florida, in which a man allegedly shot down a Walmart drone, raises questions of what the legal ramifications are and whether those consequences could escalate if these events become more common. [...] While consumer drones have been proliferating for well over a decade, the question of legal ramifications hasn't been wholly clear. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) gave us a partial answer following a 2016 drone shooting in Arkansas. At the time, the FAA pointed interested parties to 18 U.S.C. 32. The law, titled "Aircraft Sabotage," is focused on the wanton destruction of "any aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States or any civil aircraft used, operated or employed in interstate, overseas, or foreign air commerce."
At first glance, the law appears primarily focused on manned aircraft, including a provision that "makes it a Federal offense to commit an act of violence against any person on the aircraft, not simply crew members, if the act is likely to endanger the safety of the aircraft." In responding to the Arkansas drone shooting, however, the FAA asserts that such protections can be interpreted to also include UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles). The language does, indeed, appear broad enough to cover drones. That means, in turn, that the penalties are potentially as stiff. The subject was revived after a 2020 incident in Minnesota. In that case, the suspect was hit with felony charges relating to criminal damage and discharging a weapon within city limits. Those would likely also be the charges in most scenarios involving property, rather than bodily damage, drone or not. Even with these examples, there is not a rigid rule that predicts if or when prosecutors might also introduce a federal charge like 18 U.S.C. 32.
As the legal blog Above the Law notes, in most cases, the federal government has deferred to state law for enforcement. Meanwhile, in most cases where 18 U.S.C. 32 has been applied, if a human crew/passengers are involved, there could be other potential charges like murder. It certainly can be argued that shooting a large piece of hardware out of the sky in a heavily populated area invites its own potential for bodily harm, though it may not be prosecuted in the same manner. As drone delivery increases in the U.S., however, we may soon have an answer to the role federal legislation like 18 U.S.C. 32 will play in UAV shootings. Adding that into the picture brings penalties, including fines and up to 20 years in prison, potentially compounding those consequences. What is clear, though, is that the consequences can be severe, whether it is invoked.
At first glance, the law appears primarily focused on manned aircraft, including a provision that "makes it a Federal offense to commit an act of violence against any person on the aircraft, not simply crew members, if the act is likely to endanger the safety of the aircraft." In responding to the Arkansas drone shooting, however, the FAA asserts that such protections can be interpreted to also include UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles). The language does, indeed, appear broad enough to cover drones. That means, in turn, that the penalties are potentially as stiff. The subject was revived after a 2020 incident in Minnesota. In that case, the suspect was hit with felony charges relating to criminal damage and discharging a weapon within city limits. Those would likely also be the charges in most scenarios involving property, rather than bodily damage, drone or not. Even with these examples, there is not a rigid rule that predicts if or when prosecutors might also introduce a federal charge like 18 U.S.C. 32.
As the legal blog Above the Law notes, in most cases, the federal government has deferred to state law for enforcement. Meanwhile, in most cases where 18 U.S.C. 32 has been applied, if a human crew/passengers are involved, there could be other potential charges like murder. It certainly can be argued that shooting a large piece of hardware out of the sky in a heavily populated area invites its own potential for bodily harm, though it may not be prosecuted in the same manner. As drone delivery increases in the U.S., however, we may soon have an answer to the role federal legislation like 18 U.S.C. 32 will play in UAV shootings. Adding that into the picture brings penalties, including fines and up to 20 years in prison, potentially compounding those consequences. What is clear, though, is that the consequences can be severe, whether it is invoked.
400ft (Score:3, Interesting)
Unless things have changed, under 400 feet is my private property. You absolutely can not fire off a weapon here but maybe trespassing?
Re:400ft (Score:4, Interesting)
From the legal text:
>Amendments to 18 U.S.C. 32 enacted in 1984 expand United States jurisdiction over aircraft sabotage to include destruction of any aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States or any civil aircraft used, operated or employed in interstate, overseas, or foreign air commerce.
Essentially this falls under sovereign privilege. Your ownership rights are granted by the sovereign to you (yes, I'm aware of "natural rights" argument, in which case you can change it to "recognized" while having the exact same outcome). These have limitations as expressed by the sovereign in the legal code in case of modern liberal constitutional republics such as US. This appears to be one of them.
