Federal judge dismisses case against Kentucky 'Drone Hunter'

Drones are more fun to shoot down than clay discs.

Pesky drone.

Boom.

It's raining toothpicks.

Good for William Meredith!

There are plenty of public areas to use drones in. They shouldn't be going over other people's property.

A person can ask me for permission to fly their drone on my property, and if they have good intentions I would have no problem with it. If they do not talk to me first, I would load my shotgun with bird shot and shoot it down too.

"Anyone who takes a photograph of the Moon is infringing upon my copyright. Violators will be targeted by my spy satellite lasers... or fined and penalized at the cost of.... [ Jaws music ]... One Hundred dollars!.... *cough*.... sorry... One Million Dollars!"
- Dr. Evil

.

Well, there are peeping tom laws too... and I don't see exceptions for drone operators. Laws or no laws, if someone gets upset due to privacy issues, the drone is likely coming down... that's just life.

Even if he was flying below 84 feet that doesn't mean he can shoot his property (the drone). If the shooter pulls into my driveway, can I shoot his car?

Why would anyone choose to fly a drone other than for snooping around? I don't have any sympathy for those who have lost their drones to "enemy action".

Take the outline of your property.

Extend an imaginary wall 84 feet above ground level.

Within that confined space is your airspace property rights. [1946 Supreme Court decision.]

If the drone was hovering over 100 feet, it was probably as legal as Google Earth.

Stephen King can easily extend that 84 feet into an impenetrable dome...

.

Flying a drone is quite harmless next to discharging firearms in a residential area .

The flyer has no intention of doing harm , but the actions of the shooter are bourne out of nothing but pure malice , and at the very least the firearms licensing authority should revoke his licence and take away all his guns , with jail time likely too for endangering the public since he can't control where his projectiles end up , and the shot down drone could easily injure someone rather than landing safely .

Of course CAA regs also limit where drones can be flown with limits on height and minimum distances from people , animals and buildings , so wrong on the flyers part too .

Regardless of how obnoxious you think the drone is, the appropriate course of action is to record it and or just go inside and call the police instead of shooting firearms into the air. If your rights are being infringed, there is a legal system for that.

If I were the judge I would rule that both parties are jerks. Jerk #1 shouldn't be flying his drone over his neighbor's yard (obviously quite low, since it was shot down). Jerk #2 should have talked to his neighbor and told him he wasn't comfortable having a drone fly over his yard.

Instead, they both make jerks out of themselves.

I volunteer at a 34,000 acre County Operated park in AZ, that includes close to 100 miles of trails, less than 10 miles of road ways, multiple campgrounds for RVs, Tents, along with scores of picnic areas. Elevations changes range up to 1800 feet. Often there are many thousands of people are in the park along with dogs, horses.. Wildlife includes Raptors, Mtn. Lions, along with other wild 4 legged species not to mention the other critters that comes with a desert environment. The park is located more than 30-40 minutes response by emergency vehicles. Drones are NOT ALLOWED. Although privacy issues abound at this park at any given time, the PRIMARY issue with drones is the fact that there are dozens of helicopter rescues we have each year. A large percentage are not announced and 99% of rescues are more than 45 minutes hiking distance away from any road access in addition to drive time getting to the park. Helicopter RESCUE protocols are hard & not negotiable > no DRONES !

An airplane transports goods or people from,one point to another. Drones are used either to take pictures or to observe. Any of these two functions are violations of private persons as long as a drone is flying intentionally above your private house and flies for a while without your permission.

at this point why even buy a drone?

Soon you won't be able to fly them anywhere....

not allowed to fly them in parks, forest, in cities, by homes, by private properties, in the state I live almost everything is owned by someone, with all these rules expanding and expanding, soon you won't be able to fly them anywhere.

The judges ruling may need clarifying (note that the article contains a link to the actual ruling for the legalese-inclined:

In short, the drone owner filed a suit in federal court against the drone killer. The judge in that did not rule in the drone-shooter's favor, necessarily. Rather, he dismissed the lawsuit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. That is, the judge didn't rule on the merits of the actual case, but rather simply that his court was not not the proper court to hear it.

