Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Monday May 18 2020, @03:41AM   Printer-friendly
from the duck-season-drone-season dept.

Man charged for shooting down drone:

Travis Duane Winters, 34, of Butterfield, was charged with criminal damage to property and reckless discharge of a weapon within city limits Monday in Watonwan County District Court.

A sheriff’s deputy was called Friday to a disturbance at Butterfield Foods. A man said he was flying over the food production company to capture images of the chickens that were being “slaughtered” because of the pandemic.

The suspect admitted to using a shotgun to shoot down the drone — which was valued at $1,900.

I have no idea what you're talking about officer. It must have just crashed. Did that nice gentleman have an FAA permit to fly that drone? He could have hurt someone crashing his drone on our property like that.

Previously:
(2016-01-09) Update: Dad Who Shot Down Drone is Getting Sued. Who Owns the Skies?
(2015-10-28) Update: Dad Who Shot "Snooping Vid Drone" Out of the Sky is Cleared of Charges
(2015-08-02) Man Arrested for Shooting Down Drone Flying Over His Property
(2015-06-29) Man Shoots Down Neighbor's Hexacopter


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Tuesday May 19 2020, @02:25PM (4 children)

    by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Tuesday May 19 2020, @02:25PM (#996353) Journal

    Or he was waiting for the person who made the assertion to supply the data behind that assertion, and without the data the point trying to be made falls.

    Or he didn't have an answer beyond what Google can tell anybody else. Or he spent time looking and the negative results found made the question rhetorical (like this site which lists nothing for Minnesota between 2013-2019 [ncsl.org]. Or this link [jrupprechtlaw.com] which seems to simply assert that the behavior was lawful - it's legal to fly a drone. Minnesota has indeed had many bills proposed that did not pass. You can go see if any of them are related to privacy.

    Some states do indeed address privacy from private owner drone surveillance - Minnesota does not seem to be one of them.

    So, now that I'm conversing I'll again ask you, AC... What statutes specific to that locality were breached by the drone flight? And if none, then there you go.

    --
    This sig for rent.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by Booga1 on Tuesday May 19 2020, @05:09PM (3 children)

    by Booga1 (6333) on Tuesday May 19 2020, @05:09PM (#996409)

    Ah, well that covers basics for responsibilities of the drone flight requirements, but not not much of the privacy issues surrounding them.

    I was hoping to see some links to privacy laws since that was the implication when the question was "Which privacy statute applied in Minnesota in the location the drone was flying in?"

    Laws surrounding surveillance in Minnesota are mostly aimed at residences and leaves it unclear with respect to most commercial properties. However, the laws also cover commercial properties if anyone there undresses or expects to be undressed to the point of nudity or wearing only intimate garments(i.e. hotels, tanning salons, spas, etc...). Another section applies the same protections to the agricultural facility if there is a single family home adjacent to the property. [mn.gov]

    Relevant statutes [mn.gov] also cover people outside those facilities:

    (d) A person is guilty of a gross misdemeanor who:

            (1) surreptitiously installs or uses any device for observing, photographing, recording, amplifying, or broadcasting sounds or events through the window or other aperture of a sleeping room in a hotel, as defined in section 327.70, subdivision 3, a tanning booth, or other place where a reasonable person would have an expectation of privacy and has exposed or is likely to expose their intimate parts, as defined in section 609.341, subdivision 5, or the clothing covering the immediate area of the intimate parts; and

            (2) does so with intent to intrude upon or interfere with the privacy of the occupant.

    All that said, there are additional statutes [mn.gov] that cover harassment if any of the following events happen:

    Subd. 2.Harassment crimes.

    A person who harasses another by committing any of the following acts is guilty of a gross misdemeanor:

            (1) directly or indirectly, or through third parties, manifests a purpose or intent to injure the person, property, or rights of another by the commission of an unlawful act;

            (2) follows, monitors, or pursues another, whether in person or through any available technological or other means;

            (3) returns to the property of another if the actor is without claim of right to the property or consent of one with authority to consent;

    So, even without privacy implications, it appears that the drone operator might have trouble with statute 609.749, subdivision 2, clause 2 because of the drone, or clause 3 if they were asked to leave and came back on another occasion. A good lawyer would probably still be able to convince a judge to toss the case. Of course, the drone operator wasn't the one who got arrested.