Re: 400ft (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
It's not an invasion of your property. They're not landing on it. It's innocent passage, a tradition that predates much of private property as a concept as it was crucial in facilitating trade routes.
Re: (Score:3)
Innocent passage is a concept that you can cross territorial lines under specific conditions (generally no landfall, no extractive economic activity and no military activity). If you live near airport under take off path, you don't get to claim that planes taking off and making noise aren't innocent.
Re: (Score:2)
Keep i mind the simple rule "What goes up must come down." You shoot a bullet up into the air it's going to come down somewhere, and you are legally (and morally) liable for any damage, injury, or even if the recipient of your free lead gift feels endangered (which they are). Spent bullets kill people every year. And if you think, "I'll just get a shotgun, pellets won't do too much damage" good luck doing enough damage to a drone flying more than about 50 feet overhead at most (and yes, spent pellets can
Re: (Score:2)
There are other legal issues too, such as what happens if the drone you shot then crashes into someone else's property, perhaps injuring them. Even if you had the right to shoot down drones over your home, it would be an extremely unwise thing to do.
Re: (Score:2)
It basically amounts to damages.
For example, let's say I trespass onto your property - I was walking on the sidewalk, stumbled and fell onto your clearly marked "NO TRESPASSING" grass. Could you sue me for trespassing? Yes (it is a civil offence in most places). What wou
Re: (Score:2)
Depending on where the spent round from a miss lands they can be on the hook for murder or manslaughter.
Re: (Score:2)
You can tell them anything you want, they will ignore you, YOU do not get to regulate airspace or traffic in the US, even under 400 feet. The FAA has sole regulatory power of all United States airspace.
Re: (Score:2)
that was a very good summation. In my opinion they wont need new laws. Just use these to prosecute. TBH the sort of person using drones for skeet shooting is not the sort of person who can afford to mount an affirmative defense. Firing weapons into the air is completely reckless behavior and the unintended consequences are often unknown until they kill some girl in her back yard during a cookout. Physics tells us that what goes up must come down, and often at the same speed it left the ground in the first p
Re: (Score:2)
Shooting in the air depends on a weapon. Bullet firing rifled weapon? Dangerous. This stupidity kill several people yearly in *stan belt in Central Asia, where firing rifles in the air as a part of celebrations is a norm. And those bullets have a nasty habit of coming down though the shoulder and lodging itself in the lung. And with medical care quality of those regions, that's going to be lethal in many if not most cases.
On the other hand bird shot out of the shotgun is specifically designed to be harmless
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, no. People are killed every year here in the US by spent rounds. You really have no idea what you're talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
Correction: will lose a significant percentage of lethality.
This is why I specifically note above that hits to the skull aren't a significant cause of injury with such bullets. Only hits into the shoulder where there's a gab in protective bone coverage that remain highly lethal.
You can take your hand right now and poke a finger at your shoulder blades. You'll very quickly discoverer the penetration point where bullet that is coming only under effect of gravity minus air resistance does in fact tend to punch
Re: (Score:2)
They're using bird shot to take down hobbyist-quality drones, a delivery drone which can carry multiple kilos of cargo reliably enough to be approved by the FAA is going to be considerably more difficult. Having spent my youth hunting rabbits with shotguns I really doubt whether a consumer shotgun would stop them from more than maybe 50 yards at most.
Re: (Score:2)
Skeet shooters would at least use a shotgun, which means a lot less to worry about when the pellets come back down. They're still a mess, but at least they've mostly slowed down. It's Leeroy Jenkins whipping out an AR-15 that I'd be more concerned with.
