Flying Over Private Property is Illegal?

[quietleader]

I see news articles occasionally about land owners calling the police when a drone flies over "private property.” Yet no one seems to call the police when United Airlines flies over private property.

Is there a limit to private property ownership in the Z-axis (measured in feet)? If so, wouldn’t that mean that all airspace is open for drones except where specifically restricted or prohibited by the FAA?

I’m confused about this and would like to find an answer.

 

[anotherlab]

It's a bit confusing at the moment. The FAA has defined "navigable airspace" to be 500 ft for urban and suburban areas. In rural areas, it's 360 feet above the ground or above the tallest structure in the flying area. And since the FAA has the 400 ft ceiling for drones, which suggests that you would need the permission of the landowner to fly over his area. You can see the citations for those limits in the Wikipedia article for Air rights.

 

[jopa489]

This is certainly not crystal clear and open to interpretation. In the US, all airspace is under FAA jurisdiction (and, additionally, sometimes also "controlled"). Individuals cannot claim ownership of airspace and cannot deny (or allow) permission to fly in within airspace. Generally, private property owners can only claim nuisance, recklessness, or violation of a state/city law. However, it's trespassing if take off/landing occurs from the property.

The issue of invasion of privacy falls under the state law. This is again open to interpretation, however these rules generally exist to prevent a deliberate invasions of privacy... such as maneuvering near windows of a house.

 

[anotherlab]

This is certainly not crystal clear and open to interpretation. In the US, all airspace is under FAA jurisdiction (and, additionally, sometimes also "controlled"). Individuals cannot claim ownership of airspace and cannot deny (or allow) permission to fly in within airspace. Generally, private property owners can only claim nuisance, recklessness, or violation of a state/city law. However, it's trespassing if take off/landing occurs from the property.

The issue of invasion of privacy falls under the state law. This is again open to interpretation, however these rules generally exist to prevent a deliberate invasions of privacy... such as maneuvering near windows of a house.

The 500ft rule has been pretty well defined by the Supreme Court.

Argent v. U.S. 124 F.3rd 1277,1281 (1997) citing Lacey v. United States, 219 Ct.Cl. 551, 595 F.2d 614, 616 (1979) (treating 500 feet as line of demarcation between compensatable property taking and non-compensatable overflights); Matson v. United States, 145 Ct.Cl. 225, 171 F.Supp. 283, 286 (1959) (providing compensation for flights under 500 feet).Aaron v. United States, 160 Ct.Cl. 295, 311 F.2d 798, 801 (1963) (allowing claims based on flights below 500ft, while denying those based on flights over 500ft).​

 

[Helihover]

No, flying over private property in the United States is not illegal.

Try and not source your "laws" from the newspaper or Internet forums and you'll be good to go.

If at any point you have any doubts, visit the FAA website, its very clear.

 

[tcope]

I see news articles occasionally about land owners calling the police when a drone flies over "private property.” Yet no one seems to call the police when United Airlines flies over private property.

Is there a limit to private property ownership in the Z-axis (measured in feet)? If so, wouldn’t that mean that all airspace is open for drones except where specifically restricted or prohibited by the FAA?

Airspace starts 1mm above the ground. You can't "own" airspace but you have an easement for it's use. Things in the air cannot interfere with one's right to use their land as it was intended. So far the only ruling has been up to 83 feet.

United States v. Causby - Wikipedia

All of this changes when put into the hands of local judges who don't care about existing laws.

 

[tcope]

It's a bit confusing at the moment. The FAA has defined "navigable airspace" to be 500 ft for urban and suburban areas. In rural areas, it's 360 feet above the ground or above the tallest structure in the flying area. And since the FAA has the 400 ft ceiling for drones, which suggests that you would need the permission of the landowner to fly over his area. You can see the citations for those limits in the Wikipedia article for Air rights.

Pretty much none of that applies.

 

[With The Birds]

No, flying over private property in the United States is not illegal.

Try and not source your "laws" from the newspaper or Internet forums and you'll be good to go.

If at any point you have any doubts, visit the FAA website, its very clear.

I doesn't appear to be clear cut. How high might you need to fly before someone might not reasonably argue you are interfering with the useful enjoyment of their land? What about camera footage/ images and people claiming a reasonable right to privacy in areas not ordinarily in view?

 

[anotherlab]

You might want to read United States v. Causby. That was the Supreme Court case in 1946 that set the precedent for the landowner to own up to 500ft of airspace. While the FAA says that it controls the airspace down to the ground, the issue is far from clear from the FAA site. State law determines property rights, not Federal law. For example, Oregon House Law 2710 was passed in 2013. As with any law, there's a fair amount of legalese, but you can summarize is that a landowner can sue someone if the person flies a drone below 400 feet over the landowner's property more than once without permission. That doesn't come from "the newspaper or Internet forums", it's a real law that was passed Oregon.

