- Jan 21, 2019
- Reaction score
One by one they fold....... Gifts & Trips....
I was not commenting on job site security, etc. I was interested in how Lennar was imposing fines on people for trespassing. I wish we could do it.
That's interesting... something driven by higher populated regions. Not sure smaller mid-west cities would extend that authority to Company Security services.Why can you guys not have an imposed policy? Every site as an asset management policy.
No one is arguing. Within the compounds of the site you are not to trespass. The skies are open, don’t crash inside the pits. Security officers can detain until LEO gets to the scene. The policy is common sense.That's interesting... something driven by higher populated regions. Not sure smaller mid-west cities would extend that authority to Company Security services.
This is only as a result of drone landing / crashing on property correct? There isn't any trespassing if manages to successfully remain in the air and land outside property boundaries.
This isn't a temporary NFZ, so open skies.
Doesn't the company need to have a LEO agreement, granted by local governing body, basically granting Companie's security to issue fines within the construct of local laws. They aren't able to impose their own governing body and laws, and their Security officers are under the same scrutiny as LEO's in proper issuance & procedures.
Lol... and that's another reason I like my quite little mid-west region.No one is arguing. Within the compounds of the site you are not to trespass. The skies are open, don’t crash inside the pits. Security officers can detain until LEO gets to the scene. The policy is common sense.
Mortenson Las Vegas Raiders stadium build. You cannot fly within two block radius, not over the pit if you do not have permission and they do not have regular security, but the Las Vegas PD. And yes Mortenson/Mc Carthy owns the sky and land on their Las Vegas Raiders Stadium build.
Yo! It’s nuts!Interesting, how did they obtain the rights of owning the sky? Ohhhhh,
Misspoke in hast between errand stops... yes, meant TFR... I often refer to it as a Temp NFZ. You are correct and understandable a stadium would have a TFR.Doug,
The area would have to have been issued a TFR as the FAA does not create NFZ’s. If the property just had a NOTAM without reference to a TFR flight in that airspace would be legal.
Landing, taking off, or physically encroaching private property will cause legal violations, but those have to be imposed by an officer of the court/law. A private citizen, which includes most security guards, can make a citizen’s arrest but that puts them in a lot of civil jeopardy. Should they choose to physically restrain someone until legal authorities arrived that jeopardy would increase exponentially.
Bottom line, the FAA still owns the air, not private businesses or homeowners any higher than they can reasonably use. Good manners would have people respecting the airspace over private property but often that’s not the way it is. Here in CA there’s nothing I’ve found in published law that prohibits photographing private property that is devoid of people. If people are present on that property a prohibition against photographing them and their activities goes into play.
You're kidding, right?In the land of Oz the iniitially real estate photography was considered a commercial activity. The federal regulator (after much wailing and gnashing of teeth by the real estate industry lobbiest's) decided that real estate photographers did not need to be licenced to use drones for commercial real estate photography. Not a good result.
That’s what I assumed, paparazzi & celebrities motivated.This is the law in California that has been used against some drone operators. It is referred to as the paparazzi law.
That law changed the game of drones...This is the law in California that has been used against some drone operators. It is referred to as the paparazzi law.
Phaedrus accurately covered the law, one that has been used against land lubber paparazzi. I don’t know that has yet been used against an aerial operator but it’s certainly applicable.
Have they fined or arrested drone pilots? You indicate used against drone operators? Was there an outcome or bench ruling? I do recall helicopters and people taking tail numbers on a few paparazzi cases... but don’t recall the outcome.This is the law in California that has been used against some drone operators. It is referred to as the paparazzi law.