[Snakster66]

Originally Posted by Altavia

The Villages Issues Cease And Desist To Drone Pilots: Complex Legal Battle Takes Flight

Summary of the situation so far from DroneXL.co, an Amazon Associate.

Reading this, it makes me wonder why they haven't (I assume) sent the same letter to David is in Florida . He posts videos every week that includes extensive drone video footage of streets and neighborhoods and houses (i.e., 'private property') in his opening. So their problem isn't with all, just some, drone videos. Call me a stickler, but if they're not ALL a problem, then it's difficult to cherry pick and say SOME are a problem.

Disclaimer: I don't know if he received a similar letter. If he has, then....nevermind. If he hasn't, the 'privacy' argument is a red herring.

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by Maker

When the government fails to respect constitutional rights, any evidence they collect is not admissible in court.


So show me one example of someone in their home where one of our drone operators zoomed their camera into the inside of their house? Good luck - because they don't do that.
Show me one example of someone naked in their pool where one of our drone operators zoomed their camera on them for a close up? Good luck - because they don't do that.

So in other words, it's ok to have the capability to do it, as long as the drone flyers are honest, good citizens, who would never do such a thing?

[Arlington2]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

So let's take this a step farther. Mr. Videographer is flying his drone and taking video. Mr. Smith is behind his home, hidden from all his neighbors and drinking beer. No one can see him from the street or the abutting homes, so he opts for the quick & easy solution ... he pees in his pool ...
.

Or the drone may see an intruder breaking into a home and raping and/or murdering occupants. Pick your priorities capture the bad guys or avoid embarrassing a guy caught peeing in the pool. Some of your similies are absurd.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

So in other words, it's ok to have the capability to do it, as long as the drone flyers are honest, good citizens, who would never do such a thing?

Like possessing an automobile with the capability of exceeding 90mph or sound systems with the capability of exceeding the noise ordinance limitations or guns?

[DrMack]

There are cameras everywhere today. You are being filmed constantly. In a store, at the airport, in a parking lot, on the street, even when you drive through a Villages gate on your way home. We even had cameras hand out tickets in Maryland. There is zero expectation of privacy. You shouldn’t even expect your internet browsing to be a secret, because it is not, period! After reading all the posts, the approach the Villages has is laughable. Don’t get me wrong, I wouldn’t like it if I were them, but nothing can be done. They will have to eat this one.

[LoriAnn]

When a billionaire goes after a fixed income retiree or young working father, everyone feels threatened. I'm sure the villages know they will never succeed in controlling airspace. They also know the little guy can't spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to protect themselves from a billionaire. They are counting on winning by threatening the little guy with the ability to outspend him. This whole thing is disgraceful and very bad optics for them. They need to bring peace to the situation before they lose the goodwill of their customers.

[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.

[tophcfa]

Originally Posted by LoriAnn

When a billionaire goes after a fixed income retiree or young working father, everyone feels threatened. I'm sure the villages know they will never succeed in controlling airspace. They also know the little guy can't spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to protect themselves from a billionaire. They are counting on winning by threatening the little guy with the ability to outspend him. This whole thing is disgraceful and very bad optics for them. They need to bring peace to the situation before they lose the goodwill of their customers.

Nobody seemed to discredit their goodwill after what they did to Oren Miller. Why should going after drone operators be any different?

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by DrMack

... After reading all the posts, the approach the Villages has is laughable. Don’t get me wrong, I wouldn’t like it if I were them, but nothing can be done. They will have to eat this one.

A family worth +/- $4,000,000,000 threatening to sue a few guys, working out of their extra room and posting YouTube videos, is anything but laughable.

The brains behind The Villages, have proven for 40+ years, they're way smarter than the average bloke. They will win this battle. Perhaps not 100%, but they'll come out on the right side of it, as they almost always do.

[Normal]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

A family worth +/- $4,000,000,000 threatening to sue a few guys, working out of their extra room and posting YouTube videos, is anything but laughable.

The brains behind The Villages, have proven for 40+ years, they're way smarter than the average bloke. They will win this battle. Perhaps not 100%, but they'll come out on the right side of it, as they almost always do.

Guess someone forgot about freedom of the press and how with long standing videos have applied to that right.