Take a look at what happened in July 2015, in Hillview (KY), when William Meredith shot down a drone that was flying over his property. He claimed it was at 100ft, the drone's owner had data saying it was 200ft. The judge ruled that it was an invasion of privacy and Meredith had the right to shoot the drone down. All of the charges against Meredith were dismissed.

 

[Sagebrush]

It's my impression that v. Causby focused on repeated government flights that impinged on the landowner's use of his ground and resulted in a government taking. Causby lost 150 chickens because the government put an airstrip next to his property and the glide path went over his property at 83'.

"This destroyed the use of the property as a chicken farm and caused loss of sleep, nervousness, and fright on the part of respondents."

Flying a Phantom at 300 feet is a bit different and a person would be hard-pressed to show a dead chicken (or other damages).

I believe it's unsettled law and I'll avoid an incident that will make me famous.

SB

 

[Helihover]

You might want to read United States v. Causby. That was the Supreme Court case in 1946 that set the precedent for the landowner to own up to 500ft of airspace. While the FAA says that it controls the airspace down to the ground, the issue is far from clear from the FAA site. State law determines property rights, not Federal law. For example, Oregon House Law 2710 was passed in 2013. As with any law, there's a fair amount of legalese, but you can summarize is that a landowner can sue someone if the person flies a drone below 400 feet over the landowner's property more than once without permission. That doesn't come from "the newspaper or Internet forums", it's a real law that was passed Oregon.

Take a look at what happened in July 2015, in Hillview (KY), when William Meredith shot down a drone that was flying over his property. He claimed it was at 100ft, the drone's owner had data saying it was 200ft. The judge ruled that it was an invasion of privacy and Meredith had the right to shoot the drone down. All of the charges against Meredith were dismissed.

In Oregon, 3 acts have to happen and then it's a civil case....

The land has to contact the pilot and ask them to stop, after the pilot has done it once. Then the pilot has to fly over the property again in order for the the property owner to start a suit. This "law" is pretty vague and would not hold up in court, if the pilot was in order, according to the FAA. Especially if the pilot was conducting a commercial operation.

And...... this law is old. It was made before 107, section 333, and so on.... I don't think the FAA was classifying "drones" at the time, as aircraft and no set rules like registration had even been thought up at this point.

 

[tcope]

You might want to read United States v. Causby. That was the Supreme Court case in 1946 that set the precedent for the landowner to own up to 500ft of airspace. While the FAA says that it controls the airspace down to the ground, the issue is far from clear from the FAA site. State law determines property rights, not Federal law. For example, Oregon House Law 2710 was passed in 2013. As with any law, there's a fair amount of legalese, but you can summarize is that a landowner can sue someone if the person flies a drone below 400 feet over the landowner's property more than once without permission. That doesn't come from "the newspaper or Internet forums", it's a real law that was passed Oregon.

No one owns airspace. It's public. Land owners have an easement into the air. Causby's case was 83' up so, at this time, we can know that this easement goes up 83'. It's very clear that the FAA regulates all public airspace. Regulating airspace, the FAA and Causby can/are all different things. The FAA is not involved as the civil suit involved property damage on the ground. The FAA had nothing to do with the Causby case for that reason. Now would they have anything to do with a privacy issue that occured on the ground. The flight of a drone over land most likely involved the FAA. The complaint of privacy does not.

A land owner can sue anyone at any time. A land owner could have a valid suit no matter what the height of the drone was as it all goes to what the complaint is. If the drone is 500' in the air the land owner could still have a case that the flight infringed on his/her rights to use the property.

This is a complex post in that its about 10 different situations all rolled into one. I think it's important to keep in mind that there are FAA issues with the actual _flight_ of a drone but also other government and civil issues with the rights of people on land. When someone asks about privacy and flying over land, many different things _might_ apply. Was the flight in airspace legal (regulated by the FAA). Were any privacy issues violated (determined by local and federal governments other then the FAA). Were any civil laws broken (complaints by US citizens and any/all laws apply but it's a civil case).

 

[Gearbox]

If you are 200 ' in the air , how does one know you are over their property , unless they own a lot of property under the air craft & I would also think that at 200' , they have good eyes .lol

 

[yorlik]

It's a bit confusing at the moment. The FAA has defined "navigable airspace" to be 500 ft for urban and suburban areas. In rural areas, it's 360 feet above the ground or above the tallest structure in the flying area. And since the FAA has the 400 ft ceiling for drones, which suggests that you would need the permission of the landowner to fly over his area. You can see the citations for those limits in the Wikipedia article for Air rights.

