Ars has a story about a man in Kentucky who took skeet shooting to a new level, being arrested after shooting down a drone that he says was hovering over his property. While this is not the first time this has happened, this seems to be the first time someone was arrested for doing it.
Since that article was published new information has been published that indicates that this guy was a better shot than he said he was. The second article points out:
[In 1946], the Supreme Court decided in a case known as United States v. Causby that that a farmer in North Carolina could assert property rights up to 83 feet in the air. In that case, American military aircraft were flying above his farm, disturbing his sleep and his chickens. As such, the court found he was owed compensation.
However, the same decision also specifically mentioned a "minimum safe altitude of flight" at 500 feet—leaving the zone between 83 feet and 500 feet as a legal grey area.
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found an update to this story, however:.
The pilot of the drone shot down Sunday evening over a Kentucky property has now come forward with video provided to Ars, seemingly showing that the drone wasn't nearly as close as the property owner made it out to be. However, the federal legal standard for how far into the air a person's private property extends remains in dispute.
According to the telemetry provided by David Boggs, the drone pilot, his aircraft was only in flight for barely two minutes before it was shot down. The data also shows that it was well over 200 feet above the ground before the fatal shots fired by William Merideth. David Boggs provided this video to Ars, which he describes as his "statement."
Boggs told Ars that this was the maiden voyage of his DJI Phantom 3, and that his intentions were not to snoop on anyone—his aim was simply to fly over a vacationing friend's property, a few doors away from Merideth's property in Hillview, Kentucky, south of Louisville.
"The truth is that this man lied and he's doubling down," Boggs said. "The video speaks for itself." Merideth, meanwhile, continues to maintain that the drone flew 20 feet over a neighbor's house before ascending to "60 to 80 [feet] above me."
I wonder if it would be legal for me to install a Phalanx gun in my backyard to defend my property from drones.
Related Stories
El Reg reports
A father who shot down a drone that was hovering over his family home in Kentucky has been cleared of all charges.
Dad-of-two William Merideth thought the quadcopter was spying on his daughters in their yard in Hillview and blasted the gizmo out of the sky with a shotgun. That earned him the title "Drone Slayer" from pro-privacy quarters.
Merideth was arrested shortly after in July and charged with criminal mischief and wanton endangerment.
He appeared before the Bullitt County District Court on Monday this week and after a two and a half hour hearing, Judge Rebecca Ward dismissed the case against him.
"I was in my right to protect my family and my property", said Merideth.
The judge agreed, telling the court: "He had a right to shoot at this drone."
David Boggs, who owned the downed drone, was hoping to get the cost of the machine in compensation and said he will ask the Commonwealth's Attorney's office to take the case to a grand jury--or consider pursuing a civil case against Merideth.
Previous: Man Arrested for Shooting Down Drone Flying Over His Property
El Reg reports:
Back in June, 47-year-old William Merideth shot down the camera-carrying $1,800 quadrocopter with a shotgun while it was hovering over his house in Hillview, Kentucky, claiming that he feared it was snooping on his kids.
The owner of the drone, neighbor David Boggs, was unsurprisingly not happy about the situation and confronted Merideth, who then threatened him with a handgun. The police were called and Merideth was arrested for firing a shotgun within city limits, then later charged with criminal mischief and wanton endangerment.
When the case went to court, however, the judge heard from eye witnesses who said the drone was below the tree line when it was shot, and he dismissed the case, saying, "he had a right to shoot at this drone." Owner Boggs, who was hoping to get the cost of his machine out of the case, said he would consider suing Merideth and that's exactly what he has done, filing case 3:16-cv-00006 [PDF] this week asking for $1,500 to cover the drone plus court costs.
What is interesting about the case, however, is the fact that it may help decide a critical legal question: who actually owns the space above your property?
Merideth claims that the drone was trespassing on his property, and the fact that he managed to shoot the drone down with his shotgun highlights the fact that it was relatively close to the ground.
[...] In the only federally-decided case--carried out by the Supreme Court in 1946--it was agreed that 83 feet was the distance under which a landowner can claim jurisdiction.
[...] Why 83 feet? That was due to the very specific details of the case. Farmer Thomas Lee Causby, of Greensboro, North Carolina sued the government for disturbing him and his chickens by flying too low across his land. He claimed the noise from military plans resulted in the death of many of his animals (they flew into the walls in fright at the noise) and he was forced to abandon his business. He sued for compensation saying the government had effectively confiscated his property without compensation.
TFA also talks about a 400-foot rule and a 500-foot rule.
Previous: Update: Dad Who Shot "Snooping Vid Drone" Out of the Sky is Cleared of Charges
Man Arrested for Shooting Down Drone Flying Over His Property
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
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 02 2015, @09:47PM
How about the drone owner that was checking out the shooter's kids. He should be in federal PMITA prison!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 03 2015, @03:30AM
Though the US is a full-blown police state at this point, non-drug cases still require evidence that a crime has been committed in order for somebody to be guilty. Do you have any proof that he was using the drone to spy on the children, or are you just spreading bullshit and FUD?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by shortscreen on Monday August 03 2015, @04:22AM
Why are people hung up on the matter of who was down there? Is it OK to fly a drone over your neighbor's property to watch the place as long as no girls are there?
