Thanks for covering this case and for the shout-out Steve. We have to see if Ottawa County wants to pursue an appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court. Based upon some comments the County's attorney gave to local media, they probably will not appeal. That will put an end to this case, but the Michigan Coalition of Drone Operators, Inc. is looking for its next challenge. Currently, the University of Michigan criminalizes the operation of drones on OR OVER University property. Michigan State University criminalizes takeoff or landing on University property. At both schools, penalties include jail time, fines and confiscation of property. UofM and MSU may be the next defendants.
As both a pilot of passenger carrying aircraft and drones, I have chimed in on Steve’s videos regarding drones. What people fail to understand is that the FAA does not make a distinction between a $500 drone and a 747. U of M sits in the Ann Arbor Class D and requires FAA (not school) authorization to fly in. The Ann Arbor Class D sits right on the edge of the Detroit Class B, which I can assure you is of more worry to the FAA than some kids Mavic catching a touchdown. Pretty sure it was Detroit that had a commercial flight fly past a drone on final approach well ABOVE the 400’ it was supposed to be at. Anyway, sadly many people are ignorant as to the where, why’s, and how’s to not just drone operations, but in the AIRCRAFT operations as a whole. People can be passionate in their stance, but I try to reasonably point to the facts. As for the U of M thing, I totally agree with you. In the eyes of FEDERAL law, I wonder how operating a drone either from your hands, or from the back of a pick up truck would/could be viewed (TECHNICALLY, it would already be in Ann Arbor Class D). If you need and obtain FAA authorization by contacting the Ann Arbor Municipal tower? I can’t imagine U of M would stand a snowballs chance in hell. Outside of a. TFR, I’d do it. All the best! ~ Jeff
@@earthwindflier I can see any university or college denying the flying of a drone from their property but not over their property. This is private property and the school can decide if they want their commons used for any specific purpose. Any drone flying overhead though, would be covered and expected to follow any FAA regulations.
The county's lawyer's argument reminds me of a quote from William F. Buckley: "I won't insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe what you just said."
I've seen a couple videos were police arrest someone for illegally carrying a firearm. The victim explains what he's doing is legal and the cops state "there's a city ordinance that makes that illegal in the downtown area". Victim reminds the police of the state law that says only the state is allowed to pass firearm laws and regulations, not the local entities, and the cops reply "we know all about that law--we don't care--as long as there is a local ordinance on the books we're going to enforce it." That doesn't go well for the cops in court. Last one I saw within a month the city commission got together and voted to rescind their illegal ordinance. Guess they didn't want to have to keep shelling out $$$ settlements paying for police who "don't care" what the law is.
@@frotoe9289 About the same as the no-panhandling ordinances; even when the cops are reminded of the SCOTUS ruling. But of course, a lot of those arrested can't afford to fight. Also, hanging a sign in the Government Office that prohibits recording with no criminal code and someone is willing to take an arrest. I've seen them try to use wiretapping laws, then change it to disorderly, or?
The city of Atlanta passed a law that made most pocket knives and multi tools illegal weapons against resistance from the state level. So the state legislature passed a law legalizing lock blade, switchblades, flip blades, multi tools, hatchets and machetes and forbid cities & counties from passing any law that restricted them !
@@TheGreatAtario A machete I'd a tool. In your scenario it's just like doing the same thing with a kitchen knife. Where does it end? Next, you'll want to outlaw lawnmowers because it could be used as a mass killing machine by starting it and throwing it into a crowd.
@@TheGreatAtario Last time a druggie tried to stalk me home and rip my face off like a chimp. Soooo about noon yesterday. 😐 Do you know what a city is fella?
I just like how "remote control cars" were part of the law that was struck down. Can you imagine if a police officer had arrested a six year-old for playing with his new RC car he'd just gotten from grandma? That's the kind of trouble these stupid politicians were inviting by passing that law. They're lucky it went down this way instead of by my hypothetical outcome.
If the legislature doesn't know all the laws it seems cruel and unusual to expect citizens to know them all - and dumb to have officers on the beat who cannot possibly know the laws they enforce. If you work as a lawmaker do you actually think this is just?
"The statue means what it says" Thank God and thank you Michigan courts! In this crazy age that we live in, words don't mean what they mean anymore. Manipulation of the language to manipulate everything else is rampant. It's a relief that this case worked out properly ♥️
Steve, glad to see they referenced the FAA on this. I've had issues here in Nevada with the State Parks saying I can't overfly them.... even though N.R.S.'s and the FAA say I can (licensed 107 pilot). No tickets yet, but I'm getting tired of having to teach people the actual laws for UAS.
I love the way Steve delivers information. He can take completely confusing text and read it in a way that makes you understand and question it. Hand gestures, subltle laugh, facial expressions, eye contact, and most importantly his speaking voice make his statements so appealing to watch.
My guess is that there were either narrow time frame commercial licenses or licenses on confirmation that the groan was unable to take video, photographs, or audio.
@@ke9tv I am guessing but I am guessing it is fairly small if they can check that your drain is incapable of surveillance or recording. If not it is substantial and there is substantial oversight. Again this is me reading between the lines as opposed to having actual contacts.
The County’s Parks webpage stated that “[n]o permits will be issued for general hobby use within the public areas of the Parks or Open Spaces.” The County Parks Commercial Photography/Videography Agreement states that “[a]erial photography is not permitted within Ottawa County Parks” and applicants “must file a Certificate of Insurance in the amount of $1 million for general liability with Ottawa County Parks Commission named as the additionally insured.” Applicants must also agree to indemnification and hold harmless provisions in the agreement. However, during a hearing in the trial court, the County acknowledged that NO permits had been issued.
This is a small example of the same thing going on in New York, California and New Jersey regarding those states passing firearms laws in response to and in defiance of the SCOTUS ruling in Bruen.
Oh, they absolutely don't. Most laws lag way BEHIND the current technology, with there being no laws AT ALL about some new toy until LONG AFTER it's been commonly used for YEARS. And THEN the law tries to play catch-up and screws it up several times over.
Agreed. "Jarts" or lawn darts and chemistry sets (notably the Gilbert U-238 Radioactive Atomic Energy Lab, $49.50) of the 1950-60's come to mind. I had fun while it lasted...
Government types predictably love to control and regulate anything and everything. With very rare exception, human beings cannot be trusted with much power.
I was on a Town board (we have Towns not Townships in Wisconsin). Several times I had to remind other board members we had to look at State Statues and County Ordinances when passing our own.
Fifty years ago, we could assume such, but the state of our education is such we can't presume the earth is round anymore, without providing the proof.
Thank you! Your thoughtful conduct is too rare these days. Many towns, and it seems like especially the smaller ones feel free to disregard county state and federal law...
@Roger S These are glorified HOA's in how they act. Busybodies who do not know the law should not be allowed into the process of making laws and regulations.
Government needs to STOP making new laws and START deleting old ones. If they do make new ones, they need to get rid of three old laws for each new one they create.
@@TheAechBomb I’ll concur. As well to add, the FAA isn’t regulating everything about operators, just around the aircraft, airspace, and some behavior. A lot is left to the states about trespassing and other laws that don’t effect across state lines. If they don’t update the laws, you could see a lotta drone operators doing really stupid shit and not facing punishment because the law isn’t modified to fit. (Just an example, not insulting my cohorts.) Should old laws be looked at? Hell yes. Should we ignore new tech? Hell no. Reading this, it sounds like I am not agreeing with you but I am.
When will cities, counties, universities etc. learn that they derive all of the power from the state and that the state has a right and probably an obligation to control with types of ordinances those political subdivisions pass. There is a compelling public interest in making laws uniform through out the state. Keep the good stuff coming Steve.
There are many similar cases going on around the country. In particular I know of some in New Jersey that involve some of the same people from MCDO. Thank you Ryan!
Thanx Steve. As an FAA Certified Commercial Pilot, Flight Instructor, Instrument Flight Instructor, Advanced Ground Instructor and Certified UAS pilot, I am always eager to keep up w/ the laws. If the county can regulate flight of "drones" then next they will try to regulate "Manned" aircraft that are used for aerial photography, such as News helicopters. Where would we have been without the helicopter footage of the OJ Simpson chase. In addition to that, there is likely some written code in that county that states that a person in a public park (any public space) is granted no expectation of "privacy".
@@desperateneedofscotch what about flying over the street looking down into your fenced in yard, I think I should be allowed to film anything I can see from a public place what say you?
I used to fly drones for years but when they became mainstream it became very unfun. It seemed that instead of people coming up and being interested about it, everyone comes up and starts screaming at you instead which is funny because most people didn't seem to give a damn until it became a topic of conversation. You also can't fly it basically anywhere these days and I quit the hobby completely.
These days? Since they were invested. What a lot of people don't realize about drones is they had laws long before they even became a thing. Laws that apply to any rc aircraft like planes, helicopters, gyrocopters, blimps and the day they came out, drones. They all share pretty much the same laws for every flying model type from state to state. The most common one shared by most states is not flying them over peoples heads. Flying in public spots can vary. Either you have to stay so many yards from people or they just don't allow them in a public spot at all.
