Your Opinion Of This Police Harassment Of Drone Pilot:

[dangrand1103]

I just watched the video...wow! You guys didn't have much to do that day.

 

[ftttu]

Even after explanation that LEOs have the authority to temporarily detain for investigation and can arrest for probable cause, there is still discussion that these officers didn't have either. For reasonable suspicion to exist, LEOs just have to be able to articulate facts of the circumstances of an incident or possible incident.

I can give endless scenarios like this: An officer sees a vehicle traveling down the road with a baby seat on top of the roof. The officer stops the vehicle to investigate. He finds the baby seat is securely attached to the roof and there is only a doll in the seat. Unless their is a statute where it is illegal to securely attach baby seats to the roof of a vehicle, the driver isn't guilty of an offense and the officer is not guilty of overreaching authority.

The officer can easily articulate that he had a belief the driver may have been endangering a child and/or endangering other motorists if the seat had fallen onto the roadway. The driver can scream, yell, stomp feet on the side of the road, request a supervisor, request an attorney, etc, but it would be better to complain at a better location to make his complaint about his "right" to drive around with a baby seat securely fastened to the top of his vehicle with a doll in it.

Those opposed to the LEO's actions are acting like defense attorneys, stating the officers shouldn't have done this and that when they completely discount the fact LEOs have the authority to do so. LEOs aren't defense attorneys, but good ones look at both sides to make the best decisions when applying the laws they have authority to enforce.

Again, LEOs, cannot have full knowledge of every law, full recall of all of those laws, and how to apply them each and every one. Therefore, officers can stop and detain for further investigation if they have at least reasonable suspicion a crimes has just occurred, is occurring or is about to occur. During those temporary detentions, officers can research laws they may be ignorant of and then enforce them.

It appears this facility is a honey pot for attracting certain individuals and groups since they have security officers. Because of that, they may have a working relationship with the local LEOs and other government entities due to on-going problems there. This may or may not be viewed as an unhealthy relationship, but on its face, there is nothing inherently evil about it.

 

[erkme73]

Even after explanation that LEOs have the authority to temporarily detain for investigation and can arrest for probable cause, there is still discussion that these officers didn't have either. For reasonable suspicion to exist, LEOs just have to be able to articulate facts of the circumstances of an incident or possible incident.

I can give endless scenarios like this: An officer sees a vehicle traveling down the road with a baby seat on top of the roof. The officer stops the vehicle to investigate. He finds the baby seat is securely attached to the roof and there is only a doll in the seat. Unless their is a statute where it is illegal to securely attach baby seats to the roof of a vehicle, the driver isn't guilty of an offense and the officer is not guilty of overreaching authority.

The officer can easily articulate that he had a belief the driver may have been endangering a child and/or endangering other motorists if the seat had fallen onto the roadway. The driver can scream, yell, stomp feet on the side of the road, request a supervisor, request an attorney, etc, but it would be better to complain at a better location to make his complaint about his "right" to drive around with a baby seat securely fastened to the top of his vehicle with a doll in it.

Those opposed to the LEO's actions are acting like defense attorneys, stating the officers shouldn't have done this and that when they completely discount the fact LEOs have the authority to do so. LEOs aren't defense attorneys, but good ones look at both sides to make the best decisions when applying the laws they have authority to enforce.

Again, LEOs, cannot have full knowledge of every law, full recall of all of those laws, and how to apply them each and every one. Therefore, officers can stop and detain for further investigation if they have at least reasonable suspicion a crimes has just occurred, is occurring or is about to occur. During those temporary detentions, officers can research laws they may be ignorant of and then enforce them.

It appears this facility is a honey pot for attracting certain individuals and groups since they have security officers. Because of that, they may have a working relationship with the local LEOs and other government entities due to on-going problems there. This may or may not be viewed as an unhealthy relationship, but on its face, there is nothing inherently evil about it.

In your example of the car seat, once the LEO has determined the child is a doll, and the car seat is secured it should be, "have a nice day". There is no need or justification to require identification.

The same holds true if a LEO sees a driver flashing his headlights. There's no telling if the driver needs help (ie has been carjacked) or they are simply warning others of police presence (which is perfectly legal). So the officer could be justified in initiating a stop, but once the driver clears up that the headlights were not a signal to the officer, the stop is over... No ID required.

In this case without RAS, the stop should have been over before it began.

 

[Travels with Yoly]

After watching the video and reading all the comments I've come to the conclusion that no one established whether or not an actual infraction had taken place .... ie: the drone's flight altitude. The flight log could have been used as evidence if the flight had been lower than 100 feet since there is a regulation on the books for surveillance and/or harassment. If the cops had known the law they may have had a path justifying their actions. The fact that they didn't do this may indicate that the flight had been above this altitude and therefore completely legal and they knew it.