The drone owner may still have some recourse in his state courts. Only his assertion that the drone-killer violated federal laws has been muted.

All this banter legal banter would be moot if people would just use common sense and respect each other.

According to the FAA a drone is an aircraft (just the same as if it were a 747 flying over that guy's house). Federal law says intentionally damaging an aircraft is a felony. Currently there is no exemption to the "damaging an aircraft" law if the aircraft was used to invade your privacy (intentionally or not).

Ergo, the FAA should either charge this guy with damaging an aircraft or let the whole "drones are aircraft and under our purview" thing go.

Maybe you could use the fact that FAA did not go after the guy for shooting down the drone as a precedent to show that drones are not actually aircraft in the eyes of the government.

This appears to be far more fun than Clay Pigeon shooting ;-)

OK, I haven't read the full case. Maybe I would find the answer there?

If this overfly by the drone was just a one-off passing incident, how did it get shot down? Is the property owner permanently at Defcon 1, gun loaded, safety off, ready to shoot anything at a moment's notice?

Otherwise there must be more to the story, enough for the property owner to have cause and time enough to prepare, fetch the gun, load, take aim, etc. That speaks of repeated incursions by the drone, or that it hung around long enough for the property owner to get annoyed and fetch his gun.

And if not, well kudos to the property owner, must be a special kind of guy who, when a drone passes at over 200 feet up, out of the blue without any warning, can take it out.

So because "the FAA has not enforced any regulations regarding aerial trespassing", would the property owner not have been sued even if he hadn't shot down a drone but, let's say, a LSA or a rescue helicopter (at least if it would have come down without casualties)?

IF the drone was really 276 feet in the air, and traveling versus hovering, then it seems like it shouldn't have been shot at. The shooter should reasonably have to pay for the drone, and that should be the end of it.

But this is America, so facts (telemetry data, in this case) don't matter because FREEDOM.

By the logic of the plaintiff, a drone running into one of my 200 ft tall trees at the 84 ft level or above could sue me for putting obstacles in his "rightful airspace". Since I live on a mountain, a drone could be 84 ft above the ground directly below it and be looking me in the eye at the same time. The lawsuit is hogwash and I am sure it was brought in federal court because it would have been laughed out of a Kentucky court and the plaintiff (or his attorney) knew that. Note that he is now debating whether to appeal to higher federal court rather than taking the judges advice and litigating in a Kentucky court.

The original Ars Technica story has better details than this; the drone flyer kept the telemetry data from the flight. The drone never hovered over the shooter's house, though it did transit it--at 273 feet above ground level according to the flyer's data. It was two lots over and still around 270 feet when it was shot down. This shooter is military grade.

Oh yes, and this all happened in Bullitt County, Kentucky.

The telemetry video is here. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/08/new-drone-telemetry-suggests-shot-down-drone-was-higher-than-alleged/

The article doesn't say how high the drone was flying at so we can't really decide if the drone was hovering too low for Meredith's comfort, or if it was flying very high and the guy just as a distaste for drones.

As a drone operator myself, I don't think I would ever fly one over someone else's backyard simply because there's nothing interesting to shoot there. Even if I wanted to peep on someone, a drone is definitely not the most discreet way of doing it with all that propeller noise. A hot-air balloon perhaps?

I don't think property rights can be less that the tallest building in a country ruling upon such matter. That is if all property owners are treated equally.

It would be nice if the article would state a little more about because the matter that was decided upon had to do a chicken farm on the ground near an airfield that scared the chickens. Nothing to do with privacy issues and this probably would not have any affect.