@@Grimmsha72 I'm not saying you are lying, but I don't believe you. Please sight these laws, or even a couple of these laws. Not only do I believe you are wrong about pre existing laws, I believe you are wrong about current drone laws. Faa is not an elected body. They do not have the authority to write laws. Faa makes rules not laws. Is there a difference between laws & rules?? Yes Now is that just a way to get around their unconstitutional actions? Yes
@@jupitercyclops6521 regulations which have the force of law since congress granted them that authority. Plus drones have always had some regulations associated with them, restricted airspace is one flying above 400 ft (ground not sea level) flying without visual sight of the drone. Now, depending on the size of the drone you're required to be licensed to operate it. And if you operate a drone under the influence of drugs or alcohol you're fined (BAL over 0.04% You can find the regulations in the FAA small unmanned aircraft systems.
So these incompetents spent taxpayer time and money making laws that won't stand. Then they spend taxpayer time and money fighting for it in court. Maybe they should spend some taxpayer time and money doing a little research before they make laws. Maybe they should remember that working for the public doesn't mean figuring out ways to restrict the publics freedom because they don't like it.
Maybe they should spend their own money passing and defending illegal laws, and maybe they should be the ones getting thrown in jail themselves when they break the law.
From an FAA licensed Part 107 UAS pilot, FAASTeam Safety Representative for the FAA, and FAA registered DronePro, yes Steve you are correct on this correct court ruling.
I've seen some defcon presentations on drones ... airspace is basically for the FAA to regulate, even though everyone and their grandmother is trying to legislate. Even the National Park Service is in on the act!
None of the drones I see commercially for the general public can be accused of eavesdropping, they dont record audio. I hung a GoPro under a larger drone and all i could hear was the motors.
Steve, I recently shot down a No Drone Zone enacted by my HOA. One of your favorite kinds of entities, I understand. The problem for them was that this HOA is divided into common facilities and private rural lots. I informed them that FAA was the sole agency that regulates airspace and operations from private property and pointed them to bylaws section regarding subservience. I also told them to pound sand. They tried to amend the bylaws by vote to extend the common facilities rule on to the rural lots, but I shut that vote down with a letter campaign. They got only about a third of the yes votes required while I almost got the no votes required to block the amendment outright.
So this entity claimed they have jurisdiction because they said so. Maybe is the instance of due process and fairness the body making the claim of jurisdiction should have to present evidence to support their legal argument as required per rule 3.1
@@deanopilot You would know better than me however I'm quite certain that Genesee county Park rangers did arrest a guy and confiscated stuff. I was under the impression that that incident is what started the legal pushback. I even have the guy's video of when he was arrested and the cops left something on... drone, phone or something and recorded themselves lol I can picture the one cop sitting in his Ford bronco or whatever, eating a cheeseburger while telling the guy he would be arrested...
@@jerseyshoredroneservices225, Yes, I handled that case as well. Jason's (TH-cam "jacuzzibusguy") arrest and criminal complaint was the impetus for the first legal challenge in Genesee County. The Genesee County prosecutor dropped the case against Jason. With others, Jason formed the Michigan Coalition of Drone Operators, Inc. ("MCDO") and currently serves as its President. MCDO thereafter has become the lead plaintiff in MCDO v Genesee County and MCDO v Ottawa County.
As a drone operator, I would like to comment on the criminal trespass issue. As a property owner it is my understanding from the FAA Regulations that a property owner does own the airspace above their property. However, the FAA controls all navigable airspace in the United States as a type of easement. This way airplanes can fly over the property, as can helicopters, and (as a registered US Aircraft) drones, so long as they are abiding by FAA regulations. If a drone is harassing someone, or recording through the windows, and the like, there are laws that control that. Those laws have nothing to do with flying over the property, they are about harassing and spying with a drone, or telescope, or binoculars or anything else. Simply flying over private property is not criminal trespass. There are a lot of places we cannot fly, but they are spelled out in the FAA regulations, and yet other places we need permission to fly, also in the regulations. Another point is that soon, UPS, FEDX, and Amazon will be using unmanned aircraft to deliver packages to a neighborhood near you. Stand by.
I did until I realized it is a selection not an election, nothing will ever change until we get non-corupt reps on every level of government. I believe each president since Kennedy has had a specific part of the sell out of america. Each one had a step to complete, for instance Nixon got us off a sound monitary system, Trump to bring division, and Biden to kill our currency. So that being said either way our country will be sold out.
Thank you Ryan, Dean and the rest of the team. This is a big win for the drone peoples. Just hearing about it may enlighten other governments and discourage them from preempting state and federal law. Now we remote pilots need to behave properly. Don't be annoying, harassing or dangerous to wildlife, people or property. Yeah we have the right to fly in a lot of places but we don't have the moral right to be jerks in general. None of us has the right to give the rest of us a bad reputation.
I was simply blown away by how, for once, a state government, said that this is covered by a federal agency, and there is no reason for us, or anyone under us, to mess around with it. Rare for any form of government to have such common sense. Wish this sudden break out of common sense would be contagious to every other politicians and/or governments.
HOA's operate as a contract between those who join them and the HOA Board, so if you agree to be subject to their rules then they may generally enforce rules they create against you. So, I would say yes, generally the HOA can ban drones.
@@KabobHope someone who is not part of the HOA could still operate a drone over HOA property as long as they are not on HOA property and following other drone related regulations.
@@hewhohasnoidentity4377 👍I am sure the FAA has privacy and trespass covered under their regulations re: aircraft and private property so assuming we are Michigan that sounds right to me. This is actually a good move. I wonder if my bass-ackwards state has the same law.
Sounds eerily similar to two county's here in MD. There is total state preemption of all drone laws, but two local counties banned them from parks. One of them immediately removed it once notified of the state preemption, the other dug in.
Hi Steve, isn't aerospace governed by the FAA? Therefore I would think the other governments wouldn't be allowed to govern aircraft. Here in Canada a few cities decided to try to shutdown established airports. Each time the Department Of Transport (D.O.T) stepped in and overturned the bylaws.
While the airspace is controlled by FAA, the feds do allow local government to control takeoff/landing from their property. However, the state of Michigan forbids local government from making any rules or law regarding the ownership or operation of unmanned aircraft.
“The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States.” 49 U.S.C. § 40103(a)(1). “A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace.” 49 U.S.C. § 40103(a)(2). The FAA is charged with "prescrib[ing] air traffic regulations on the flight of aircraft . . . for-(A) navigating, protecting, and identifying aircraft; (B) protecting individuals and property on the ground; [and] (C) using the navigable airspace efficiently." 49 U.S.C. § 40103(b)(2). In 2012, Congress tasked the FAA with "develop[ing] a comprehensive plan to safely accelerate the integration of civil unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace system." Pub. L. No. 112-95 § 332. In so doing, the FAA mandated that drone operators keep drones below an altitude of 400 feet from the ground or a structure. 14 C.F.R. § 107.51(b).
The FAA does have sole jurisdiction over the airspace however when it comes to things on the ground the local governments have a say. There have been situations where cities wanted to close airports and they kind of had the right to do that. But they also had to somehow work it out with the FAA because the FAA also had a say about it. Usually it works out to changing traffic patterns, limiting the kinds of airplanes and frequency, and or phasing an airport out over time.
@@jacuzzibusguy takeoff and landing involves contact with the ground. the moment you're out of contact with teh ground, teh state and local govs have NO authority.
@5:36, They might take your drone or you might say something that makes them suspicious and so they conclude an arrest is necessary. @8:28, Basically they can't do anything, true I agree. The issue with privacy is really a Constitutional and Federal issue. @13:28, I don't think it's trespass over 500 feet. Remember the public is on both sides, as a drone operator and as the home owner. So, we are obligated to respect ourselves and our rights from both points of view. But, public places like government buildings and parks should be exempt from Privacy laws. That is not someone's back yard! I also highly agree with regulating government use of these drones, and it should have been State or Federal Law, not local ordnance.
Sometimes it's all they have in their shallow lives. George Wallace said, "There are two things in this world: money and power, and I don't much care for money".
This is great news for everyone who believes in the rule of law. I began considering gun law in the early seventies, as efforts intensified in Chicago, for "gun control" and the Illinois legislature appeared well aware of statutory standards. I left Chicago in 76, and never returned because they appeared to leave that idea behind and press forward as if there were no limits by Constitution. I served as a Marine two decades, and truly appreciated the notion in Uniform Code of Military Justice "our legal system" for the actual language of law, and it's accurate statement and interpretation. This Court Finding substantially upholds and supports the "statutory limits" that naturally limits legislature under the rule of law, something decidedly absent these days in so many cases.
It seems to me that public entities (that we pay for) will do anything they can to keep us from checking up on what they're doing with the money we give them.
@@gungadinn you don't have property without the state saying you do. If the state didn't support your property rights, then your property would actually be my property. Good luck with defending your own rights without the state.