360ft? Total nonsense. Stop writing such lies.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[N017RW]

It's not lies but rather just confusion. People believe what they read and just like the game 'telephone', the story changes and morphs the more it's told.

 

[anotherlab]

360ft? Total nonsense. Stop writing such lies.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

It was defined by United State vs Causby. Half a century before drones, but sets a legal precedent.

My point, and the only point that I am trying to make, is that the legal rights of being able to fly a drone over someone else's personal property without permission are not clear cut. FAA regulates the airspace, but State and local jurisdictions can impose their own restrictions.

That's why we are seeing the Singer v Newton lawsuit. And before someone posts "lies" or "telephone", you can read the complaint filed by Singer right here. It's worth reading, the City of Newton is doing more than blocking where you can fly a drone, they are also requiring registration fees per drone. The Newton ordinance can be read here.

 

[erkme73]

Just hope that your state doesn't do what Florida has done. Statute 934.50 was amended last year to open drone operators to civil liability if they are caught capturing images of private property without the owners written consent. IOW, you don't even have to be OVER their property. Fly in your own back yard, and if your camera happens to catch a view (higher than what can be seen from ground level) you've violated the statute. The statute is referred to as the "Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act". It applies only to unmanned aerial platforms equipped with cameras.

To show just how little this has to do with privacy, if you hover 50' over your own property and happen to catch your neighbors property, you're liable. Take a 50' pole with a go-pro mounted to it, your safe. Hover in a (manned) helicopter and film all you want, no issue.

All of this is predicated on the 'victim' being able to prove you captured their property's image. That's very hard to do unless you post them online (say YT, FB, or a neighborhood forum). The law allows the victims to recover double attorney's fees, which means lawyers are willing to accept such clients on a contingency basis. Case in point, an extremely successful 'sue anything that breaths' law firm here in Florida (Morgan & Morgan) already has an ad on their website soliciting such victims.

 

[Travis Brown]

That FL statute states pretty clearly "with the intent to conduct surveillance on the individual or property captured in the image". They would have to prove that. If you're filming and they happen to be in the shot but are not the intended subject, then there is obviously no intent and you'll be safe.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots

 

[erkme73]

That FL statute states pretty clearly "with the intent to conduct surveillance on the individual or property captured in the image". They would have to prove that. If you're filming and they happen to be in the shot but are not the intended subject, then there is obviously no intent and you'll be safe.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots

I was going to address that in my post, but didn't want it to get to long (for the TL;DR crowd). Intent is a very difficult thing to prove in a criminal case, but not in a civil case. Since this statute is only addressing civil actions as remedies, charges will not be brought by a state's attorney or prosecutor. Instead, it'll be a neighbor who retains an attorney on a retainer (costs them nothing). That attorney will request a jury trial. And that jury will be seated with primarily anti-drone peers.

So, yes, intent is required. But are you willing to gamble that logical, rational, and intelligent decisions will be made when it comes to drones? I certainly wouldn't. We see the hysteria and the overreaction that exists. Kids are getting beat up by women who think they're being spied on at the beach (from 400' up). By standers are accosting or verbally threatening operators everywhere. People are militantly against a drone over or near them. It is irrational - but those are the same people you will find on a jury deciding your financial fate.

If the victim's attorney files for discovery and subpoenas all your YT videos (private and unlinked - not just public ones) and all other videos you may have on memory cards and your hard drives that pertain to drone flights, how many of those will contain images of the victims property - incidental or otherwise? Even if it's a dozen times of you just flying by en route to a field, that will cook your goose.

I'm not saying we should fly in fear. But we should be aware of the tools the anti-drone public is amassing to potentially cause problems. Don't make things worse by loitering/hovering in a way that makes your neighbors uncomfortable. If they see a Morgan & Morgan commercial on TV, it gets the wheels going, and you may find a very large target on your back.

 

[42FrankZ]

That FL statute states pretty clearly "with the intent to conduct surveillance on the individual or property captured in the image".

I am not sure I would want those few words standing between me and loosing my stuff. I worked hard for my stuff, and sleaze ball lawyers will want to use my stuff as compensation for their sleaze ball clients that want a pay out and not have to work hard for my stuff.

If there is a law that can screw you, no doubt it will be attempted. The lawyers loose some time if they loose, if they win they make a tidy profit. High reward, low risk. They wouldn't advertise otherwise.