As others have said, I'm amazed at the amount of tax-payer resources that were tied up for nearly an hour for literally nothing. Imagine all the crimes being committed with 8 less officers on the beat ?

I also agree that the SHARK individual is a "professional confronter" who may know his rights but also does the drone community real harm.

 

[Les Davidson]

Thank you for that very appropriate (and useful) observation. It says a great deal with just a few words and I will make use of it.

Sorry if I have ruffled feathers. We in the UK love ruffling feathers, see Brexit and EU. We love Trump. We want to upset politicians.


Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots

 

[Les Davidson]

I just watched the video...wow! You guys didn't have much to do that day.

Great observation. Love from the UK.


Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots

 

[Roadking]

These guys were jerks and only hurt the drone community by acting that way. A respectful conversation could have not only helped educate but also get them on their way quicker.

 

[MikeK]

These guys were jerks and only hurt the drone community by acting that way. A respectful conversation could have not only helped educate but also get them on their way quicker.

I think you are viewing this encounter from a superficial perspective.

This was not an ordinary traffic stop. Keep in mind the SHARK people knew why they were being questioned and they knew they had broken no laws. So they had good cause to be resentful of what they were being subjected to.

If I fly a drone over your property, then quit and drive away, you have no legitimate reason to call 911 and demand that police stop and question me on your behalf. If I do something identifiably unlawful, that's one thing. But simply flying a drone at a safe height is not unlawful.

I live in Central Jersey, which is densely populated. I fly my drones over other people's houses all the time. Sometimes I even linger awhile in one spot for one reason or other. Sometimes I'm filming, mostly I'm not. Imagine if all those people, and I'm talking about dozens and dozens, called 911 and asked to have the police question me on their behalf.

I'm not the only one flying drones around here and as time goes by there will be more and more.

 

[F3honda4me]

Well I watched the whole video and in my opinion, you did this to yourselves.

They just wanted to ID you. No one knows wether that drone had a bomb or not.

I believe had you guys not acted like a**es you could have been going home in 10 minutes, but you decided to cause issues, so you got what you deserved. IMO!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So the 4th amendment means nothing to you? They have to have reasonable suspicion a crime was committed in order to perform a terry stop which requires you to show ID.

 

[Vzr1]

The guy in the blue jumper sweater whatever you guys call it needs a good smack in the mouth. Clearly he has to much time in his hands. Can't believe how patient those cops were......

 

[42FrankZ]

But the strange assumption here by quite a few people is that "Marshall farms are doing nothing illegal" how do you know this? I'm not saying they are, but what makes you sure of this from that video?


Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots

Because in this country there is supposed to be a presumption of innocence until proven guilty, which a lot of people have forgotten. I blame the social media effect on that.

 

[MikeK]

Folks. Learn your constitutional rights. For Christ sakes people have died for them the least you could do is know them. All of you saying it's the drone/vehicle operator instigating and making everything harder is ignorant.

1. If the officers are going to say they suspected a crime was committed such that it was enough to use as probable cause for a vehicle stop, they better freakin know what law it is.

2. If, like they said, they did not know for sure if a crime had been commited, then you don't have PC to detain crap!

3. Given the fact they they incriminated themselves by admitting they didn't know what law or crime they had even broken then that would logically make the whole thing an unlawful detention.

4. However, as a vehicle operator, you MUST produce valid ID when stopped to verify both identity and validity of driving privileges. That being said the invalid stop alone though negates the officers legal authority to even ask for ID since they had not committed a traffic offense.

The officers should have taken the complaint. Then should have gotten the license plate info and descriptions of those involved from the security guys AND THATS IT!!! There was no actionable info and definitely some ignorance so they should have simply told the complainants that they are not certain whether or not it was illegal to do what they reported and that they will look up the legalities and follow up with them at a later time.

This way, no one is illegally detained, no ones rights are trampled all over, and cops don't have to look ignorant on camera and then compensate with aggression and missinformation to try and get what they want. And THEN if after their investigation they determine a crime has reasonably been committed then and only then should they make contact with the folks involved. They got their license plates/descriptions so they have somewhere to start.

Thank you.

 

[ftttu]

In your example of the car seat, once the LEO has determined the child is a doll, and the car seat is secured it should be, "have a nice day". There is no need or justification to require identification.

The same holds true if a LEO sees a driver flashing his headlights. There's no telling if the driver needs help (ie has been carjacked) or they are simply warning others of police presence (which is perfectly legal). So the officer could be justified in initiating a stop, but once the driver clears up that the headlights were not a signal to the officer, the stop is over... No ID required.

In this case without RAS, the stop should have been over before it began.