@@gungadinn I think many (if not most) people don't really know their rights. Heck, a lot of cops don't even know them yet they swear an oath to protect them. Go figure. Point taken about giving taxes. Happy holiday's to you and yours.
@@williezar2231 the states laws are what prevent others from taking your property. If you don't want to pay taxes, then you don't deserve the protections that the state offers. I don't have plans to take anyone else's property, but if you don't want to be a part of the state and pay taxes, then you don't get to complain when people take your property.
So I guess if they'd have won this, the next step would be to regulate or prohibit the use of cell phone cameras or other video recording devices without a permit. Also, since their regulation had a clause about making you pay for your own prosecution, couldn't the county appeal it all the way to the SCOTUS and make the person they're ticketing pay the cost for it?
One of the interesting things about the Ottawa County ordinance was that they also prohibited video recording in or near public hearings and county offices. That portion of the ordinance was not struck down as our group (MCDO) was focused solely on the drone provisions. Some other group(s) will need to challenge the county on their 1st Amendment violations of prohibiting phones / cameras at the county offices and public meetings.
I will say this as I expressed in another video about drones / surveillance and the possibility of invading privacy or trespass. I would think most states would recognize that property does not mean that it goes beyond a certain height, which is where the FAA would take over. In a personal aspect, would you think that your property lines go up infinitely or into space? You can't claim that an airplane or a satellite is trespassing or invading your privacy by flying over your "property". Like I stated previously, most ordinances that I have seen that cover such state that you only own property or your property only goes as high as "reasonably serviceable". Does it apply to counties / villages etc? I would think so.
"Cannon range" should apply here. Maritime borders were only ever supported by the reach of shore batteries; 3 miles becoming an early accepted standard for the largest-bore guns at the time. Airspace "common property" makes sense if the only thing most people can swat down is in the range of birdshot. Give a man a couple Patriot missile systems and that cannon range extends to 100 miles or 80,000 feet ASL.
The only problem I have with this is the fact that prisons are already controlled airspace, and off limits to drone. The county can't write their own ordinance, but they can absolutely insist on compliance.
Sorry but that is false. Very few prisons are in controlled airspace. Most reside in Class G (uncontrolled) airspace. And likewise most are NOT off limits to drones. The FAA ARCGIS lists the prisons that are considered "critical infrastructure" that are off limits to drones - they are federal prisons only and limited to max security prisons. It is a common misnomer that prisons are blanket TFRs (Temporary Flight Restricted) areas.
Nothing prevents the state of Michigan from enacting drone bans near prisons. (Whether they do or not, I don't know.) The only thing this case decided is that only the state can regulate drones, not that drones would go unregulated.
@@joesterling4299, correct. Michigan has reserved such restriction for the state government. But Michigan has not done so. This is for two reasons: 1. Should they decide to do such, they would be limited to only restricting land use (as the FAA has sole jurisdiction over airspace), and thus the restriction would be limited to take-off, landing, and operating, but serve no restriction on overflight. 2. Crafting such laws is fairly useless as it is specific to a method. Best practice isn't to prohibit using a knife to commit murder as you then have to add another law or method for a gun, poison, hammer, etc., where a general murder law devoid of method suffices. There are already laws preventing the smuggling of contraband or aiding an escape, etc., so imposing a new law preventing a drone from doing the same things doesn't actually prevent something new, but instead could open loopholes to existing general statutes.
@@joesterling4299 States can limit where remote pilots stand with their transmitter but they can't regulate the airspace. If they want a drone ban in the air over some area they need to apply to the FAA for a TFR.
I can see why they don't want them flying them over jails and prisons since there have been several cases of people using the drones to drop drugs, phones, and weapons into those facilities. As far as the rest of it though you have no expectation of privacy while outside if I remember my supreme Court stupidity correctly.
There already exists no fly zones around all kinds of sensitive areas. You're kidding yourself if you think those people will spend drone money when the same is accomplished much cheaper
There already are existing laws that address delivering contraband into jail facilities. The Ottawa County drone ban didn't do anything to protect against delivering contraband to jails or prevent harassing people or wildlife. The result of this lawsuit doesn't eliminate the existing laws prohibiting such activity.
It’s very likely that there’s something illegal going on in these locations and the local authorities are getting a piece of the action. The legislation really shouldn’t be regarded as anything other than Probable Cause to investigate the county. No way does anyone bump this kind of money into a legal fight if they aren’t doing something wrong.
Exactly. That's why the feds (faa) started regulating the Hobbie in the first place. There hadn't been manned aircraft threatened by drones. That & privacy were propoganda. There were 2 instances that caused gov to regulate. 1 was when 2 young men flew a drone over a large corporate hog farm. They got footage of them illegally dumping waste into a public waterway. The authorities were more concerned about not being able to punish these young men than they were concerned about the illegal waste & it was a lot of waste.
@@jupitercyclops6521 No, just flat out no. The use of unmanned aircraft has been regulated since before the FAA existed. The FAA issued their first guidelines on the matter in 1981. Commercial use of drones was made illegal entirely in 2007. After 2012 they started granting licences to qualified pilots. Broader public access to registration was not allowed untill 2016, and the need for registration was not removed until 2018. No, they did not start regulating because of any of that. Drones have been highly regulated since before drones existed. It is only just recently that they have begun deregulation.
@@edwardwright8127 yup.. As long as the 🐑 🐑 continue to give power and 💵 to narcissists/sociopaths/psychopaths to be their masters, it's business as usual.. 💯💯😂😂
I'm of the personal opinion that you just described the case in Texas. Food processing plants, factory farms and other industries have bought the local governments and basically get a free pass to do whatever they want. They don't like drones flying around observing they're illegal activity. Fortunately Texas law against drone operators was recently struck down in federal court ♥️
Under the current structure of all 50 State's governments, as unitary bodies, the cisies/counties/offices are operational at the discretion of the state. If a city/county government of law enforcement agency operates outside of state laws, that goverent or agency can be disbamded/lose itcls charter, amd become directly run by the state legislature.
This reminds me of an arbitration case between our local union and our employers. Our union specified that the company could not bring in a third party to do work unless the union was notified. I sat in the arbitration deliberations and the arbitrator was totally sympathetic to the case, but had to rule that the union had been communicated to, as to the intentions of the company, to bring in an outside source to do certain tasks. The contract did not specify that the union should be allowed to contest any tasks being outsourced by the company. Notification does not mean that the union could contest it. It was then that I realized that our local union was inept. The totally incredulous irony of this decision was that when the third party came and left, it was our job to get that cell running, no matter how inept the third party was at making sure the efficiency was at, or above, the level before they came.
Note: FAA allows take-off and landings to be restricted on parks but not if an operator takes off and lands outside the park. National parks are restricted space as is jails, military spaces as per FAA restricted areas.
So, the county attorney screwed up when he/she made the regulation in the first place. It was up to them to make sure the state didn't have a rule trumping what the county wants to do.
Either that, or they just didn't care. I know someone on my rural township's board, and they complained the other board members think the state laws are for the big cities, not them. In that case, it's not about them passing their own rules, but following requirements on how meetings must be held and public notice given, and even things like claiming state gas tax money for road maintenance on roads they don't actually maintain.
The subject I am waiting to hit the fan is electric bikes. They perform like a motor bike, but I was surprised to find that (at least in Virginia) no license or registration is required. I cannot see that continuing.
If they're also trying to outlaw photography outside of county buildings, even if the photographs are being taken from a public area, isn't that also a clear 1st Amendment violation as well?
All laws should have an expiration date so that a review is required to determine if the law is still relevant... At the very least, laws that include jail time should be reviewed every so many years.
In Michigan that is no longer the case. The entire park is now open to all R/C planes and drones due to this decision and there can be no local mandate of insurance.
nobody cared, until the cameras when on them .. OMG a CAMERA!!! Fools don't realize there are thousands of cameras in public recording our activities every day.
@@mattalford3932, nope. All are unmanned aircraft. They all fall under 14 CFR 44809 or Part 107 for the FAA and all are covered by Michigan Public Act 436 of 2016.
Just about all of my small, valley-bound city is off limits to drones as the airport and its approaches come under federal aviation regulation. In fact, in Canada, all regulatory powers degarding drones, licensing and so on are reserved to the federal government mostly through Transport Canada, as they are considered aircraft.
Shame. We have a couple drone operators in my area that are peeping in windows and we are forbidden from shooting these, despite trespassing well over private airspace to do so. Think it is because of government interest in using them to snoop as well.
Oh Geez, I hadn't even thought to look this up for WA State as the FAA has authority over airspace, not local governments. Turns out, we have basically the same exact laws as stated in this video. Including the City of Seattle declaring that if you are using your drone for commercial purposes that you have to get a permit when flying over PUBLIC property... not needed over private property. Also they've outlawed flying in/over certain parks entirely. Good luck with that...
If they want to outlaw AIR space being used in a manner allowed by the FAA, they better get "no fly" legally recognized airspace that shows up when I do a preflight check with my drone.