The question might be, why would someone fly a drone over private property, if not to spy? Why on earth? Photos maybe? Snapping pictures of private family functions? Scoping out the property? While I believe the American right to bear arms is silly for people packing pistols in public, I do believe that the yahoos who think air space means freedom to violate people's right to privacy on their own properties, should expect a spray of shotgun pellets. Both rights are enshrined in the American Constitution. Gun and Property won both. The funny part is knowing the drone pilot saw the 12 gauge pointed at his machine right up to going blank on his screen. That must have felt tragic. What gall to take it to court.

Nice shootin'!

This won't matter soon when lasers will be able to melt the drones and nobody will be the wiser; they will just drop from the sky. Or get a jammer to ensure the remote cannot talk to the drone. It will just go back to its GPS starting point.

Only in the USA......

Fortunately outside the 'land of the free' there is something called RESPECT!

Maybe that should be edited into ( and applied ) the bill of rights, preferably before the rights to bear arms...

Respect thy humans.

Internet says the effective range of a birdshot loaded shotgun is about 120 feet.

In case that adds anything to the story.

Like how close you should fly your drone to Meredith's house.

Time for a personal air defence system. I mean should be better definitions, legislation, licensing, policing and fines regarding the use of drones for the sake of safety, privacy and pollution. You use a drone, you pay for all the costs for such controls. IMO drones should not be used anywhere in residential zones at all without special permits.

Click bait. Would not have been a story if the title were correct, judge says " an action commenced in incorrect court."

I think we're failing to remind ourselves that responsible drone operators don't fly near people or homes. It sounds like the person shooting down the drone was actually near the drone, so the drone should not have been flown there.

So why was the operator flying a camera over someone else's land? While I'm not advocating shooting down anything, I don't think drones (cameras) should be allowed to fly over homes. For safety reasons if nothing else. To site a 1946 decision is technically a legal issue, but its not really addressing peoples' concerns over privacy or safety in their own yards from drones in 2016/7. I think things will only get more restricted for drone operators if they don't take into account how people feel in their own yards/homes, and then site a 1946 decision as a defence/justification. Shooting down drones is wrong too.

How high can water go being pumped with the correct pressure? And Nerf balls and arrows...

Let them drones come...

Translated: The court did not rule on the MERITS of the case, only the plaintiffs STANDING in FEDERAL court, and referred the case back to state court. : US District Judge Thomas Russell ruled that federal court is not the proper venue for the lawsuit, noting that the FAA has not enforced any regulations regarding aerial trespassing, nor was the agency a party in the suit. Instead, the Judge said that the lawsuit should be litigated in Kentucky State Court under existing trespassing laws.

Keep in mind, at least under California State law, is that the "negligent discharge of a firearm" is a felony punishable by state prison (246 PC). Trespassing, lacking a reasonable and articulable threat to life (not property), is NOT a provision for the use of deadly force. Shooting down a drone will NOT be viewed as 'reasonable", especially if it results in death or injury. One may very easily find themselves charged with murder or manslaughter, as well as civil court action. The legal doctrine of reasonableness is very much in play here (not to mention simple maturity). The proper thing to do in such a case is to notify local law enforcement, not take the law into your own hands. Now if you can articulate the drone had a bomb on it, then yes of course you can defend your life. The legal doctrine is what FACTS give you REASONABLE concern to use deadly force that demonstrate a "reasonable fear of imminent threat of death or bodily injury", not some far fetched fantasy of terrorists.

if he shot it within 83 feet, I appreciate Meredith , cauze he did something legally perfect.
if he shot it above 83 ft, I sill appreciate Meredith , cauze he has excellent shooting skills.

Considering the fact that a firearm or a explosive can be attached and used on/from a drone, any violation of our private properties by a drone could mean a serious threat not only to our privacy bur also to our personal safety. It won't be that long until foreign or domestically cultivated terrorists will learn and attempt to use drones. They do it as we speak around Mosul in Iraq.... Just imagine what would happen if there is a family gathering or a wedding, etc... I don't want to sound pessimistic but this is the world we live in. Please don't blame anyone who uses his shotgun in order to keep these 21st century's uninvited guests away.