Re: (Score:2)
Id be more worried about a .308 round. One reason why M855 is preferred over M193 rounds is because they get deflected easy with blades of grass and wind. The M855 is a heavier 62gr round and doesn't get mitigated by light obstructions. Leeroy Jenkins (great video btw) would likely just have the cheap steel case 55gr for plinking. But for sure, anything within 200yd nearby is at risk assuming it doesnt land sideways due to their 55gr destabilized tumble. Ammo has come a long way since vietnam so not nearly
Re: (Score:2)
The instructor in my hunter's safety course (required to get a small game license in Michigan at 14 years old) used to bring in a section of fence post with him. One of his neighbors was shooting at crows flying overhead while he was working in the yard, a spent round hit that post about two feet from him and went into the wood about an inch. Since it was most of half a century ago I don't remember for sure what kind of round it was, but probably a .22 long. If it will pierce an inch of wood it would mos
Re:400ft (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah. I've listened to a lot from a drone law expert, who is constantly frustrated from people who think they have a right to shoot down, jam, or otherwise interfere with drones over their property. Not only do you not, but you'll bring a whole host of legal pain down on yourself if you try.
On the other hand, they pointed out that mooning drones is A-okay ;)
Do realize that when you see a drone over your property that while most people's assumption is "someone spying on you", it's probably rather a work drone doing something boring like surveying and couldn't give a rat's arse about about you. Drones do a lot of work these days**. Just let them do their job in peace.
** Utilities use them to find damage in power lands. Surveyors create detailed maps for urban planners. Businesses, individuals, and governments use them for property inspection to find places that need repair. Realtors use them to take shots of the houses they're selling. Search and rescue uses them to search for missing persons, esp. lost kids. Building inspectors use them to monitor new construction. Environmental agencies use them to monitor pollution. In rural areas, farmers and ag agencies use them to monitor crop health (also sometimes targeted delivery of pesticides, etc, though those are very large drones). Governments use them to do topographic surveys. On and on and on. You being in their shot just means you're in the way.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, nobody but you is arguing that. Also, I assume delivery drones will be marked, and other commercial drones will be notable by the person on your neighbor's lawn holding a controller.
However, you do seem to be arguing that the proper response to the possibility of someone looking at your windows (with no threat for your life) from 50+ feet away is to discharge a firearm. Is that your argument?
Re: (Score:2)
The strangest part is that people don't seem to realise that if you want to shoot something with a drone, being directly above is actually not a good filming angle to get good footage for most things.
If it's hovering over you, it's probably filming something quite a bit away from you.
Re: (Score:2)
I personally consider there to be a strong negative correlation between "decision to discharge a firearm in my neighborhood at something which is not a threat to life" and "cognitive ability". But I guess that "passing a firearm safety test" is no longer a constitutional thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Significant precedent comes from living under commercial airport take-off and landing paths.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Significant precedent comes from living under commercial airport take-off and landing paths.
Generally speaking, people know when they are buying a home in such a location. Otherwise, A LOT of planning, including public opinion, comes with building a new airport.
Drones, on the other hand, simply appear. It is hard to make the argument that the homeowner should have known that they were in a drone-delivery pathway. I guarantee you that, if you wanted to make money at Amazon inconvenience, they would
Re: (Score:2)
"Generally speaking" in this case nullifies everything typed after it, because we have significant precedent outside that "generality".
Re: (Score:2)
So when the USPS's plane flies on it's route from Portland to Chicago (for example) you expect them to detour around your property? When Harbour Air is on its way from Seattle to drop its passengers at a British Columbia fishing camp they need to check their map to ensure that they won't be going over your sacred homestead? When Joe's Balloon Adventures drifts overhead they need to land before they get to your property line?
I think you fundamentally misunderstand your lack of legal recourse.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The FAA defines drones as aircraft, and since they have the sole regulatory authority over our nation's airspace their opinion carries far more weight than yours.
Re: (Score:2)
First, I ain't no lawyer. This is just my take.
The FAA has the regulatory authority Congress grants it, and that authority can be limited by court decisions. The law at one time gave property owners the right to the air space over their property "from the land to the stars". That right was reduced when Congress used eminent domain to create an easement that allowed flight over private property. Property owners weren't compensated for that easement because planes flying at 10,000 feet don't really detract v
Re: (Score:2)
Funny enough it was the Supreme Court that ended that in United States v. Causby
Re: (Score:2)
It's true that the Supreme Court's decision made the statement that "The common law doctrine that ownership of land extends to the periphery of the universe has no place in the modern world.", but the decision ultimately upheld the property owner's rights. The court held that property owners have rights over the air space at least as high as a structure could be built. It also held that the government could not fly planes below the navigable airspace without compensating the property owner.
https://suprem [justia.com]
Re:400ft - pinata (Score:3)
Indeed, think of it as a piñata ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, think of it as a piñata ;)
Unless you own a nyoibo staff, you're probably not gonna have much luck with that.