Ah.. That would be "Commercial Use of an UAV" Hobby "Drones" are not registered--the PILOT must be registered (I have one UAV Registration that is on a p-51, Spitfire Mk2, T-28, Carbon Cub, and a couple of KAOS)
did you refuse to grant the charge? because you can do that, especially for an unconstitutional BS authoritarian nonsense like that. charge him with the crime and the crime alone. don't throw absolutely everything at him.
I still can't possess a pocketknife capable of one-hand opening and closing in my state, because of a 1940s moral panic about OMG SWITCHBLADES! There have been Federal prosecutions of mail- and Internet-order outfitters for shipping them to a state where they're unlawful to possess.
I can picture a person using a drone to stalk or harass someone else. I wouldn't want someone hovering a drone over my property. I'm not doing anything bad in my yard, but I don't want someone watching me by drone. Nor would I want someone using a drone to look into my windows. I don't want to curtail anyone's freedom, but I don't want anyone using their freedom to infringe upon mine.
I can actually understand some of these rules. I remember I was in a hotel once, was staying on the 40 something floor. Had my current open because my wife and I like looking at the city skyline at night. We were watching TV and looked to the window and saw a couple green and red lights. Got up and walked out on the balcony and sure enough, it was a drone looking into windows. Wish I could have shot the thing down.
Nice "story". The fabrication was incredible. LOL. If you saw a drone, it was surely getting a cityscape view rather than spying on you. No one cares about you. And drones use wide angle cameras that aren't for spying. Pick up some tin foil at the store on your next visit as your hat needs an additional layer.
@desperate need of scotch yeah, was in a city where you're not allowed to carry your gun. Plus, just wouldn't have been smart discharging a firearm in a hotel. Pretty sure I would have gotten in trouble for that one.
Very likely would have gotten trouble for that, but doncha wish? The reason these abuses happen is cz people won't get involved in the process, so now they are getting the process taken away from them.
Looks like the flaw in their ordnance was assuming that all drone / UAV operators were spying and / or criminal trespassing and then blanket prohibiting it, which was in conflict with state law. It's obvious they were trying to use that spying law as a ram to get a prohibition, otherwise they would of just reaffirmed that spying and trespass were still criminal activities even when committed with a drone / UAV.
Steve if I read correctly air space is owned by the property owner up to 500 feet. Would it be trespassing if someone flies a drone over someone property without permission?
It’s not considered trespassing. Someone may own property up to infinity, but you give up the airspace to be used as an easement for public use. The only legal recourse someone has as far as a drone above your property goes, is PROVING it was there strictly doing something nefarious. The drones recorded telemetry would bare that out as it stores a record of everything the drone and pilot are doing when the drone is in flight. And it’s very detailed information. It ultimately shuts down any false/perceived claims of something nefarious happening, but would also prove if anything nefarious was happening.
Wrong, you own the airspace above your home to outer space, its all yours. But there is an easement to allow all aircraft rights to use your airspace any distance above you. You have right to grow into your airspace, i.e. trees more stories on the building, you can go as high as the city will allow you, to space if you want it's yours. But aircraft have an easement to fly over your property. Only the FAA regulates airspace. A drone is just as much an aircraft as maned aircraft according to the FAA. Don't mess with drones, shooting one down is a felony just like shooting down a maned aitcraft.
Steve, the words "shall not" mean nothing in government. The 2nd amendment says "the right of the People to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed." Yet here we are with all kinds of infringements such as background checks to keep certain people from "bearing arms" as well as red flag laws.
That's because part of the Amendment has the language "well regulated" within it, amongst the "shall not". It's not a blank check in language. And is also highly controversial on how it argues with itself. More over, it was written during the formation of the Monroe doctrine of Isolation. So, the country would stay within it's borders, and draw upon the people when invaded. Fun peek, look at the majority of the amendments, they restrict government from action, not necessarily empowering the individual directly..
@@brokedude1663 That's wrong. The first part is describing the motivation, and it cannot be interpreted as a requirement, because it never makes any attempt to *make* it a requirement. It isn't even implied that it is a requirement. It lists a reason for including the right, then it lists the right without any qualifications or restrictions, and says in broadest possible terms "shall not be infringed".
Thanks for covering this case and for the shout-out Steve. We have to see if Ottawa County wants to pursue an appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court. Based upon some comments the County's attorney gave to local media, they probably will not appeal. That will put an end to this case, but the Michigan Coalition of Drone Operators, Inc. is looking for its next challenge. Currently, the University of Michigan criminalizes the operation of drones on OR OVER University property. Michigan State University criminalizes takeoff or landing on University property. At both schools, penalties include jail time, fines and confiscation of property. UofM and MSU may be the next defendants.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.. 💯💯
@@jpnewman1688 ..... no fuckin sense
@@eminentbishop1325 I bet you voted repeatedly, right?? 😂😂
As both a pilot of passenger carrying aircraft and drones, I have chimed in on Steve’s videos regarding drones. What people fail to understand is that the FAA does not make a distinction between a $500 drone and a 747. U of M sits in the Ann Arbor Class D and requires FAA (not school) authorization to fly in. The Ann Arbor Class D sits right on the edge of the Detroit Class B, which I can assure you is of more worry to the FAA than some kids Mavic catching a touchdown. Pretty sure it was Detroit that had a commercial flight fly past a drone on final approach well ABOVE the 400’ it was supposed to be at. Anyway, sadly many people are ignorant as to the where, why’s, and how’s to not just drone operations, but in the AIRCRAFT operations as a whole. People can be passionate in their stance, but I try to reasonably point to the facts. As for the U of M thing, I totally agree with you. In the eyes of FEDERAL law, I wonder how operating a drone either from your hands, or from the back of a pick up truck would/could be viewed (TECHNICALLY, it would already be in Ann Arbor Class D). If you need and obtain FAA authorization by contacting the Ann Arbor Municipal tower? I can’t imagine U of M would stand a snowballs chance in hell. Outside of a. TFR, I’d do it. All the best! ~ Jeff
@@earthwindflier I can see any university or college denying the flying of a drone from their property but not over their property. This is private property and the school can decide if they want their commons used for any specific purpose. Any drone flying overhead though, would be covered and expected to follow any FAA regulations.
The county's lawyer's argument reminds me of a quote from William F. Buckley: "I won't insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe what you just said."
I've seen a couple videos were police arrest someone for illegally carrying a firearm. The victim explains what he's doing is legal and the cops state "there's a city ordinance that makes that illegal in the downtown area". Victim reminds the police of the state law that says only the state is allowed to pass firearm laws and regulations, not the local entities, and the cops reply "we know all about that law--we don't care--as long as there is a local ordinance on the books we're going to enforce it."
That doesn't go well for the cops in court.
Last one I saw within a month the city commission got together and voted to rescind their illegal ordinance. Guess they didn't want to have to keep shelling out $$$ settlements paying for police who "don't care" what the law is.
Sounds like something that should be told to Trump's lawyers often!
@@musicloverme3993 really? You're that retard?
Good luck.
@@frotoe9289 About the same as the no-panhandling ordinances; even when the cops are reminded of the SCOTUS ruling. But of course, a lot of those arrested can't afford to fight.
Also, hanging a sign in the Government Office that prohibits recording with no criminal code and someone is willing to take an arrest. I've seen them try to use wiretapping laws, then change it to disorderly, or?
the Buckley and Vidal debates are EPIC
The city of Atlanta passed a law that made most pocket knives and multi tools illegal weapons against resistance from the state level. So the state legislature passed a law legalizing lock blade, switchblades, flip blades, multi tools, hatchets and machetes and forbid cities & counties from passing any law that restricted them !
Wonder how the state legislature will react when someone shows up on the capitol steps at quitting time with a machete and starts hack-'n'-slashin'
@@TheGreatAtario A machete I'd a tool. In your scenario it's just like doing the same thing with a kitchen knife. Where does it end? Next, you'll want to outlaw lawnmowers because it could be used as a mass killing machine by starting it and throwing it into a crowd.
@@glenwhatley7366 When was the last time you needed a machete inside any city limits? And when for a kitchen knife?
@@TheGreatAtario Last time a druggie tried to stalk me home and rip my face off like a chimp. Soooo about noon yesterday. 😐 Do you know what a city is fella?
@@DD-ms4zr Sure, bud. And I suppose you'd have been better off had he possessed one, eh?
I just like how "remote control cars" were part of the law that was struck down. Can you imagine if a police officer had arrested a six year-old for playing with his new RC car he'd just gotten from grandma? That's the kind of trouble these stupid politicians were inviting by passing that law. They're lucky it went down this way instead of by my hypothetical outcome.
I almost choked on my food when he said "the presumption is that the legislature is aware of the law". 😂😂😂
Same here. I work for a legislature. We have an army of attorneys there for a reason.
If the legislature doesn't know all the laws it seems cruel and unusual to expect citizens to know them all - and dumb to have officers on the beat who cannot possibly know the laws they enforce. If you work as a lawmaker do you actually think this is just?
Quite a presumption. I once heard a former rep quote the First Amendment, but he got the first word wrong.
I deeply appreciate the legal explanation of what east and west sides of a given state is, is accurately described.
