North Dakota trying to pass a bill creating new crimes and civil actions for invasion of privacy by drone

[Jagerbomb52]

The bill is multifaceted at this point. There are parts that repeat other laws already on the books (e.g. harassing livestock), parts that aren't that offensive (e.g. the general idea of protecting privacy) and parts that will (and should) scare people away from ever putting a drone in the North Dakota skies (e.g. intentionally photographing someone else or their property without consent when they have a "reasonable expectation of privacy," without defining "reasonable expectation of privacy"). The bill is 2.5 pages long and you can ignore the first page (it's definitions you likely won't need). Underlined text is new/proposed while non-underlined text is existing law.
https://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/6...GNY2mmBZI_xaLgSjOfPOStuEY7ESnBO3eGEWYkLTwP7NQ

 

[Uneek_Pilot]

The last couple of pages are just common sense. Anybody with intent to do any of those things doesn't need to be operating a drone.

 

[Scijohn23]

California already has laws like that on the books. I fly in California but never from neighborhoods thus so haven’t cared much about them other than to make a mental note.

 

[Scijohn23]

I think I may make a cover for the camera on my drone for when I’m flying in states that the laws are based around photo/audio/privacy concerns. Half the time I’m flying it’s more for fun than photos so the camera isn’t needed. Would love to see what an officer would say when I landed and there’s no camera visible on my drone. That would probably take the wind right out of his sails.

 

[CraigCam]

I guess they won’t be enjoying the benefits of the inevitable future in SD. I wonder what they all have to hide?

 

[Russell Smith]

I think I may make a cover for the camera on my drone for when I’m flying in states that the laws are based around photo/audio/privacy concerns. Half the time I’m flying it’s more for fun than photos so the camera isn’t needed. Would love to see what an officer would say when I landed and there’s no camera visible on my drone. That would probably take the wind right out of his sails.

you can just remove the camera... it'll fly without it...

 

[Russell Smith]

I guess they won’t be enjoying the benefits of the inevitable future in SD. I wonder what they all have to hide?

exactly... most are just common sense... but to just say 'no you can not'... well.. to be honest... no single person owns the sky above the the tallest object on your property... you have a 150' tree... you own 150' up...

 

[Fred Garvin]

....... no single person owns the sky above the the tallest object on your property... you have a 150' tree... you own 150' up...

Do you have a citation for that? A legal precedent?

I’m not challenging the veracity of your statement, but just want the info in my toolbox. This is a tough one to nail down.

 

[CraigCam]

I believe he’s referencing the only case ever before the SC regarding airspace. It’s something about a pig farmer and army Air Force flying low for practice missions over his farm. It was determined the pigs were less agitated if the planes stayed above 150’ if I recall the story correctly. Not sure about an extension if you have taller objects on your property but this is where the 150’ rule came from that’s still very much confusing.

 

[PatR]

It stems from a Supreme Court case (United States vs Causby, 328 U.S. 256) going back to around 1946 where it was ruled a private property owner’s airspace control extends no higher than they can reasonably use. No measurable height reference was established in the ruling. Interestingly, that same case established the government does not own airspace down to ground level, something the FAA recently decreed to the contrary.

To date there still has not been a court that has established a measurable height. Many larger LEA’s use 200’ as the “floor” in their aerial surveillance activities. They use that height because it’s where they believe a property owners airspace rights end and public airspace begins. Why they believe that I do not know but I presume it’s due to one or more court cases where the legality of aerial searches discovering evidence without a warrant were adjudicated in their favor that made reference to the height of their helicopters during a fly over. One such case was brought forth due to a police helicopter in Washington flying over and past a private back yard where marijuana plants were observed from the helicopter. The observation was used as just cause for a ground search.

I had quite a debate about all that with a family member that is also a long time law enforcement member having considerable experience in some of their specialized activities. What’s interesting is that I live in a small county that does not have deep pockets so they use 400’ as their floor to avoid having to litigate aerial search case appeals. They did not establish that floor until after the FAA established the 400’ commercial drone altitude limit.

 

[AH-1G]

I posted that article just a few weeks back.

 

[Jagerbomb52]

From someone that was at that meeting here is a update.

"The prime sponsor of the bill introduced the bill. First thing he did during the introduction was to offer what he called a "Christmas tree amendment." He basically took out all of page 1, all of page three, and everything after line 11 on page 2, except a merged lines 20 and 21. The committee still has the original bill before it and will likely consider the amendment sometime soon when it does "committee work." They took about 45 minutes or an hour of testimony. Supporters included the Cattlemens' Association and the ND Farm Bureau. Opponents included the association of realtors, a part 107 licensed geologist who works for the division of mineral resources (I think) where they monitor pipelines and reclamation work with their 9 107 pilots' drones, several other 107 pilots (including me) and one hobbyist. In addition to the geologist, one of the better opposition presentations came from a lobbyist for "Grand Sky" (which I had never heard of. According to wikipedia, it's a "UAS-specific business and aviation park located at the Grand Forks Air Force Base." They apparently have major drone contractors on site and those folks might just pull up their stakes and leave ND if a bill like this becomes law. But here's a pro tip: At the end of the introduction, the prime sponsor closed with a sentence that went something like this: "If you are opposed to this bill, then you are in favor of Peeking Toms." (And, yes, he said "peeking.") "

 

[AH-1G]

Are not peeking toms in all the states? Cameras on poles to monitor traffic? They can see you picking your nose!

 

[Jagerbomb52]

More from the same fellow:

"They're essentially "taking it under advisement." They'll do "committee work" on it sometime later. In North Dakota, all bills get voted on in at least one chamber unless all sponsors ask to withdraw it. After they consider proposed amendments, they'll either recommend to the legislative body that they "do pass" it or "do not pass." That hasn't happened yet. They have not scheduled a time when they'll take further action on it. The only way to know when they take action is to either be a lobbyist and sit in on every committee hearing going forward, or hire a lobbyist to do it for you. "

 

[Russell Smith]

Do you have a citation for that? A legal precedent?

I’m not challenging the veracity of your statement, but just want the info in my toolbox. This is a tough one to nail down.

Nope. The way it should have been covered. Or every airplane, copter, anything can be sued by any land owner.

 

[Russell Smith]

Nope. The way it should have been covered. Or every airplane, copter, anything can be sued by any land owner.

Just for flying over

 

[Russell Smith]

Do you have a citation for that? A legal precedent?

I’m not challenging the veracity of your statement, but just want the info in my toolbox. This is a tough one to nail down.

They're not using their heads when creating new laws

 

[AH-1G]

"
"They're not using their heads"........................................................ when creating new laws

That can be also said for those who fly their drones!

 

[Russell Smith]

That can be also said for those who fly their drones!

All of them who fly?... are you one of those guys... Haha.

 

[AH-1G]

Ohhh, back in the days I flew NOE, and also with my private plane. Coming back from Lubbock Texas to Lawton Ok, in a twin we flew NOE since it's like desert out there. I decided to look at my sectional chart, well, well I'm a little off course and getting close to Sheppardd AFB.
To late! off to my 1 o:clock 2 F4's came out scrambling, passed within couple hundred feet looking at us!
Scared the crap out of me!! Loved the roar of those fighters!!