Airspace rights still unclear after drone lawsuit dismissed

Where exactly you’re entitled to fly your drone in the US without fear of it being blasted out of the sky continues to be a legal gray area, after a judge dismissed another case brought against self-proclaimed “drone slayer” William Merideth. The Kentucky resident was originally charged in 2015 for firing a gun within city limits, shooting down David Boggs’ Phantom 3 quadcopter in the process. The charge was dropped after a judge ruled the drone invaded Merideth’s privacy since it was over his land, but Boggs subsequently sued Merideth in federal court seeking damages of $1,500 to cover the cost of the Phantom 3. This case was recently dismissed on something of a technicality, though, leaving a key legal question around airspace rights unanswered.

Senior US District Judge Thomas B. Russell was effectively asked to rule whether the flight over Merideth’s property constituted aerial trespassing — a decision that could’ve arguably set a precedent for any similar cases in the future. Though airspace is under federal regulation, Russell reasoned that as the foundation of the case was a claim for damages, it was a matter for Kentucky state law. Also in his formal opinion, the judge questions whether the case raises any “significant federal issues,” and notes that although the courts can enforce regulations, they don’t set them. Thus, Russell granted Merideth’s motion to dismiss.

It didn’t help that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) “has not sought to enforce any such regulations in this case,” despite having previously stated that shooting down a drone is a federal crime. The FAA requires all drones over 0.55 pounds to be registered and has set various rules regarding flight: Pilots must keep their drones within a direct line of sight, stay under 3000 feet, and stay clear of crowds, sports venues and airports, among other things. There is also a separate set for commercial operators and new rules are being considered all the time, but the FAA has yet to weigh in on this relatively important case and what rights pilots and landowners have within federal airspace.

As Ars Technica notes, the case most relevant to these questions dates all the way back to 1946, when the US Supreme Court ruled that a farmer could claim property rights up to a height of 83 feet. The situation was altogether different, though. The farm in question was located close to an Air Force runway and its commercial chicken operation had to be abandoned as the roar of military aircraft passing over was causing chickens to die of fright. As aircraft were often breaching the minimum safe altitude of 83 feet above the property, they were considered to be trespassing on private land.

Via: Ars Technica

Source: US District Court at Louisville

Source: Engadget - Read the full article here

Author: Daily Tech Whip

This article is part of our 'News Tiles' service. The site is currently in Beta. When it is fully operational you will be able to search through and arrange the 'Tiles' to display a keyword, product or technology over your chosen time period. For example you would be able to display all of the leading tech articles on the new Kindle Fire, in one spot in real time. You will also have access to our own original reporting and analysis as well as a polished place to post your own thoughts & reviews here, amongst the Daily Tech Whip Community. Please let us know if you have any feedback via the contact form or via Twitter. Don't forget to come back next week and see our full site and claim your name and your own free tech blog.

Share This Post On