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 02 2015, @09:49PM
You have no property rights. The shooter acted stupidly in this situation. Now let us pour a 40 on the curb for the slain drone.
(Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Sunday August 02 2015, @11:21PM
Would you feel the same if a drone was hovering over your backyard while your daughter was sunbathing? Or what if you caught it peeking in your window?
From what I've hear the memory card with the video is missing. The only thing they are basing their claim on about it being at such and such an altitude is some kind of separate flight path recording provided from the drone by it's operator.
If you have other info please link it so I can adjust my views.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Sunday August 02 2015, @11:39PM
finally found the video that supposedly shows the flight path. I didn't see anything that could not have been easily faked by the drone owner. And if he new exactly where the drone came down why doesn't he provide the video form the drone's camera? As I understand it the drone owners claim is that memory card was missing when they recovered the drone.
hitting a small erratically moving target at 270-300 feet with #8 birdshot is quite a feat.
Looking forward to the links that might change my views.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 3, Informative) by hemocyanin on Monday August 03 2015, @01:39AM
I was looking up range info for #8 shot earlier, and it seems that for clay pigeons people talk of a useful range of 40 yards. It can apparently travel 200+ yards but you're looking at perfect angle and wind conditions.
On the other hand, the guy who shot it down sounds like a total asshole. Maybe this is just an asshole v. asshole thing where you hope the shooter gets punished and drone operator doesn't get reimbursed.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by BasilBrush on Monday August 03 2015, @01:23PM
Erratically moving? It might have been, but generally quadracopter drones are steady in flight, whether hovering, or moving in perdictable lines.
And it's quite revealing of your bias that you suspect the flight data might have been faked, but you take the word of the shooter what kind of lead he was using in the shotgun.
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 03 2015, @03:33AM
If you don't want people looking at your daughter while she's outside, you have two choices - never allow her out of the house or build a privacy fence. "Somebody was looking at my daughter while she was out in public!" is not a valid reason to use deadly force, its transparent bullshit for an asshole that wanted to destroy somebody else's property.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 03 2015, @06:05AM
Same reasoning applies to the drone owner. You don't like getting Your drone shot down? Don't fly it over my property.
Not only that, how is my personal, private back yard a public space? Even if I erected a privacy screen, a fence or at least some bushes that shield it from the public view, drone operators still don't give a flying fuck about it.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by PinkyGigglebrain on Monday August 03 2015, @09:42AM
My understanding is the there is a 6ft high fence around the shooters property. Given that fact he and his daughter did have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Had the drone operator and his buddies physically hoisted themselves up to look over the fence they could have been charged with some crimes that could get them on the sex offenders watch list for the rest of their lives.
The only thing that would prove the drone operators story would be the video the drone was recording at the time. But that is conveniently missing so it comes down to a He said/they said. I watched the video the drone operator has posted that claims to show the flight pattern of the drone and i didn't see anything that couldn't be fabricated with the right software and a little time. And even that video shows the drone crossing over the shooters property, just at a higher altitude than the shooter claims.
What about the next door neighbors the shooter supposedly talked to while the drone was over their houses? What do they say they saw? Does their story back the shooter or the drone pilot?
There are still too many unanswered questions for me to really pass a judgment on this case but right now I have to side with the shooter. If it was over his property and he had reasonable grounds to believe it was capturing video of his private property and also possibly filming his daughter, and given that a big selling point of the larger drones is that they have HD cameras on them this is likely, then I feel his actions were justified.
The only thing I know for sure is that if I saw a drone flying over and around my home I would feel very uncomfortable about it. Possibly to the point that I would want to get the drone out of the air by any means available.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 2) by BasilBrush on Monday August 03 2015, @01:29PM
What daughter? I can't see anything in the story about a daughter. Are you confusing someone's hypothetical with the actual case?
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 03 2015, @12:29AM
Not if Michele Bachman saves our incandescent lightbulbs!
(Score: 4, Disagree) by wonkey_monkey on Sunday August 02 2015, @10:06PM
Just because you have a right to, or expectation of, something, that doesn't mean you automatically have the right to take whatever measures you want to end an infringement of that right.
In other news, both sides in a dispute can be in the wrong at the same time.
PS CSS problems, Soylent?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 02 2015, @10:09PM
I think that argument can go against the drone pilot, who was almost certainty watching the shooter's daughters.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 02 2015, @10:28PM
The daughters aren't even hot. What an idiot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 03 2015, @03:36AM
Are you psychic? Can you read minds? No? So what then, you're thinking that, if it was you, you'd be peeking, so you can't imagine anybody doing anything else? You have no possible way of knowing what he was doing.