Re: (Score:3)
Unless things have changed, under 400 feet is my private property. You absolutely can not fire off a weapon here but maybe trespassing?
So you can't shoot it, but I wonder what the law would say about tossing a net over a drone trespassing on your property.
Re: (Score:2)
So you can't shoot it, but I wonder what the law would say about tossing a net over a drone trespassing on your property.
As long as you return it and didn't damage it you should be good to go. You don't have an arbitrary unilateral right to damage / claim other people's property just because it happens to be on your property that I know of.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean what happens when you confiscate a drone and the package it was delivering? Theft charges for one.
Re: (Score:2)
If your neighbor is close enough that delivery drones are within 100 feet of your house, then you're an idiot and a menace for firing catapults that powerful. If your neighbor is not that close, then you are shooting down a drone delivering something your family ordered, and you are an idiot and a menace. I mean, the conclusion seems obvious! :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, areas with delivery drone tests have special legal exceptions for this, but why look for facts?
Celebratory Gunfire (Score:5, Interesting)
Stick to high pressure water hoses or baseball bats or some such. Guns are very risky.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Use blanks. As long as you don't fire towards anything or anyone nearby, the paper wads they shoot out won't do any harm.
At close range even a paper wad can kill you when propelled by gun powder.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Celebratory Gunfire (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Anti-drone drones are something the cops here were looking into, but you need a larger drone to hook and carry a target drone. You also need to be able to tangle its props and hold it firmly to prevent it from falling uncontrolled.
It turns out it's very difficult to do safely and reliably.
However, given that most (legal) drones are supposed to have some kind of safe decent capability what you really need to do is jam them and wait for them to land on their own. That jamming, however, is almost certainly i
re: signal jamming (Score:4, Interesting)
DJI started offering law enforcement hardware that allows them to seize control of any of their drones and force them to land where they want them to land. I remember them holding training courses for them to demo the technology at least 4-5 years ago, when I lived in the DC metro area.
I'm sure there's some nonsense about it being "legal for THEM to send out that type of jamming signal, but not for everyone else to do it".
But really, if it's a legal transmission frequency already for the public to fly and control one? It seems like it should be fair game for someone to try to take control of a drone using the same frequency, if it's trespassing in their airspace over their property. The "catch" might be rules about power output levels legally allowed, and a requirement you broadcast with more signal strength than the original person flying it is using? But just by being in closer proximity and having a means to focus the radio waves right at the drone, you might be able to achieve it with the same power transmission output.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
or high tech anti-drone stuff like gps jamming or anti-drone collision tech. If a walmart drone is delivering, its likely not a rural area. Most have ordinances as a catch-all for discharging a firearm within city limits. Im not sure trespassing will be enough of an argument. Radio waves travel much closer to the ground of your property than 400ft. There are already consequences for blocking or jamming licensed radio signals which are all tied back to the imminent domain clause in the constitution. Thats wh
Re: (Score:2)
Most states have laws against Celebratory Gunfire [wikipedia.org] that ranges from a misdemeanor to a felony to fire a gun into the air.
Except for shotguns, which fire shells that are designed for shooting birds out of the air. Birdshot disperses and loses energy very rapidly, making it non-lethal beyond about 50 yards and not dangerous beyond 200-300 yards.
Re: (Score:2)
Shotguns don't carry far; some shotgun clubs are even arranged in a horseshoe shape, so you end up shooting toward other shooters from a couple hundred meters away (Elm Fork shooting club in TX; google map it if you don't believe).
Re: (Score:2)
My mother got a visit from the cops because an obnoxious neighbor called in that she was shooting a pellet gun at some geese to drive them off. Not nearly enough power to even penetrate the birds' skin, and not even that loud, and yet the cops showed up. And this is in a gun-loving red state too.