IF the officer in my scenario demanded ID before being satisfied there was no crime since the officer demanded the ID before checking on a possible child endangerment or traffic hazard, the person had to identify them self because he was legally detained for those possible offenses that were not fully investigated.

Let's say the officer, before contact was made with the driver, saw that there was no child endangerment or a road hazard, the driver still has to display his DL upon demand of the officer, at least here in Texas due to the following Texas Traffic Code Statute: Sec. 521.025. LICENSE TO BE CARRIED AND EXHIBITED ON DEMAND; CRIMINAL PENALTY. (a) A person required to hold a license under Section 521.021 shall:
(1) have in the person's possession while operating a motor vehicle the class of driver's license appropriate for the type of vehicle operated; and
(2) display the license on the demand of a magistrate, court officer, or peace officer.
(b) A peace officer may stop and detain a person operating a motor vehicle to determine if the person has a driver's license as required by this section.

At least up until I left my agency a little over a year ago, we had to conduct at least 2 driver license/proof of financial responsibility checkpoints while on day shift during a 28 period shift cycle per our station commander. The Texas traffic code allows us that authority to stop vehicles just to check for these two items, and it doesn't state we have to have any reasonable suspicion, probable cause or proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If a driver approaches me as I motion him to me, and he/she shows me those two documents I had demanded, I am required to send him/her on their way without further delay.

However, while not being ordered to do the above stationary vehicle checks, I used that authority to stop people I believed had no DL - those who appeared too young or someone I have a very good idea to believe doesn't have a DL due to prior dealings with them.

Our DA's office does not like us to submit criminal cases which arise out of stops based on the above for the obvious reason. It is simply used by our agency for the low level tool that it is meant to be - traffic law enforcement.


All of y'all who want to fight battles with officers on the side of the road, go right ahead. It may be possible you will be arrested for some offense, but at least you got to voice your grievances and exercise your 1A rights with the local and/or state po-poes.

Just to add. Here in Texas, you have to submit to a full physical arrest if the officer made it clear that is the intent. However, if the officer uses unlawful force to effect that arrest, you have justification to resist.

 

[Scoddy71]

Folks. Learn your constitutional rights. For Christ sakes people have died for them the least you could do is know them. All of you saying it's the drone/vehicle operator instigating and making everything harder is ignorant.

1. If the officers are going to say they suspected a crime was committed such that it was enough to use as probable cause for a vehicle stop, they better freakin know what law it is.

2. If, like they said, they did not know for sure if a crime had been commited, then you don't have PC to detain crap!

3. Given the fact they they incriminated themselves by admitting they didn't know what law or crime they had even broken then that would logically make the whole thing an unlawful detention.

4. However, as a vehicle operator, you MUST produce valid ID when stopped to verify both identity and validity of driving privileges. That being said the invalid stop alone though negates the officers legal authority to even ask for ID since they had not committed a traffic offense.

The officers should have taken the complaint. Then should have gotten the license plate info and descriptions of those involved from the security guys AND THATS IT!!! There was no actionable info and definitely some ignorance so they should have simply told the complainants that they are not certain whether or not it was illegal to do what they reported and that they will look up the legalities and follow up with them at a later time.

This way, no one is illegally detained, no ones rights are trampled all over, and cops don't have to look ignorant on camera and then compensate with aggression and missinformation to try and get what they want. And THEN if after their investigation they determine a crime has reasonably been committed then and only then should they make contact with the folks involved. They got their license plates/descriptions so they have somewhere to start.

Fight the good fight, Brother. You go right ahead. Perhaps I'm as ignorant as you say for laying down my rights (lol) but that's only if you feel someone is taking them away. They're not holding a gun on me, they're asking for my ID (Which my ignorant butt will provide) and I'll be home in 20 minutes with my family. If you think this guy made any headway or helped protect our rights or made things ANY easier for other drone pilots, while that's your opinion, mine is that you're just being silly.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots

 

[MikeK]

Fight the good fight, Brother. You go right ahead. Perhaps I'm as ignorant as you say for laying down my rights (lol) but that's only if you feel someone is taking them away. They're not holding a gun on me, they're asking for my ID (Which my ignorant butt will provide) and I'll be home in 20 minutes with my family. If you think this guy made any headway or helped protect our rights or made things ANY easier for other drone pilots, while that's your opinion, mine is that you're just being silly.

How do you suppose this encounter might have a negative effect on drones or drone pilots?

While there are a small number of submissive personalities whose reflexive impulse is to submit to police authority regardless of circumstances there are far more thoughtful individuals who will consider such factors as the SHARK group's history with Marshall Farms and the possibility of some low-level collusion between that company's private security staff and the police.

