I often see posts where forum members say "They (insert government agency here) do not have jurisdiction over me/you/us". Ever wonder what happens when a Federal Agency decides to explore where and when it's jurisdiction begins and ends? This is for drones, not lasers, but you could see what could happen if FDA decided to enforce against some one. Please note that the Judge in this case is really, really good at understanding constitutional issues and finding case law, in fact probably far better then most. He could have simply issued the order, but he instead fleshes out all the issues for balanced reasoning, as he knows his decision will probably create a new case law or be appealed. Read here:
This is "Firearm on Drone", but you could mentally insert "Laser on Drone".....
So the Federal District Attorney decided to investigate on behalf of the FAA. This is the first court ruling when the drone owner's attorney tried to quash the subpoena. Since the doctrine of "Separate Sovereigns" is still in place for now, even if the drone owner prevails in Federal court, he could still face state charges for misuse of a firearm etc.. Note the FAA may be acting on administrative law and not be asking for a criminal charge, ie fine the drone owner for misuse of an aircraft. Law is a complex beast.
I have an interest in this as a student drone owner recently flew a camera flight looking into a glass building I sometimes work in. Repeated up and down scans of the building, which is a secured research area on a university campus. Not just a look at the building, but a serious attempt at reconnaissance, no doubt stitching the pictures together with software.
The building has a "mystique" about it cultivated by its secure status on an otherwise open campus. However if the student would have asked for a tour he probably would have got one. He even brought a safety observer along, so at least he was not stupid about it. If he knew the glass panels are about twenty thousand dollars a piece he might have been wiser then to fly within twenty feet of the structure.
Steve
This is "Firearm on Drone", but you could mentally insert "Laser on Drone".....
So the Federal District Attorney decided to investigate on behalf of the FAA. This is the first court ruling when the drone owner's attorney tried to quash the subpoena. Since the doctrine of "Separate Sovereigns" is still in place for now, even if the drone owner prevails in Federal court, he could still face state charges for misuse of a firearm etc.. Note the FAA may be acting on administrative law and not be asking for a criminal charge, ie fine the drone owner for misuse of an aircraft. Law is a complex beast.
I have an interest in this as a student drone owner recently flew a camera flight looking into a glass building I sometimes work in. Repeated up and down scans of the building, which is a secured research area on a university campus. Not just a look at the building, but a serious attempt at reconnaissance, no doubt stitching the pictures together with software.
The building has a "mystique" about it cultivated by its secure status on an otherwise open campus. However if the student would have asked for a tour he probably would have got one. He even brought a safety observer along, so at least he was not stupid about it. If he knew the glass panels are about twenty thousand dollars a piece he might have been wiser then to fly within twenty feet of the structure.
Steve
Last edited:
