5 ms·

If the city had used commercially available photos from an airplane or satellite, I doubt if there would be an issue. In many situations, flying a drone over so

by troupe 3y ago

If the city had used commercially available photos from an airplane or satellite, I doubt if there would be an issue. In many situations, flying a drone over someone's property can be considered trespass. However in many states tax assessors have the right to come onto your property to look around--code inspectors might have a similar right. What they were looking for could probably have been obtained with drone photographs without going over the individual's property which would have probably given the town a stronger argument for being able to say they were "observing from outside the property." What I'm curious about is what would happen if the property owner hired the company to fly over the city commissioners houses or government buildlings to take pictures.

psychlops 3y ago
Tax and Code inspectors ask for permission to enter the property. I do not believe they have the right to open trespass in any state. I'd be interested if you could provide a link.
- indymike 3y ago
  You are correct. They may act like they have the right to do so, but you can always say, get a warrant.
- troupe 3y ago
  The position of the Attorney General in KS. While usually they do ask in order to preserve peace, the state doesn't feel they are required to. > We believe the duty enjoined upon the appraiser to value real property from an actual view and inspection of the property carries with it the implied authority for the appraiser to enter upon real property to perform this duty, without such action constituting a trespass. However, we also believe that all persons, perhaps especially governmental officers, owe a duty to preserve the public peace. Therefore, it is our opinion that for the limited purpose of appraising a taxpayer's real property and the improvements made thereon, by actual view and inspection, an appraiser may enter upon such property, at a reasonable time, without the prior permission of the taxpayer.
teeray 3y ago
> In many situations, flying a drone over someone's property can be considered trespass. In zero situations. As regulations are written, drones are aircraft navigating through federal airspace in the same way as fixed-wing, helicopters, ultralights, hot air balloons, etc. That airspace extends from your shoelaces to the heavens. The method of obtaining the photos is not the question here, because the photos were taken from public property (the airspace). It’s the overall strategy of the town basically hiring a private investigator.
- White_Wolf 3y ago
  " because the photos were taken from public property " ==> By that logic - someone in a tree, on "public property" (aka outside your courtyard) can take photos of your family in the pool (in your courtyard).
  - prepend 3y ago
    Yes, that’s legal in the US.
- psychlops 3y ago
  Yes, the case is being tried on 4th amendment, but surely there are more to the regulations than that. If they were that simple, I could fly my registered drone outside my neighbors window 24x7.
  - teeray 3y ago
    > If they were that simple, I could fly my registered drone outside my neighbors window 24x7. There is nothing in Title 14 of the CFR preventing you from doing that. It would fall under the same laws (harassment, peeping tom laws, etc.) as you standing on the street 24x7 with a massive telephoto lens pointed towards your neighbors bedroom windows.
- Karellen 3y ago
  > As regulations are written, drones are aircraft navigating through federal airspace in the same way as fixed-wing, helicopters, ultralights, hot air balloons, etc. That airspace extends from your shoelaces to the heavens. I'm not entirely sure that's correct. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights > Specifically, the Federal Aviation Act provides that: "The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States" and "A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace."[3] The "navigable airspace" in which the public has a right of transit has been defined as "the airspace at or above the minimum altitudes of flight that includes the airspace needed to ensure safety in the takeoff and landing of aircraft."[4] > The exact altitude(s) at which the airspace over private land can become subject to "substantial impairment" is often debated. Case law in the past has used the height of 500 ft (150 m) in urban or suburban areas,[5] and 360 ft (110 m) above the surface or tallest structure in rural areas[6] as the demarcation of where impairment of property rights can occur.

by troupe 3y ago

psychlops 3y ago

Tax and Code inspectors ask for permission to enter the property. I do not believe they have the right to open trespass in any state. I'd be interested if you could provide a link.

indymike 3y ago
You are correct. They may act like they have the right to do so, but you can always say, get a warrant.
troupe 3y ago
The position of the Attorney General in KS. While usually they do ask in order to preserve peace, the state doesn't feel they are required to. > We believe the duty enjoined upon the appraiser to value real property from an actual view and inspection of the property carries with it the implied authority for the appraiser to enter upon real property to perform this duty, without such action constituting a trespass. However, we also believe that all persons, perhaps especially governmental officers, owe a duty to preserve the public peace. Therefore, it is our opinion that for the limited purpose of appraising a taxpayer's real property and the improvements made thereon, by actual view and inspection, an appraiser may enter upon such property, at a reasonable time, without the prior permission of the taxpayer.

teeray 3y ago

> In many situations, flying a drone over someone's property can be considered trespass. In zero situations. As regulations are written, drones are aircraft navigating through federal airspace in the same way as fixed-wing, helicopters, ultralights, hot air balloons, etc. That airspace extends from your shoelaces to the heavens. The method of obtaining the photos is not the question here, because the photos were taken from public property (the airspace). It’s the overall strategy of the town basically hiring a private investigator.

White_Wolf 3y ago
" because the photos were taken from public property " ==> By that logic - someone in a tree, on "public property" (aka outside your courtyard) can take photos of your family in the pool (in your courtyard).
- prepend 3y ago
  Yes, that’s legal in the US.
psychlops 3y ago
Yes, the case is being tried on 4th amendment, but surely there are more to the regulations than that. If they were that simple, I could fly my registered drone outside my neighbors window 24x7.
- teeray 3y ago
  > If they were that simple, I could fly my registered drone outside my neighbors window 24x7. There is nothing in Title 14 of the CFR preventing you from doing that. It would fall under the same laws (harassment, peeping tom laws, etc.) as you standing on the street 24x7 with a massive telephoto lens pointed towards your neighbors bedroom windows.
Karellen 3y ago
> As regulations are written, drones are aircraft navigating through federal airspace in the same way as fixed-wing, helicopters, ultralights, hot air balloons, etc. That airspace extends from your shoelaces to the heavens. I'm not entirely sure that's correct. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights > Specifically, the Federal Aviation Act provides that: "The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States" and "A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace."[3] The "navigable airspace" in which the public has a right of transit has been defined as "the airspace at or above the minimum altitudes of flight that includes the airspace needed to ensure safety in the takeoff and landing of aircraft."[4] > The exact altitude(s) at which the airspace over private land can become subject to "substantial impairment" is often debated. Case law in the past has used the height of 500 ft (150 m) in urban or suburban areas,[5] and 360 ft (110 m) above the surface or tallest structure in rural areas[6] as the demarcation of where impairment of property rights can occur.