 

[Scoddy71]

Very simple. It's pretty much just like skaters. Cops get called by citizens (who don't own the property they are calling about). Said cops come out, the skaters are little pricks. As time goes on, and the run-ins continue, it gets to the point where cops LOVE hassling skaters at first sight- without complaints even being filed- because cops don't like disrespectful little punks. Let me be clear here, it's their right to skate unless posted otherwise and/or a VALID complaint has been made BY THE PROPERTY OWNER. I'm not disputing the legal grounds of this discussion in any way here. I'm just saying that cops respond much better to respect than to cocky, combative individuals and drone rules and regulations are far too new AND changing, in my opinion, to hold cops responsible for knowing. As a GROUP, if we want to be able to keep flying, it's better for us, again... in MY opinion, that we act politely and respectfully and cooperate fully with authorities whenever possible. The longer we act cool and show respect, the longer we'll be able to fly. If we keep using our drones to fight for some little procedural rights you BELIEVE we might have, and the majority of drone calls are negative in nature for said cops, the more likely they are to complain to city boards of directors who DO currently have the authority to enact extra legislation ON TOP of FAA regulations. (I believe someone on this post erroneously suggested only the FAA can control drones)

In the state of Oregon, for example, they've enacted legislation that allows individuals to sue anyone who flies a drone over private property without permission at a height of less than 400 feet. Well, the FAA says we can't fly ABOVE 400 feet so basically all of Oregon is an at-risk state now. There are other examples of other municipalities across the country doing the same. The loop is going to close. A lot of people, not knowing anything about the technology, stability and dependability of these higher end drones, and some already paranoid about terrorism, already have the wrong opinion of drone pilots.

I'll show my ID because I don't care. I'll show my ID because it's no big deal to me. I'll show my ID and be polite and respectful because they don't have to let us keep flying and I want them to look at us as polite law abiding people respectful of the law. I'll show my ID because I want them to look at US as a group with trust and respect and that starts with us. You don't have to see it that way. You have your rights. Just realize that in the end- long term, they CAN shut us down legislatively. It's happening. Is it worth it over showing your ID? Maybe. Maybe not.


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots

 

[ftttu]

I believe ANY private property owner with a desire to complain to the police because a flying camera platform is occupying airspace over their private property, is a criminal because anyone involved with the operation of a flying camera platform over someone else's private property is an inherently good and passionate crusader.

Therefore, I decree no private property owner shall ever employ private security, whether being private security officers or peace officers employed by the private property owners as security officers so as to charge them with exercising the rights the private property owner has over their own private property. I further decree that private property owners SHALL not harbor any type of ill will or animosity toward a inherently good and passionate crusader and/or any flying camera platform the inherently good and passionate crusader may be operating over the private property owner's private property. I further decree no law enforcement officer SHALL ever ever ever harass, detain, arrest, speak in any level considered authoritarian to, stink eye or derogatororily gesture at, etc etc etc, an inherently good and passionate crusader, or to ever ever ever ask or force an inherently good and passionate crusader to move from a spot they are physically occupying even if that law enforcement officer harbors safety fears for themselves or others. I further decree all inherently good and passionate crusaders have the same ultimate and super freedom which only anarchists, sovereign citizens, illuminati and other secret society members, enjoy over the common and unimportant citizenry/sheeple. I further decree that the inherently good and passionate crusader who fired a weapon in the pizza parlor in Washington, D.C. due to his benevolent belief he was investigating reports that failed U.S. Presidential Candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Podesta - her failed U.S. presidential campaign chairman, were both running a child sex trafficking operation in said pizza parlor, be exonerated of all criminal and civil liabilities relating to said incident and to receive the same super and ultimate freedoms all other inherently good and passionate crusaders deserve.

 

[shanekio]

Well I'm glad that's all settled. That was a real nail-biter there for awhile!


Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots

 

[y2keable]

I don't know the laws in the USA but in the UK we have to give the police our details backed up with ID, such as passport, driving licence.

Wrong their sir. Like in the US, us Brits have human rights. Two of those rights are a right to anonymity and a right not to say anything. However, if you're driving a car and you're stopped, you're required to produce your driving licence as you have a contract to do so with the DVLA.

Only If the police have reasonable suspicion that you've committed an offence (they must have evidence or a warrant) can they demand your details (you're likely to have been arrested at this point anyway, otherwise they can only request your details and a request can be declined. Refusing to identify yourself is not an offence and does not warrant an arrest.

 

[Mr. Salty]

These guys were jerks and only hurt the drone community by acting that way. A respectful conversation could have not only helped educate but also get them on their way quicker.

The problem is you're looking at this as though this encounter was about drones. It wasn't. It was about private security from an animal mill using local law enforcement to harass animal rights activists who were bothering them. The fact that a drone was involved was incidental.