Instead, Beesmer will have to face a jury in the Town of Ulster courtroom of Judge Marsha Weiss. When he does, experts believe, it will be the first time an American has been prosecuted for a drone-related crime. Dan Gettinger, a founder and co-director of Bard College’s Center for the Study of the Drone, said while courts have begun to weigh in on the use of surveillance drones by law enforcement, the technology’s emergence on the civilian marketplace was too recent to have generated much legal precedent. Camera-equipped drones, which a decade ago existed in the shadier reaches of the military and intelligence communities, have become readily available at any electronics store. DJI Phantom 2 drones, like Beesmer’s, are available for purchase online for as little as $700. Gettinger said the rapid growth of the civilian drone market had outpaced efforts to create a regulatory framework or even informal protocols like those that govern the use of traditional remote control aircraft.
“Remote-control planes have been around since the 1930s, they have community standards in place that don’t exist with [drones],” said Gettinger. “And there aren’t any laws in place on a national level that address these issues.”
Carnright said there had been discussion within his office about the legal ramifications of drone technology. But, he said, state and federal law is largely silent on the issue, leaving law enforcement officials on their own when it comes to dealing with drone cases.
“Unfortunately, the technology has developed ahead of any rules and regulations,” said Carnright. “The only rules in play are in penal law and there is nothing in the drones guide to warn customers to potential felonies.”
Schneider said that he believes a new kind of public squeamishness about drone technology has prompted local officials to stick to their guns on what he believes is a weak case. The only plea deal offered to Beesmer by prosecutors in the case was a guilty plea to a misdemeanor charge, with no assurances that he would not face jail time. Gettinger surmises public unease with drones stems from multiple factors, including the suddenness of appearance on the civilian market and their association with America’s targeted killing and surveillance operations overseas. Gettinger added the drones’ basic function, obtaining video from hard to reach places, contributes to the discomfort.
“These are remote-control toys, so why is there so much antipathy and insecurity around drones?” asked Gettinger. “And I think that part of it is the fact that a drone is made for a purpose, it has a utility that traditional remote-control aircraft don’t and that makes some people uncomfortable.”
I would consider that an illegal arrest, police lawlessness, police abetted vigilantism.
Far away from the murder charges against police, nonetheless we are moving closer to where police must operate within the law: their driving, their public demeanor, they go not get a pass on civil legal behavior because they are police. Indeed, people that carry guns must submit to an even higher standard, like say, a commercial pilot whose deportment must be beyond reproach.
I was there that day at the Medical Center, and let me tell you that it was creepy and alarming to see this drone come up to the windows and then go visit other windows at the building. I would not consider this to be an illegal arrest, far from it. I do believe that Front Row Dave is self centered enough to have not given thought to the alarm his actions created… there were persons disrobing in exam rooms who were greeted by the sight of this drone in the window. And yes, apparently the windows are tinted… but… I have neighbors with tinted windows who seem to think that they are incognito and need to put up some curtains. Dave needs to be held accountable for his actions, even though I truly do not think he meant harm by them he still gave no thought at all to anything except his own benefit which is fine if you are playing with your drone at a Mall for the same purpose. Don’t do it at a Medical Building. Idiot.
Except that it’s already established that there was no images of anyone on the other side (ie, patient side) of the glass.
So there was no *intent*, and there was no *harm*.
Waste of taxpayer money.
Derek: that like the cars that drive really close but don’t make contact or those same drivers that speed with precision through the traffic circle… oh, ah yes, that game the kids play: “I did not cross the line!!! I only came close!! Or the friendly subway rider…
The lack of “intent” is not an excuse under the law… (passive aggression) and running your car up on the sidewalk even though there were no pedestrians… that’s a no no.
Happy for the drone work, but he doesn’t get a pass for bad behavior..
Actually, in many statutes, demonstrating intent *is* in fact a requirement for conviction.
For example, NY Penal Law 250.45(1) (the unlawful surveillance statute in play here) intent *IS* in fact part of the statute. They would have to demonstrate that he intended to use a device for the purpose of surreptitious viewing (intent which clearly doesn’t exist, a point which seems undisputed).
thanks beth… sounds like Dave was intrusive and short sighted on judgment.
ever heard of “Dismissed, but don’t do it again without permission.”?
I heard of it, but somehow I fear he will not get off that easily. And who gave him the nickname “Front Row Dave” anyway?
Privacy issues aside, this is a completely illegal use of a commercial UAV under current Federal law. Clearly within five miles of an airport (illegal), flown in a populated area (illegal), and unless Dave is a certified sport pilot with an approved Section 333 Exemption from the FAA, AND has an approved Certificate of Authorization (COA) to fly in that location, also totally illegal. There is a legal regulatory framework for legitimate commercial use of UAVs, and they can and will be a huge contributor to the economy. “Enthusiasts” like this need to either get right with the current law or be shut down. They have no business operating in the commercial UAV market.
It’s not a “commercial UAV”. At no time was the defendant attempting to use the footage for commercial purposes (at least, not that I’ve seen documented anywhere).
The “Five Mile” rule had been in effect for less than a month when this flight took place (the FAA clarified that rule to include drones within five miles in June’14, this incident occurred in July’14).
Re: “Flown in a populated area”, one could easily argue that the parking lot isn’t “populated”, as nobody lives there, and in fact there aren’t many (if any) residences within the operating area he was operating the quad-copter.
Quad-copters don’t require any of the various exemptions and certifications you’re referring to (again, at least not according to any statutory authority that I’ve seen).
Perhaps you’re mixing up commercial use (which this is NOT a case of) with hobbyist. Because the FAA *does* treat those two use-cases differently.
Derek- thanks for your comments. I dont think I am mixing anything up. I operate a drone data processing company and work with Section 333 Exempt commercial drone pilots. I have been to Washington to sit in the room with FAA UAV leaders. Selling video footage is commercial. Period. You cannot be a hobbyist and sell your services for pay. DJI Phantoms are absolutely considered under FAA Section 333 as aircraft in the US Airspace if operating commercially. Several legitimate exemptions have been issued by the FAA for DJI Phantom use. This illustrates how dangerous the claim of “hobbyist” is on public safety. We’ll have to agree to disagree, but this is totally illegal without proper licensing and certification. Just because a law is “new” doesnt mean you arent obligated to follow it. If you are going to operate commercially, know the law. New Section 107 regulations will reduce the requirements to operate commercially (i.e, Airman’s knowledge exam vs sport pilot license…even for a parrot or a phantom), but still require specific authorizations to fly over people whose permission you did not secure in advance. That includes people who have a reasonable expectation to park their car in a parking lot and not get hit by a poorly piloted commercial aircraft. My point is there are a whole host of non-privacy related issues here.
All of that is largely irrelevant as he has not been charged with any of those crimes.
All that currently matters — legally — is whether he meets the definition of unlawful surveillance 2, which he does not.
If the FAA decides to bring charges with regard to the violations of federal statutes, that’s a whole different case for a whole different time.
Agreed. I think the privacy call is bunk and there was no intent, just ignorance. Not malicious ignorance, just the clueless, unprofessional type. I actually think his purpose is a legitimate use of the technology. What I am against is unregistered and unlicensed use of UAVs that puts people unnecessarily at risk. A regulated and professional UAV market is what we need to ensure quality, safety, AND privacy.
[…] New York man is on trial for using a drone to take aerial footage of a medical office building. Dave Beesmer, a drone […]