    It's the guy firing a gun within city limits who's in hot water. That's much tougher to justify, so I think the guy's got a tough case to plead when he gets in the courtroom.

    • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Tuesday May 19 2020, @06:22PM (2 children)

      by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Tuesday May 19 2020, @06:22PM (#996441) Journal

      I wonder if harassment applies to corporate entities? Surely not the chickens. You're certainly right that if I just spun up a drone and spent all day following you with it that wouldn't be any different from if I did it with an iPhone. Clause 3 I doubt, that would depend on a court's interpretation of what "returning to a property" consists of. Generally, you don't own the airspace about the real property you lease, so as long as I am off your property with my controller I don't think that counts. And it would be interesting how the part on harassment crimes would hold up to both paparazzi and news gathering (which paparazzi would surely claim to be part of).

      I doubt that the peeping Tom laws apply either, though. If people get naked outdoors that is again within public view. If they accidentally catch a view of someone naked (let's say through a second-floor window or something) then the charges get thrown out when it can be obviously proven there was no mens rea. "Occupant" makes clear it only applies to indoor spaces.

      --
      This sig for rent.
      • (Score: 2) by Booga1 on Tuesday May 19 2020, @07:47PM (1 child)

        by Booga1 (6333) on Tuesday May 19 2020, @07:47PM (#996490)

        Your second link provided the pointer to statutes in Minnesota that say the land owners actually do own the airspace above their property. However, the law also generally allows you to fly in it so long as it's done safely and doesn't interfere with use of the land. Though there is some legalese there I don't quite understand. I can't quite tell if it is allowed or denied since the statute says "is lawful, unless... the space above the land or water, is put by the owner..." I don't know what they mean by "put by the owner" and all my searches keeps coming up with rules about stock option "puts." It looks like it's an exception to the default "allow" rule, but I wouldn't want to make a bet on it. :)

        360.012 SOVEREIGNTY; LIABILITY; EFFECT OF OTHER LAW. [mn.gov]

        Subd. 2.Landowner.

        The ownership of the space above the lands and waters of this state is declared to be vested in the several owners of the surface beneath, subject to the right of flight described in subdivision 3.
        §

        Subd. 3.Lawful flight, generally.

        Flight in aircraft over the lands and water of this state is lawful, unless at such low altitude as to interfere with the then-existing use to which the land or water, or the space above the land or water, is put by the owner, or unless so conducted as to be imminently dangerous or damaging to persons or property lawfully in the land or water beneath. The landing of an aircraft on the lands or waters of another, without the other's consent is unlawful, except in the case of a forced landing. For damages caused by the forced landing, however, the owner or lessee of the aircraft or the pilot shall be liable as provided in subdivision 4.

        As for the harassment laws, they read as if they're intended to apply to harassing a person, but they also spell out protections for properties and rights of way surrounding those properties. Again, mainly focused on residential areas. I doubt a commercial property would have any direct protection except via the people associated with it, like following a person to their workplace. If the drone operator was following a person then they'd be in trouble regardless of location. This whole incident is about the facility, not the people, so unlikely to apply here.

        Anyway, my whole point with my original statement is that privacy laws do vary by location. I wasn't trying to say "this guy right here on this specific location on this date was totally in the wrong." It was intended to be a general statement about how some states forbid observation using tools or technology to see what the average person standing next to a property could not see without them. If similar situations come up again I'll just leave the same statement because I really don't feel like looking this information up for every other state the issue comes up in.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2020, @08:08AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2020, @08:08AM (#996791)

          Flight in aircraft over the lands and water of this state is lawful, unless at such low altitude as to interfere with the then-existing use to which the land or water, or the space above the land or water, is put by the owner, or unless so conducted as to be imminently dangerous or damaging to persons or property lawfully in the land or water beneath.

          Take out the middle section and the meaning is clear.
          " .. is lawful, unless at such low altitude as to interfere with the then-existing use to which the land or water is put by the owner ..."

          The "is put" is referring to "the then-existing use", as in "put to use". If you are already using the airspace or the land then they cannot fly low enough to interfere with that use.

          You could make the argument that if the drone was low enough to bother the animals then it was an illegal flight.