Regardless of physics of shotgun pellets like you talk about, I have a strong feeling that we all have neighbors who
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, if someone is regularly discharging a firearm within 100 feet of my property (or producing an equivalent noise), there is an obnoxious neighbor involved but possibly not the one you think.
Re: (Score:2)
N' guns, Jesus, n' babies n' stuff...
The irony of shooting a drone (Score:2)
If a drone is trespassing because it's hovering too low above your home, shooting at it means the bullet may be trespassing another neighbor's home.
Re: (Score:2)
It also means firing a gun in a residential area when your life is not in danger, which is usually more serious than trespassing...
In Minnesota (Score:3, Interesting)
In Minnesota, a police officer who shot and killed a black man because he thought he smelled marijuana was deemed not guilty of murder because he "reasonably feared for his life." In some states, a shooting is considered justified to prevent a felony from being committed.
Given that drones are being used to deliver drugs into prisons, it is reasonable for a property owner to believe that a drone flying over his property is committing a felony. Why else would a drone fly over someone else's property (as opposed to the road) on its way to its destination unless it was doing something nefarious? In a state where it is reasonable to believe that your life is at risk when you smell marijuana, it seems reasonable that a hovering drone can be interpreted as threat.
And the fact that I have ordered something from Amazon does not give the delivery driver the right to walk over my neighbor's lawn, or park in his driveway, even if it is the shortest path.
Re: (Score:2)
Committing a felony is not the same as considering self defense. Especially if the drone doesn't look like a black man.
Why else would a drone fly over someone else's property (as opposed to the road) on its way to its destination unless it was doing something nefarious?
Without the racism card to play this would definitely fall into the category of too fucking stupid to believe.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the amazon drivers in my area don't seem to let petty little laws get in the way of delivering as quickly as possible. I suspect the law would not look kindly on even just detaining an amazon driver for breaking a traffic law.
Re: (Score:2)
Disagree. I have watched (with considerable schadenfreude) as a FedEx driver was detained specifically so that they wouldn't be able to jump in their van and go -- because it was already in the process of being towed away.
Re: (Score:2)
Given that drones are being used to deliver drugs into prisons, it is reasonable for a property owner to believe that a drone flying over his property is committing a felony. Why else would a drone fly over someone else's property (as opposed to the road) on its way to its destination unless it was doing something nefarious? In a state where it is reasonable to believe that your life is at risk when you smell marijuana, it seems reasonable that a hovering drone can be interpreted as threat.
Lot to unpack in that paragraph. Like, for instance, why would you be online if you aren't pirating movies, music, and books? It's reasonable to assume, right? As for why an airborne vehicle may be passing over your property? Airborne vehicles take straight lines when possible. It's one of their biggest advantages over ground travel. You don't have to follow roads. Why must we assume nefarious action for everything we see? We've sure come a long way from innocent until proven guilty. Now it seems more like,
Re:In Minnesota (Score:4, Interesting)
1) Americans place property above human life; they just don't openly admit it. Theft or even just trespassing may legally be small crimes they carry the death penalty under loopholes in the legal system and their morality. Burn a car, break a window, that is considered terrorism which then involves severe punishment... and mindless vindictive even petty punishment is what passes as justice.
2) Self defense is one of the greatest evils. USA exploits it heavily and so do it's citizens and their police. try actually thinking this over rationally; now extend that thought (should you achieve it) to who decides the exceptions and are they reliable?
They (Americans) simply know not what they do. Stop letting us off the hook for our willful ignorance.
Re: (Score:2)
And the fact that I have ordered something from Amazon does not give the delivery driver the right to walk over my neighbor's lawn, or park in his driveway, even if it is the shortest path.
The fact that I want to get to Denver doesn't give an airline pilot the right to walk over my neighbor's lawn, or park in his driveway, even if it is the shortest path.
And yet, if you launch ONE Sidewinder at a passenger jet, folks get all bent out of shape
Depends (Score:2)
If it was flying low and super noisy, you can claim temporary insanity and plead it down to droneslaughter.
every action has a reaction (Score:2)
Safety first (Score:2)
I figure a drone in your airspace has no right to exist... But you have no right to bring it down if that is any risk to anyone's person or property.