(Score: 2) by mojo chan on Monday August 03 2015, @12:30PM
Telemetry shows that the drone didn't linger over the property. From the height shown the operator wouldn't have seen much. Of course it might be fake, but the shooter didn't take any photos first so has pretty much destroyed any chance he might have had to prevail in court.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Wednesday August 05 2015, @12:59AM
200 yards (meters) high + at an angle (thus a greater distance than 200) + not hovering (moving) = a very hard target for anything in a shotgun (birdshot would be among the better options but it would still be a fluke).
If that's the story of the drone operator he shouldn't win in court.
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 02 2015, @10:22PM
You have the right to speak, unless I don't like what you have to say.
You have the right to worship, unless I don't like your religion.
You have the right to assemble, unless I don't like your associates.
You have the right to bear arms, as long as you join my army.
You have the right to refuse to house my soldiers, as long as you are one of my soldiers.
You have the right to refuse to be searched, unless I want to search you.
You have the right to refuse to incriminate yourself, unless I tell you to incriminate yourself.
You have the right to a trial, as long as I dictate the outcome.
You have the right to a lawyer, as long as your lawyer tells you to obey me.
You have the right to a jury trial, as long as I choose the jurors.
You have the right not to be tortured, unless I want to torture you.
You have the right to pretend you have rights, as long as you don't have any rights.
That about sum up your legal beliefs, fascist?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 02 2015, @10:26PM
His point was that while you might have the right to do X, that doesn't mean you can do absolutely anything if you believe it will defend that right. For instance, going on a shooting spree and killing random people because your free speech rights were violated. That appears to be the logic he used, so your reply seems irrelevant.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 02 2015, @10:29PM
His reply isn't irrelevant, but taking about shooting sprees is.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 02 2015, @10:36PM
Correctly summarizing the logical intent so that first knee-jerk reaction by a fool can no longer be justified is irrelevant?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Zz9zZ on Sunday August 02 2015, @10:39PM
The analogy was just fine, showing how the reaction to an offense can definitely be out of proportion. It is not for me to say whether shooting the drone was reasonable or not, that is for our courts to decide. Personally, I would hope it becomes legal to take down a trespassing drone, but there are so many possibilities.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Francis on Sunday August 02 2015, @11:01PM
What we need more than that is a new set of rules to help govern situations like this. It's hard to say whether the drone would have been shot down if drones didn't typically have cameras. This isn't unlike those glassholes walking around with a camera pointing at people. If there were some way of knowing that the photos weren't being stored, it would greatly reduce the tension in these situations. The current expectations of privacy are based upon what things were like a long time ago. Back then if somebody didn't witness you do something embarrassing, they could only get it through gossip. And you could move away from the gossip by moving to the next town down the road in most cases. In some cities, you might be able to do that just by changing neighborhoods.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 03 2015, @02:42AM
If this was 15 years ago and it was a RC airplane then it wouldn't have been shot down.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 03 2015, @08:04AM
If this was 15 years ago and it was an RC airplane then it wouldn't have had a camera.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Monday August 03 2015, @05:17PM
http://www.rc-cam.com/rc-cam1.htm/ [rc-cam.com] I wouldn't be so sure. Video wasn't so great 15 years ago, but pictures wouldn't be out of the question.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 03 2015, @02:25AM
I tried to load the front page earlier this afternoon.
The page title was in the title bar but all I got was a blank page.
By default, I block everything that isn't text.
When I pulled up my blocking widget, it was blank too (it's usually full of blocked items).
Strange.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 02 2015, @10:47PM
So it seems likely that all the people accusing the drone owner of being a filthy paedophile who walks stalking the man's daughters have likely just made fools of themselves based upon what is quiet likely to be a lie told by the man, trying to defend his actions.
There's a lesson here. Something about jumping the gun...
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday August 03 2015, @01:11AM
On the other hand, not flying your drone over an armed neighbour’s property is a good way to keep your drone from getting shot down.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 03 2015, @03:39AM
Horray for victim-blaming!
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 03 2015, @06:48AM
To be fair, I'm sure the drone was dressed provocatively. :)
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday August 03 2015, @03:39PM
The question that wasn't answered is whether this new hunting target tastes like chicken.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 03 2015, @06:45AM
That's easy to answer, at least a minimum distance is easy to state: how tall the tallest skyscraper?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 03 2015, @10:24AM
because it happens so often. But if a man shoots a drone, that is news.
(Score: 1) by scarboni888 on Monday August 03 2015, @04:48PM
They're not men they're 'enemy combatants' and hence the reason why they're not worthy of the news.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Username on Monday August 03 2015, @05:45PM
There’s no way you can take out a drone with birdshot at 200 feet. At that range it won’t even break skin. I doubt it would take down a metal plastic drone. It needs to be used close up, Dick Cheney style, in order to be effective.
If anything to be learned from this, is that property rights should extend within the range of birdshot above a persons property.