P4 owner in trouble with the law......
- Thread starter Toddf
- Start date
Gives the law abiding operators a bad reputation
Sent from my SM-G930V using PhantomPilots mobile app
Sent from my SM-G930V using PhantomPilots mobile app
ianwood
Taco Wrangler
This would be the first ever case I've heard of with someone using a drone to be a "voyeur" and I am already suspicious. Call me crazy, but I continue to think that a blinking, buzzing machine with a wide angle lens that lasts only 15 minutes is not exactly the best choice to covertly spy on your neighbors.
Plus half the time in daylight you would get a terrific view of your phantom in the window due to glare/reflections than a real good inside view.
Now at night though, another story.
Now at night though, another story.
Did the person that follow the aircraft then take said aircraft when it landed? Sounds like felony theft.
If the owner did not consent to search there could be 4th amendment issues as well.
If the owner did not consent to search there could be 4th amendment issues as well.
N017RW
Premium Pilot
It seems just about any 'news story' need be viewed with some skepticism these days, however, just because a few intelligent folks here can point out shortcomings and other technical challenges does not mean that plenty of others are not doing so or trying.
The information provided seems to indicate we are dealing with a repeat offender who has simply moved into another venue to satisfy his needs. He's not a photographer, he's not concerned with composition, lighting, or balance. When/if seen he can just zip/fly away with no one able to identify him as before (he thought).
The information provided seems to indicate we are dealing with a repeat offender who has simply moved into another venue to satisfy his needs. He's not a photographer, he's not concerned with composition, lighting, or balance. When/if seen he can just zip/fly away with no one able to identify him as before (he thought).
But probable cause can get rid of that, that's why the police can search your car without your consent if they have reason to believe you committed a crime. If the drone was indeed spotted looking into someones bathroom that would be probable cause to search the sd card for video of the incident.
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2016
- Messages
- 236
- Reaction score
- 66
- Age
- 64
This person probably looked out his window saw a drone either going out or coming home and freaked,,,, unless your deaf how's voyeur with a drone work??!
Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots
Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots
Like all/most of us, I'm guessing he had a sticker on his drone with his FAA License and Phone Number ... Wouldn't have been easier just to look him up via a reverse number look-up? ... Oh, and I guess he's losing his license as well, a $5 NOT well spent 
It may or may not be probable cause, it may only be reasonable suspicion. It may also just be hearsay. The reporting person may actually lie.
People are very quick to judge and believe that someone is a scumbag and deserves to be treated as such. Not saying this guy isn't a scumbag but we, as a society, need to be conscious that we are just handing over our rights to the government without thought as to where it all leads.
Sounds like a spoof to me.
Edit: Well, maybe not
Orem police say they’ve identified peeping drone operator
Edit: Well, maybe not
Orem police say they’ve identified peeping drone operator
Agreed. The drone was seen acting suspiciously. More than enough probable cause to search the drone.
It still represented probable cause, and the contents of the SD card confirmed his story.
As I am not an attorney, much less one licensed to operated in Utah, I can't tell you what constitutes probable cause there. I do hope, however, that "suspicious activity" is not the base line standard. Anything can be suspicious.
It will vary from judge to judge, but yes..."suspicious activity" certainly can be sufficient grounds for a search. In this case...a witness observed the drone hovering outside his bathroom window. Yes...that is "suspicious activity". The cops could investigate theSD card on that basis alone, but if they had decided to get a warrant first, I can't really imagine that a judge wouldn't grant it.
Similar threads