So now we know what is, is.
"The statue means what it says"
Thank God and thank you Michigan courts!
In this crazy age that we live in, words don't mean what they mean anymore. Manipulation of the language to manipulate everything else is rampant. It's a relief that this case worked out properly ♥️
"The statue means what it says" ... we need to pass a statute to remove all those bad statues! Clearly words don't mean what they mean anymore.
@@pauls3075 ♥️
Best legislature money can buy.
Steve, glad to see they referenced the FAA on this. I've had issues here in Nevada with the State Parks saying I can't overfly them.... even though N.R.S.'s and the FAA say I can (licensed 107 pilot).
No tickets yet, but I'm getting tired of having to teach people the actual laws for UAS.
I love the way Steve delivers information. He can take completely confusing text and read it in a way that makes you understand and question it. Hand gestures, subltle laugh, facial expressions, eye contact, and most importantly his speaking voice make his statements so appealing to watch.
I'd be curious to see how many permits were granted to fly drones. I'd guess it was close to zero which is what they wanted.
Permits likely only were given for commercial use on a specific day, time, and location.
My guess is that there were either narrow time frame commercial licenses or licenses on confirmation that the groan was unable to take video, photographs, or audio.
Or how much they charged for permission.
@@ke9tv I am guessing but I am guessing it is fairly small if they can check that your drain is incapable of surveillance or recording. If not it is substantial and there is substantial oversight. Again this is me reading between the lines as opposed to having actual contacts.
The County’s Parks webpage stated that “[n]o permits will be issued for general hobby use within the public areas of the Parks or Open Spaces.” The County Parks Commercial Photography/Videography Agreement states that “[a]erial photography is not permitted within Ottawa County Parks” and applicants “must file a Certificate of Insurance in the amount of $1 million for general liability with Ottawa County Parks Commission named as the additionally insured.” Applicants must also agree to indemnification and hold harmless provisions in the agreement. However, during a hearing in the trial court, the County acknowledged that NO permits had been issued.
This is a small example of the same thing going on in New York, California and New Jersey regarding those states passing firearms laws in response to and in defiance of the SCOTUS ruling in Bruen.
Is it just me or do law makers just jump at the chance to pass legislation every time a new "toy" comes out?
Oh, they absolutely don't. Most laws lag way BEHIND the current technology, with there being no laws AT ALL about some new toy until LONG AFTER it's been commonly used for YEARS. And THEN the law tries to play catch-up and screws it up several times over.
@Aaron J I agree how many people got hit by someone looking at their cell phone when they are driving before the law changes.
Agreed. "Jarts" or lawn darts and chemistry sets (notably the Gilbert U-238 Radioactive Atomic Energy Lab, $49.50) of the 1950-60's come to mind. I had fun while it lasted...
@@LadyAdakStillStands I still have some Jarts! They were great fun!! 😁
Government types predictably love to control and regulate anything and everything. With very rare exception, human beings cannot be trusted with much power.
Organized crime hates drones controlled by regular people.
I was on a Town board (we have Towns not Townships in Wisconsin). Several times I had to remind other board members we had to look at State Statues and County Ordinances when passing our own.
I bet none of them knew what the constitution is, let alone understand it.. 💯💯😂😂
Fifty years ago, we could assume such, but the state of our education is such we can't presume the earth is round anymore, without providing the proof.
Thank you!
Your thoughtful conduct is too rare these days. Many towns, and it seems like especially the smaller ones feel free to disregard county state and federal law...
@Roger S These are glorified HOA's in how they act. Busybodies who do not know the law should not be allowed into the process of making laws and regulations.
God forbid someone makes an effort to deconflict your laws.
Good thing Lehto is interesting to listen to and doesn't drone on...
Some times he does. Keeps repeating what he already said. Lawyers are like that.
"That's how sides work." - Steve Lehto, 2022 😂
I always wondered.
Government needs to STOP making new laws and START deleting old ones. If they do make new ones, they need to get rid of three old laws for each new one they create.
Not likely to happen. It's not something that Congrefs is going to want to do either. But note, a lot of laws DO supercede or invalidate prior laws.
the problem with that is that new technologies are coming out all the time, and often there does need to be regulation around them
@@TheAechBomb
I’ll concur. As well to add, the FAA isn’t regulating everything about operators, just around the aircraft, airspace, and some behavior. A lot is left to the states about trespassing and other laws that don’t effect across state lines.
If they don’t update the laws, you could see a lotta drone operators doing really stupid shit and not facing punishment because the law isn’t modified to fit. (Just an example, not insulting my cohorts.)
Should old laws be looked at? Hell yes. Should we ignore new tech? Hell no.
Reading this, it sounds like I am not agreeing with you but I am.
When will cities, counties, universities etc. learn that they derive all of the power from the state and that the state has a right and probably an obligation to control with types of ordinances those political subdivisions pass. There is a compelling public interest in making laws uniform through out the state. Keep the good stuff coming Steve.
There are many similar cases going on around the country. In particular I know of some in New Jersey that involve some of the same people from MCDO. Thank you Ryan!
Indeed we had another big one against Cook County in Illinois with a big win there too.
Thanx Steve. As an FAA Certified Commercial Pilot, Flight Instructor, Instrument Flight Instructor, Advanced Ground Instructor and Certified UAS pilot, I am always eager to keep up w/ the laws. If the county can regulate flight of "drones" then next they will try to regulate "Manned" aircraft that are used for aerial photography, such as News helicopters. Where would we have been without the helicopter footage of the OJ Simpson chase. In addition to that, there is likely some written code in that county that states that a person in a public park (any public space) is granted no expectation of "privacy".
exactly, state and local authorities have no authority to regulate airspace usage.
Your "expectation of privacy" is only safe when it coincides with the government's agenda, which is seldom.
@@desperateneedofscotch what about flying over the street looking down into your fenced in yard, I think I should be allowed to film anything I can see from a public place what say you?
This goes right along with those first Amendment audits. Public filming
Learning how sides work is the real reason I watch this channel.
The Michigan law should have penalties and jail time for people passing laws agains the state law.
They would still have to enforce them still as there are federal laws for this but are never enforced.
Should??? 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
@@nonyadamnbusiness9887 most 🐑 🐑 don't even know the constitution, let alone understand it.. 💯💯😂😂
At least make them pay the cost of the person who sues them and wins.
Thanks Steve L . great and current information.. 👍😎
I used to fly drones for years but when they became mainstream it became very unfun. It seemed that instead of people coming up and being interested about it, everyone comes up and starts screaming at you instead which is funny because most people didn't seem to give a damn until it became a topic of conversation. You also can't fly it basically anywhere these days and I quit the hobby completely.
Maybe in your area..
These days? Since they were invested. What a lot of people don't realize about drones is they had laws long before they even became a thing. Laws that apply to any rc aircraft like planes, helicopters, gyrocopters, blimps and the day they came out, drones. They all share pretty much the same laws for every flying model type from state to state. The most common one shared by most states is not flying them over peoples heads. Flying in public spots can vary. Either you have to stay so many yards from people or they just don't allow them in a public spot at all.
@@Grimmsha72
I'm not saying you are lying, but I don't believe you.
Please sight these laws, or even a couple of these laws.
Not only do I believe you are wrong about pre existing laws, I believe you are wrong about current drone laws.
Faa is not an elected body. They do not have the authority to write laws.
Faa makes rules not laws.
Is there a difference between laws & rules??
Yes
Now is that just a way to get around their unconstitutional actions? Yes
@@Grimmsha72 No state can prohibit aircraft from flying over people’s heads. That is exclusively the domain of the Federal government.
@@jupitercyclops6521 regulations which have the force of law since congress granted them that authority.
Plus drones have always had some regulations associated with them, restricted airspace is one flying above 400 ft (ground not sea level) flying without visual sight of the drone.
Now, depending on the size of the drone you're required to be licensed to operate it. And if you operate a drone under the influence of drugs or alcohol you're fined (BAL over 0.04%
You can find the regulations in the FAA small unmanned aircraft systems.
So these incompetents spent taxpayer time and money making laws that won't stand. Then they spend taxpayer time and money fighting for it in court. Maybe they should spend some taxpayer time and money doing a little research before they make laws. Maybe they should remember that working for the public doesn't mean figuring out ways to restrict the publics freedom because they don't like it.
This is the best comment I have read so far.
Maybe they should spend their own money passing and defending illegal laws, and maybe they should be the ones getting thrown in jail themselves when they break the law.
From an FAA licensed Part 107 UAS pilot, FAASTeam Safety Representative for the FAA, and FAA registered DronePro, yes Steve you are correct on this correct court ruling.
I've seen some defcon presentations on drones ... airspace is basically for the FAA to regulate, even though everyone and their grandmother is trying to legislate. Even the National Park Service is in on the act!
I love your chuckle. It definitely brightens my day.
None of the drones I see commercially for the general public can be accused of eavesdropping, they dont record audio. I hung a GoPro under a larger drone and all i could hear was the motors.
"eavesdropping in these modern times also includes audio/video, video only, or other types of electronic or non-electronic surveillance.