And you're definitely going to want to check what counts as 'your airspace'. Here in Canada the rule is 30m / 100ft (vertical, horizontal, or any combination) from persons or property not directly involved in the operation of the device.
I don't want to have those stupid things buzzing over my property, but it does not appear to be something our governments ar
Cargo Cult (Score:2)
In many Pacific Islands there is a belief in a "cargo cult" where valuable stuff drops from the sky.
Looks like we have a version of that starting up here. (In Florida first, of course)
Jam it (Score:2)
Jam it (Score:2)
Re: Jam it (Score:2)
No, People Can't Fly Drones in Silicon Valley (Score:2)
Counterpoint (Score:2)
Everything that happens in the sky is perfectly legal. This is the essence of Sky Crime. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Powerups (Score:2)
If you shoot a drone, it drops loot.
Flinging lead into the sky... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Steel shot is required for waterfowl hunting everywhere in the US and in several other areas where I live.
i dont know about shotting but you can tresspass (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In related news, I think you have proven that airlines are illegal. Or maybe you've proven that you have no idea what you are talking about, not sure which.
How much are they worth (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
More like a few K to 10K's each -- you are in the low K's just for an upper end consumer drone, and those can't handle the range or cargo capacity as the delivery drones.
Re: (Score:2)
That parts aren't that expensive, and you know exactly where and when the drone went down and probably have images of the people's faces. You could do it for a few drones, but that won't be worth is problems when you are arrested.
The FAA doesn't get to interpret the statute (Score:2)
In responding to the Arkansas drone shooting, however, the FAA asserts that such protections can be interpreted to also include UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles).
Per SCOTUS, this will need to be decided by judges, not a governmental agency.
The reality (Score:2)
Re: blame game and moral hazards (Score:2)
I don't think the law's intent was to provide onerous penalties for putting two pilots at risk. It's intent is to keep planes from falling out of the sky. So that we can have industries relying on planes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The certified remote pilots license (section 107c) exists for drones under 55 lbs. It doesn't really matter what your uninformed opinion is on the matter. Commercial use drones are registered with the FAA. Shooting one down is shooting down a lawful and registered aviation vehicle.
Re: blame game and moral hazards (Score:2)
If it's falling from the sky, I don't care what you call it, we need a system to keep that from happening. The important thing here is not whether it's an "aircraft" or a "drone" or a "model"; it's that you're causing objects to fall out of the sky. Objects which are absolutely heavy enough to kill people.
You can't throw pennies off the Empire State building either, BTW.
Re: (Score:3)
A Kentucky man who shot down a drone flying near his property has been cleared of all charges by a local judge. William Merideth was originally cited for criminal mischief and wanton endangerment after shooting the drone out of the air in July this year, but Judge Rebecca Ward ruled that he was right to do so after reviewing testimony from neighbors that the aircraft was flying near Merideth's house.
https://www.theverge.com/2015/... [theverge.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Property damage to prevent trespassing.
If this is property damage so are the severe tire damage spikes at parking garages.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't get to regulate the airspace over your property. The FAA has the sole authority to regulate airspace the US. The judge was wrong and failed to apply the law.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems to me that there's some level of airspace over my property that isn't completely open, and the details will need to be solidified.
The linked case appears to be a lazy judge that didn't look at the details, but if a drone were flying around at 4 feet causing a nuisance when I was having a BBQ it seems pretty reasonable that it's trespassing to me.
That line will probably need to be clarified and will likely have to do with purpose (transporting goods vs taking pictures for example).
Re: (Score:2)
While I think some law needs to be clarified and updated, for the most part the law handles this. Much like the law handles discharging a firearm in a neighborhood when your life is not in danger.
Re: (Score:2)
If it's close enough that you can hit it with your BBQ tongs, then you probably have a pretty good case for arguing it was either a threat or a hazard.
Re: (Score:2)
It's Kentucky, that's not surprising, especially if the offender was related to anyone who had anything to do with the court.