[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

Because someone makes a "deposit" on a piece of land, that doesn't give them "co-ownership". At best and depending on the specific language of the contract, they may have an equitable interest, but that would be the extent of it. Knowing The Villages and how they operate their sales operation, I doubt "depositors" even have an equitable interest.

This entire discussion is much larger than folks are making it out to be. Not surprisingly, it was in front of the Supreme Court in 1946 (U.S. v. Causby, 1946). The ruling went in favor of the Petitioner and against the United States government.

Per U.S. v. Causby, 1946, we own the airspace over our homes, to the extent it's necessary for our use and enjoyment.

The FAA is really out of the discussion, as they don't regulate Class G Air Space. They also have the authority to regulate "airplanes" or flying devices. They have no jurisdiction over what the flying devices are doing (filming).

I noticed some other drone operator started a thread and included a video. He spent most of the video, claiming he's following FAA Guidelines. Big Deal. That's really a non-issue in this case. His argument is akin to someone saying, I was legally flying my airplane per FAA regulations, when I dropped that bomb, so I'm innocent. Apples & oranges. You can operate your automobile legally, but if you have stolen goods in it, you're still subject to prosecution.

Legally flying a drone, doesn't make what you're doing with your drone, inherently legal.

We are looking the fundamental principals of the 1st, 4th & 14th Amendments.

Consider this:

Police are not allowed to search your home or curtilage (areas around your home), using a drone. If they don't have a warrant, they can only search from "navigable air space" (above 500' for airplanes, 400' for drones). (California v. Ciraolo, 1986 & Florida v. Riley, 1989)

In (Florida v. Jardines, 2013), the Supreme Court ruled that curtilage is part of the home, which means it has the same privacy protections as the interior of a home. Using a drone below 400' to search curtilage, is an unconstitutional search.

So what the drone proponents are saying, is the Police don't have the right to search your property, but they do? That's not the side of an argument that I'd want to be on.

I'm don't wish ill will on the drone operators, but I hope the Developer pushes this to the limits. It's about time, someone with deep pockets, stepped up to the plate and defended our right to reasonable privacy.

You seem to have misinterpreted each of those cases.

Causby: The case acknowledged that the property owner DOES NOT own the airspace above his home. The case involved the question of a plane flying so low as to interfere with the ability to enjoy his property. The Developer is not asserting that the drone was interfering with anything, the complaint is about the videos.

Riley: The ruling went AGAINST the property owner. It was determined that the police DID NOT act improperly when they observed private property from public airspace.

Jardines: The issue was the police presence ON THE PRIVATE PROPERTY. Since the drones the Developer is complaining about are flying in public airspace, Jardines does not apply.