Thank you for sharing and explaining these issues.
Ben on the bonnet of the turbine car.
Good job... I was 10 minutes late...
Nice
Very very interesting! I love how you go into procedure. I don’t have a law background and I was enthralled.
Steve, I recently shot down a No Drone Zone enacted by my HOA. One of your favorite kinds of entities, I understand. The problem for them was that this HOA is divided into common facilities and private rural lots. I informed them that FAA was the sole agency that regulates airspace and operations from private property and pointed them to bylaws section regarding subservience. I also told them to pound sand.
They tried to amend the bylaws by vote to extend the common facilities rule on to the rural lots, but I shut that vote down with a letter campaign. They got only about a third of the yes votes required while I almost got the no votes required to block the amendment outright.
Great work!
Love it!!!
So this entity claimed they have jurisdiction because they said so. Maybe is the instance of due process and fairness the body making the claim of jurisdiction should have to present evidence to support their legal argument as required per rule 3.1
So what happens regarding anyone who had their property confiscated and or paid fines?
This MCDO case was a preemptive lawsuit to invalidate the drone ordinance before anyone else had their property confiscated or paid fines.
@@deanopilot
You would know better than me however I'm quite certain that Genesee county Park rangers did arrest a guy and confiscated stuff. I was under the impression that that incident is what started the legal pushback. I even have the guy's video of when he was arrested and the cops left something on... drone, phone or something and recorded themselves lol
I can picture the one cop sitting in his Ford bronco or whatever, eating a cheeseburger while telling the guy he would be arrested...
@@jerseyshoredroneservices225, Yes, I handled that case as well. Jason's (TH-cam "jacuzzibusguy") arrest and criminal complaint was the impetus for the first legal challenge in Genesee County. The Genesee County prosecutor dropped the case against Jason. With others, Jason formed the Michigan Coalition of Drone Operators, Inc. ("MCDO") and currently serves as its President. MCDO thereafter has become the lead plaintiff in MCDO v Genesee County and MCDO v Ottawa County.
@@deanopilot
Thanks for explaining that and for the great work you guys are doing!
As a drone operator, I would like to comment on the criminal trespass issue.
As a property owner it is my understanding from the FAA Regulations that a property owner does own the airspace above their property. However, the FAA controls all navigable airspace in the United States as a type of easement. This way airplanes can fly over the property, as can helicopters, and (as a registered US Aircraft) drones, so long as they are abiding by FAA regulations. If a drone is harassing someone, or recording through the windows, and the like, there are laws that control that. Those laws have nothing to do with flying over the property, they are about harassing and spying with a drone, or telescope, or binoculars or anything else. Simply flying over private property is not criminal trespass. There are a lot of places we cannot fly, but they are spelled out in the FAA regulations, and yet other places we need permission to fly, also in the regulations.
Another point is that soon, UPS, FEDX, and Amazon will be using unmanned aircraft to deliver packages to a neighborhood near you. Stand by.
They create new laws requiring permission, so they can say NO! They don't usually have such authority!
Really?? Who gave them their jobs?? GODS?? 😂😂
But you're allowed to record in public audio video etc right so I'm just confused as to how they can say that and try to defend like that
Because they also believe recording in public is not legal. They don't know the law. Its why we have a huge amount of 1A auditors all over the place.
I bet you vote regularly, right?? 😂😂
I did until I realized it is a selection not an election, nothing will ever change until we get non-corupt reps on every level of government. I believe each president since Kennedy has had a specific part of the sell out of america. Each one had a step to complete, for instance Nixon got us off a sound monitary system, Trump to bring division, and Biden to kill our currency. So that being said either way our country will be sold out.
Thank you Ryan, Dean and the rest of the team. This is a big win for the drone peoples.
Just hearing about it may enlighten other governments and discourage them from preempting state and federal law.
Now we remote pilots need to behave properly. Don't be annoying, harassing or dangerous to wildlife, people or property. Yeah we have the right to fly in a lot of places but we don't have the moral right to be jerks in general. None of us has the right to give the rest of us a bad reputation.
I was simply blown away by how, for once, a state government, said that this is covered by a federal agency, and there is no reason for us, or anyone under us, to mess around with it. Rare for any form of government to have such common sense. Wish this sudden break out of common sense would be contagious to every other politicians and/or governments.
Now for the real question for Steve. Can HOAs ban/regulate drones in Michigan? LOL
only if its written into the CCRs that you sign
HOA's operate as a contract between those who join them and the HOA Board, so if you agree to be subject to their rules then they may generally enforce rules they create against you. So, I would say yes, generally the HOA can ban drones.
@@KabobHope someone who is not part of the HOA could still operate a drone over HOA property as long as they are not on HOA property and following other drone related regulations.
@@hewhohasnoidentity4377 👍I am sure the FAA has privacy and trespass covered under their regulations re: aircraft and private property so assuming we are Michigan that sounds right to me. This is actually a good move. I wonder if my bass-ackwards state has the same law.
@@hewhohasnoidentity4377 My HOA holds dominion over the whole universe. We just fined NASA for noise voilation within 5000 miles of our property.
Sounds eerily similar to two county's here in MD. There is total state preemption of all drone laws, but two local counties banned them from parks. One of them immediately removed it once notified of the state preemption, the other dug in.
Hi Steve, isn't aerospace governed by the FAA? Therefore I would think the other governments wouldn't be allowed to govern aircraft. Here in Canada a few cities decided to try to shutdown established airports. Each time the Department Of Transport (D.O.T) stepped in and overturned the bylaws.
While the airspace is controlled by FAA, the feds do allow local government to control takeoff/landing from their property.
However, the state of Michigan forbids local government from making any rules or law regarding the ownership or operation of unmanned aircraft.
“The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States.” 49 U.S.C. § 40103(a)(1). “A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace.” 49 U.S.C. § 40103(a)(2). The FAA is charged with "prescrib[ing] air traffic regulations on the flight of aircraft . . . for-(A) navigating, protecting, and identifying aircraft; (B) protecting individuals and property on the ground; [and] (C) using the navigable airspace efficiently." 49 U.S.C. § 40103(b)(2). In 2012, Congress tasked the FAA with "develop[ing] a comprehensive plan to safely accelerate the integration of civil unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace system." Pub. L. No. 112-95 § 332. In so doing, the FAA mandated that drone operators keep drones below an altitude of 400 feet from the ground or a structure. 14 C.F.R. § 107.51(b).
The FAA does have sole jurisdiction over the airspace however when it comes to things on the ground the local governments have a say. There have been situations where cities wanted to close airports and they kind of had the right to do that. But they also had to somehow work it out with the FAA because the FAA also had a say about it. Usually it works out to changing traffic patterns, limiting the kinds of airplanes and frequency, and or phasing an airport out over time.
@@jacuzzibusguy takeoff and landing involves contact with the ground. the moment you're out of contact with teh ground, teh state and local govs have NO authority.
@5:36, They might take your drone or you might say something that makes them suspicious and so they conclude an arrest is necessary.
@8:28, Basically they can't do anything, true I agree. The issue with privacy is really a Constitutional and Federal issue.
@13:28, I don't think it's trespass over 500 feet. Remember the public is on both sides, as a drone operator and as the home owner. So, we are obligated to respect ourselves and our rights from both points of view. But, public places like government buildings and parks should be exempt from Privacy laws. That is not someone's back yard!
I also highly agree with regulating government use of these drones, and it should have been State or Federal Law, not local ordnance.
Those in power love to flex that power all to often .
Sometimes it's all they have in their shallow lives. George Wallace said, "There are two things in this world: money and power, and I don't much care for money".
This is great news for everyone who believes in the rule of law. I began considering gun law in the early seventies, as efforts intensified in Chicago, for "gun control" and the Illinois legislature appeared well aware of statutory standards. I left Chicago in 76, and never returned because they appeared to leave that idea behind and press forward as if there were no limits by Constitution. I served as a Marine two decades, and truly appreciated the notion in Uniform Code of Military Justice "our legal system" for the actual language of law, and it's accurate statement and interpretation. This Court Finding substantially upholds and supports the "statutory limits" that naturally limits legislature under the rule of law, something decidedly absent these days in so many cases.
😮😮it is too difficult to have multiple laws for various jurisdictions for things like this. A state law is the only way to go.
Really?? Would you like your masters tell you how to do everything?? 😂😂
Exactly. Imagine if every city, town or village had its own motor vehicle laws and license requirements. It would be a horrible disaster...
always great to watch and learn from you
It seems to me that public entities (that we pay for) will do anything they can to keep us from checking up on what they're doing with the money we give them.
We don't give them anything, they extort under the threat of incarceration or loss of property. Few people I know, knowingly give up their rights.
@@gungadinn you don't have property without the state saying you do. If the state didn't support your property rights, then your property would actually be my property. Good luck with defending your own rights without the state.
@@gungadinn I think many (if not most) people don't really know their rights. Heck, a lot of cops don't even know them yet they swear an oath to protect them. Go figure. Point taken about giving taxes. Happy holiday's to you and yours.
@@janitorizamped I don't own my chair unless the state says I do? How do you get there? Happy holiday's to you and yours.
@@williezar2231 the states laws are what prevent others from taking your property. If you don't want to pay taxes, then you don't deserve the protections that the state offers. I don't have plans to take anyone else's property, but if you don't want to be a part of the state and pay taxes, then you don't get to complain when people take your property.
Maybe the politicians who violated Michigan's law should themselves be charged with crimes.
So I guess if they'd have won this, the next step would be to regulate or prohibit the use of cell phone cameras or other video recording devices without a permit.
Also, since their regulation had a clause about making you pay for your own prosecution, couldn't the county appeal it all the way to the SCOTUS and make the person they're ticketing pay the cost for it?
One of the interesting things about the Ottawa County ordinance was that they also prohibited video recording in or near public hearings and county offices. That portion of the ordinance was not struck down as our group (MCDO) was focused solely on the drone provisions. Some other group(s) will need to challenge the county on their 1st Amendment violations of prohibiting phones / cameras at the county offices and public meetings.
That's an interesting point about new legislative law proposals and the justification of conflicts with previous laws.
I'd never considered that.
So I can fly one in the courtrooms hahahaha😅
Good luck.
If anyone is comfortable with their rights or what they can do . If it hinges only on asking for permission. Has many life lessons yet to learn
I will say this as I expressed in another video about drones / surveillance and the possibility of invading privacy or trespass. I would think most states would recognize that property does not mean that it goes beyond a certain height, which is where the FAA would take over. In a personal aspect, would you think that your property lines go up infinitely or into space? You can't claim that an airplane or a satellite is trespassing or invading your privacy by flying over your "property". Like I stated previously, most ordinances that I have seen that cover such state that you only own property or your property only goes as high as "reasonably serviceable". Does it apply to counties / villages etc? I would think so.
most drones are either trespassing or breaking FAA rules.
Do you mean the FAA instead of the FCC…?
"Cannon range" should apply here. Maritime borders were only ever supported by the reach of shore batteries; 3 miles becoming an early accepted standard for the largest-bore guns at the time. Airspace "common property" makes sense if the only thing most people can swat down is in the range of birdshot. Give a man a couple Patriot missile systems and that cannon range extends to 100 miles or 80,000 feet ASL.
Great analysis with explanation!
Hundo, unfolded, across the hood of the turbine car, not in the box, on the right side of the top of the main cabinet. 159.
It's nice to see the courts stand up for the rights of drone and model aircraft flyers.
The only problem I have with this is the fact that prisons are already controlled airspace, and off limits to drone. The county can't write their own ordinance, but they can absolutely insist on compliance.
Sorry but that is false. Very few prisons are in controlled airspace. Most reside in Class G (uncontrolled) airspace. And likewise most are NOT off limits to drones. The FAA ARCGIS lists the prisons that are considered "critical infrastructure" that are off limits to drones - they are federal prisons only and limited to max security prisons. It is a common misnomer that prisons are blanket TFRs (Temporary Flight Restricted) areas.
Nothing prevents the state of Michigan from enacting drone bans near prisons. (Whether they do or not, I don't know.) The only thing this case decided is that only the state can regulate drones, not that drones would go unregulated.
@@joesterling4299, correct. Michigan has reserved such restriction for the state government. But Michigan has not done so. This is for two reasons: 1. Should they decide to do such, they would be limited to only restricting land use (as the FAA has sole jurisdiction over airspace), and thus the restriction would be limited to take-off, landing, and operating, but serve no restriction on overflight. 2. Crafting such laws is fairly useless as it is specific to a method. Best practice isn't to prohibit using a knife to commit murder as you then have to add another law or method for a gun, poison, hammer, etc., where a general murder law devoid of method suffices. There are already laws preventing the smuggling of contraband or aiding an escape, etc., so imposing a new law preventing a drone from doing the same things doesn't actually prevent something new, but instead could open loopholes to existing general statutes.
@@joesterling4299
States can limit where remote pilots stand with their transmitter but they can't regulate the airspace. If they want a drone ban in the air over some area they need to apply to the FAA for a TFR.
"That's how sides work."
Thanks Steve. I was confused for a moment. 🤣😂
Yep nothing like trying to enjoy a park or nature when an ahat with a drone is buzzing around all afternoon.
Drones don't make noise for as long as a barking dog or screaming baby does. What goes up must come down, batteries don't last "all afternoon"
I can see why they don't want them flying them over jails and prisons since there have been several cases of people using the drones to drop drugs, phones, and weapons into those facilities. As far as the rest of it though you have no expectation of privacy while outside if I remember my supreme Court stupidity correctly.
There already exists no fly zones around all kinds of sensitive areas. You're kidding yourself if you think those people will spend drone money when the same is accomplished much cheaper
There already are existing laws that address delivering contraband into jail facilities. The Ottawa County drone ban didn't do anything to protect against delivering contraband to jails or prevent harassing people or wildlife. The result of this lawsuit doesn't eliminate the existing laws prohibiting such activity.
You can not fly them near airports for safety reasons. I am not sure about the distance.
they have to apply for a TFR from the FAA if they want to keep drones out of their airspace, they can't regulate it themselves.
Thanks for sharing your information
It’s very likely that there’s something illegal going on in these locations and the local authorities are getting a piece of the action. The legislation really shouldn’t be regarded as anything other than Probable Cause to investigate the county. No way does anyone bump this kind of money into a legal fight if they aren’t doing something wrong.
Exactly.
That's why the feds (faa) started regulating the Hobbie in the first place.
There hadn't been manned aircraft threatened by drones.
That & privacy were propoganda.
There were 2 instances that caused gov to regulate.
1 was when 2 young men flew a drone over a large corporate hog farm.
They got footage of them illegally dumping waste into a public waterway.
The authorities were more concerned about not being able to punish these young men than they were concerned about the illegal waste & it was a lot of waste.
Since when has any local, state, or Federal government worried about wasting the taxpayers’ money?
@@jupitercyclops6521 No, just flat out no. The use of unmanned aircraft has been regulated since before the FAA existed. The FAA issued their first guidelines on the matter in 1981. Commercial use of drones was made illegal entirely in 2007. After 2012 they started granting licences to qualified pilots. Broader public access to registration was not allowed untill 2016, and the need for registration was not removed until 2018.
No, they did not start regulating because of any of that. Drones have been highly regulated since before drones existed. It is only just recently that they have begun deregulation.
@@edwardwright8127 yup.. As long as the 🐑 🐑 continue to give power and 💵 to narcissists/sociopaths/psychopaths to be their masters, it's business as usual.. 💯💯😂😂
I'm of the personal opinion that you just described the case in Texas. Food processing plants, factory farms and other industries have bought the local governments and basically get a free pass to do whatever they want. They don't like drones flying around observing they're illegal activity. Fortunately Texas law against drone operators was recently
struck down in federal court ♥️
As if you have an expectation of privacy in public outside of a changing room or a bathroom.
Under the current structure of all 50 State's governments, as unitary bodies, the cisies/counties/offices are operational at the discretion of the state. If a city/county government of law enforcement agency operates outside of state laws, that goverent or agency can be disbamded/lose itcls charter, amd become directly run by the state legislature.
This reminds me of an arbitration case between our local union and our employers. Our union specified that the company could not bring in a third party to do work unless the union was notified. I sat in the arbitration deliberations and the arbitrator was totally sympathetic to the case, but had to rule that the union had been communicated to, as to the intentions of the company, to bring in an outside source to do certain tasks. The contract did not specify that the union should be allowed to contest any tasks being outsourced by the company. Notification does not mean that the union could contest it. It was then that I realized that our local union was inept. The totally incredulous irony of this decision was that when the third party came and left, it was our job to get that cell running, no matter how inept the third party was at making sure the efficiency was at, or above, the level before they came.
Note: FAA allows take-off and landings to be restricted on parks but not if an operator takes off and lands outside the park. National parks are restricted space as is jails, military spaces as per FAA restricted areas.
However, The State of Michigan does not allow local parks to regulate takeoff/landing.
I wish NY would enact a similar law. It's next to impossible to know where to fly legally in different parts of NYS.
Definitely a state we want to lobby for passage of a state drone preemption law like Michigan has.
So, the county attorney screwed up when he/she made the regulation in the first place. It was up to them to make sure the state didn't have a rule trumping what the county wants to do.
Either that, or they just didn't care. I know someone on my rural township's board, and they complained the other board members think the state laws are for the big cities, not them. In that case, it's not about them passing their own rules, but following requirements on how meetings must be held and public notice given, and even things like claiming state gas tax money for road maintenance on roads they don't actually maintain.
@@Br3ttM are you my neighbor? Kind of the same here.
“That’s how sides work!” Hilarious!! 😂😂😂
The subject I am waiting to hit the fan is electric bikes. They perform like a motor bike, but I was surprised to find that (at least in Virginia) no license or registration is required. I cannot see that continuing.
Some electric bikes are sports car fast.
Ever encounter a Onewheel skateboard? 15 mph coming out of no where.
Just like they did with scooters, you know they will blanket them in with the scooters.
Saw one last week operating @ nighttime w/out lights. Operator was wearing dark clothing, too
Mopeds, also, do not need registration by moter vehicle administration
Big Brother doesn't want us watching THEM.
Nah, he used to do Heli tours and now has a drone survey company, doesn't like competition
If they're also trying to outlaw photography outside of county buildings, even if the photographs are being taken from a public area, isn't that also a clear 1st Amendment violation as well?
Yes
All laws should have an expiration date so that a review is required to determine if the law is still relevant... At the very least, laws that include jail time should be reviewed every so many years.
I hate drones haha. But I also think they are very important for certain things. However, my deapest concern with drones has always been privacy.
No right to privacy in public.
Local park, has a designated R/C plane area. (This was a few years ago). Only requirement was a $2 million liability policy.
In Michigan that is no longer the case. The entire park is now open to all R/C planes and drones due to this decision and there can be no local mandate of insurance.
This is good news for sure.
I remember a movie in the fifties about smugglers stealing large RC model airplanes rom teens to bring hot gems across the Southern border.
Last time I was this early drones were called remote control airplanes.
Rc planes, and drones are technically different things.
I was in jury duty and the case had a guy using a drone in a crime he got charged with not registering his drone with the faa.
@@mattalford3932 Yeah, I know. It's a joke.
nobody cared, until the cameras when on them .. OMG a CAMERA!!! Fools don't realize there are thousands of cameras in public recording our activities every day.
@@mattalford3932, nope. All are unmanned aircraft. They all fall under 14 CFR 44809 or Part 107 for the FAA and all are covered by Michigan Public Act 436 of 2016.
Just about all of my small, valley-bound city is off limits to drones as the airport and its approaches come under federal aviation regulation. In fact, in Canada, all regulatory powers degarding drones, licensing and so on are reserved to the federal government mostly through Transport Canada, as they are considered aircraft.
I wonder what the County was trying to Hide
When a body of government says they have a great idea for a new law, no, no they do not have a good idea, those days have long passed.
Shame. We have a couple drone operators in my area that are peeping in windows and we are forbidden from shooting these, despite trespassing well over private airspace to do so. Think it is because of government interest in using them to snoop as well.
Call the FAA regarding " private airspace"
I agree with Jeff Norris, call them & tell them someone is viewing while your naked, then they'll have to do something.
@@kevinerbs2778 They will tell you to go inside.
Especially when you tell them it was an airplane
Fireworks.
That's all I'm saying.
@@jeffnorris8848 Actually, the FAA will investigate it if enough complaints comes in.
I always fly my drone respectfully towards others. But, there should be no expectation of privacy in public places.
So what penalty does the town/county get for breaking the law?
Maybe a National Drone Flying day, when thousands of drone owners show up to fly their drones legally at that town.
none because they are the government and there's no rebelion to hold them to account.
@@KrustyKlown That would be fun to see. Karens gone wild. Cops would hear from them and be super pissed.
Oh Geez, I hadn't even thought to look this up for WA State as the FAA has authority over airspace, not local governments. Turns out, we have basically the same exact laws as stated in this video. Including the City of Seattle declaring that if you are using your drone for commercial purposes that you have to get a permit when flying over PUBLIC property... not needed over private property. Also they've outlawed flying in/over certain parks entirely. Good luck with that...
If they want to outlaw AIR space being used in a manner allowed by the FAA, they better get "no fly" legally recognized airspace that shows up when I do a preflight check with my drone.
I was in federal grand jury duty and one of the charges was not registering his drone with the faa. He was using his drone as part of his crime.
Ah.. That would be "Commercial Use of an UAV"
Hobby "Drones" are not registered--the PILOT must be registered (I have one UAV Registration that is on a p-51, Spitfire Mk2, T-28, Carbon Cub, and a couple of KAOS)
@@rogerguinn1642 ?
american model accosication claims drones over 150 grams in weight must have A.M.A numbers & be registered.
did you refuse to grant the charge? because you can do that, especially for an unconstitutional BS authoritarian nonsense like that. charge him with the crime and the crime alone. don't throw absolutely everything at him.
No because he was using the drone to stalk an ex girlfriend
@@cmorris9494 Sense of humorectomy...
I still can't possess a pocketknife capable of one-hand opening and closing in my state, because of a 1940s moral panic about OMG SWITCHBLADES! There have been Federal prosecutions of mail- and Internet-order outfitters for shipping them to a state where they're unlawful to possess.
I collect switchblades.....
I can picture a person using a drone to stalk or harass someone else. I wouldn't want someone hovering a drone over my property. I'm not doing anything bad in my yard, but I don't want someone watching me by drone. Nor would I want someone using a drone to look into my windows. I don't want to curtail anyone's freedom, but I don't want anyone using their freedom to infringe upon mine.
There already exist laws against that sort of thing. Drone is just a tool, as are ladders and lenses..
In my state you own the airspace up to 100 feet. So they would at least not be able to legally hover outside a window.
@@hicknopunk bullshit there is no law stating you own the air above your property
@@hicknopunk Thank you!
@@Username-qx9gk Thank you!
Steve,,you droned on a bit ,,🤣🤣🤣
I can actually understand some of these rules. I remember I was in a hotel once, was staying on the 40 something floor. Had my current open because my wife and I like looking at the city skyline at night. We were watching TV and looked to the window and saw a couple green and red lights. Got up and walked out on the balcony and sure enough, it was a drone looking into windows. Wish I could have shot the thing down.
Nice "story". The fabrication was incredible. LOL. If you saw a drone, it was surely getting a cityscape view rather than spying on you. No one cares about you. And drones use wide angle cameras that aren't for spying. Pick up some tin foil at the store on your next visit as your hat needs an additional layer.
@@RyanLatourette never said it was looking into my window. You should learn how to read.
@@keinlieb3818 your quote: "it was a drone looking into windows". You are implying it was spying. I'm stating you are an idiot for thinking such.
@desperate need of scotch yeah, was in a city where you're not allowed to carry your gun. Plus, just wouldn't have been smart discharging a firearm in a hotel. Pretty sure I would have gotten in trouble for that one.
Very likely would have gotten trouble for that, but doncha wish? The reason these abuses happen is cz people won't get involved in the process, so now they are getting the process taken away from them.
Amazing FAA is the final authority of operating these devices.
People take their privacy very seriously no matter the legality.
Not much privacy in a public park.
@@psibug565 no, but their is an expectation of privacy over your own home, and the feds have not acted to protect that.
Looks like the flaw in their ordnance was assuming that all drone / UAV operators were spying and / or criminal trespassing and then blanket prohibiting it, which was in conflict with state law. It's obvious they were trying to use that spying law as a ram to get a prohibition, otherwise they would of just reaffirmed that spying and trespass were still criminal activities even when committed with a drone / UAV.
Steve if I read correctly air space is owned by the property owner up to 500 feet. Would it be trespassing if someone flies a drone over someone property without permission?
It’s not considered trespassing. Someone may own property up to infinity, but you give up the airspace to be used as an easement for public use. The only legal recourse someone has as far as a drone above your property goes, is PROVING it was there strictly doing something nefarious. The drones recorded telemetry would bare that out as it stores a record of everything the drone and pilot are doing when the drone is in flight. And it’s very detailed information. It ultimately shuts down any false/perceived claims of something nefarious happening, but would also prove if anything nefarious was happening.
Wrong, you own the airspace above your home to outer space, its all yours. But there is an easement to allow all aircraft rights to use your airspace any distance above you. You have right to grow into your airspace, i.e. trees more stories on the building, you can go as high as the city will allow you, to space if you want it's yours. But aircraft have an easement to fly over your property. Only the FAA regulates airspace. A drone is just as much an aircraft as maned aircraft according to the FAA. Don't mess with drones, shooting one down is a felony just like shooting down a maned aitcraft.
@@screenarts I’m wrong? We basically said the same thing.
@@olewiseone1079 no not you Doug is with the 500 ft thing
Air space (FAA) over private property goes into outer space...
But but but Drones will lead to dancing!
Steve, the words "shall not" mean nothing in government.
The 2nd amendment says "the right of the People to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed."
Yet here we are with all kinds of infringements such as background checks to keep certain people from "bearing arms" as well as red flag laws.
That's because part of the Amendment has the language "well regulated" within it, amongst the "shall not".
It's not a blank check in language. And is also highly controversial on how it argues with itself.
More over, it was written during the formation of the Monroe doctrine of Isolation.
So, the country would stay within it's borders, and draw upon the people when invaded.
Fun peek, look at the majority of the amendments, they restrict government from action, not necessarily empowering the individual directly..
@@brokedude1663 That's wrong. The first part is describing the motivation, and it cannot be interpreted as a requirement, because it never makes any attempt to *make* it a requirement. It isn't even implied that it is a requirement. It lists a reason for including the right, then it lists the right without any qualifications or restrictions, and says in broadest possible terms "shall not be infringed".
Thanks!