Understood. My pet peeve is when LEOs (usually new/young) over react to a situation or enforce laws with emotion (read anger). And that's when the press gets bad for us. Cops are human too and humans can't make good rational decisions when their blood is boiling. I tend to use humor when possible and words to calm a situation. People will often react based on your temperament and approach and fight fire with fire. I'm retiring real soon though, and will definitely miss some great people more than I will the job.Ok thanks..
I tend to get tired of cop bashing. While there is some foul play that happens. I would hate to see society without some form of law enforcement people. I certainly couldn't do that job. I'm to trusting of people.
Don, I hope I didn't come across to you as a bully or something but my blood boils when LEO's do things like this which just destroys all the good done by the other 99 percent.@Maddog,
Was that actually an arrest? Yes they were detained but doesn't an arrest include a record and possible jail time?
I've always wondered about that.
Don, I hope I didn't come across to you as a bully or something but my blood boils when LEO's do things like this which just destroys all the good done by the other 99 percent.
The video said that 2 people were cuffed and taken to the PD. I call that an arrest but they say no charges were filed. Sounds like both sides backed down and agreed to walk away.
I agree it may have went better for all had they complied with the ID request. Then the officer would have had to think of something else or let them go. But it started bad when the officer made the stop in the first place based on a 3rd party complaint. A more legal approach would have been to get the tag then do a home visit for a Q&A.Kind of got mixed feelings on this one... both parties were respectful but it seems like everything would have been a non-issue had the driver just simply complied and showed ID early in the stop. I would like to think if somebody was around or near my house that I didn't know, potential he invading my privacy - the cops would have the right to determine why they were there... as a private pilot I can assure you whether you're in compliance with the law or not if you do something that somebody feels is unsafe and they can get your tail number The pilot will be questioned, it will be the pilots job to prove he was not breaking any rules...
The Privacy issue would have to be one of the State of New York. Let's be clear, the American airspace is the concern of the Federal Government. Most particularly the FAA. Simply put, restricting airspace is outside of the NY Troopers jurisdiction. Further, simply flying a UAV over someones land does not necessarily mean they are being surveilled. I like to point out to those that would attempt to disrupt my flights or hassle me for having done so to please take their issue up with the federal government. I think there is a gray area with regards to local laws about drones. I say grey area because i'm unaware of these types of cases outcome when the fact that the Federal Govt. is in charge of the airspaces. Note: This is not legal advice.I don't know, I think I can see problems on both sides here
if the guy was a 107 holder he had legal right to fly above property
If he was violating privacy there are privacy issues that could have been at play
in the 107 rules seems one of the questions was do you need to present your certificate if asked by law enforcement and I think the answer was yes
Yes, true that. To take the conceptualization of airspace privacy a bit further, know that satellites have license plate reading resolution. This idea that aircraft over someones' property is an invasion of privacy is pretty weak when that is taken into consideration. I'd love for me to be a lawyer defending a privacy complaint, only to show the jury that the best pictures are from outer space.I agree it may have went better for all had they complied with the ID request. Then the officer would have had to think of something else or let them go. But it started bad when the officer made the stop in the first place based on a 3rd party complaint. A more legal approach would have been to get the tag then do a home visit for a Q&A.
As a pilot also, it would take more than just getting a tail # and complaint. Billy Bob on the street getting a tail # and saying he thought the plane was low and below minimums? They would have to hope radar data could prove the pilot was. Otherwise, were they at 489' or 502'? One legal, one not. Also, someone 'around your house' but not on your property? That won't 'fly' either. And as pilots, we are always over someones property. Been that way since the first flight. And I can get a hell of a lot more detail at 1500' with a good camera than I can at 200' with a small drone.
I vigorously disagree. I do not believe that Americans should be required to "show their papers" to LEOs simply because they are responding to a complaint for something that may in fact not be at all illegal. We can't simply allow LEOs do rewrite the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Cops are great people, but they should do their jobs lawfully.I agree it may have went better for all had they complied with the ID request.
Like I said, I believe the stop was bad to begin with as the trooper did not have valid PC since the drone was not doing anything illegal. But that can not be determined during the stop as far as the motorist is concerned. The PC/Legality of the stop can only be determined after the fact and in court since they were cuffed and taken to HQ for not showing ID on a traffic stop, as is required by NY law.I vigorously disagree. I do not believe that Americans should be required to "show their papers" to LEOs simply because they are responding to a complaint for something that may in fact not be at all illegal. We can't simply allow LEOs do rewrite the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Cops are great people, but they should do their jobs lawfully.
...My point was had they shown their ID (again, as required) the officer would not have had anything else and would have likely had to let them on their way. At that point, they could have filed a complaint against the validity of the traffic stop...
OK, I appreciate the input. I'll call you when I get hassled in NYS.Like I said, I believe the stop was bad to begin with as the trooper did not have valid PC since the drone was not doing anything illegal. But that can not be determined during the stop as far as the motorist is concerned. The PC/Legality of the stop can only be determined after the fact and in court since they were cuffed and taken to HQ for not showing ID on a traffic stop, as is required by NY law.
My point was had they shown their ID (again, as required) the officer would not have had anything else and would have likely had to let them on their way. At that point, they could have filed a complaint against the validity of the traffic stop and hopefully got the officer reprimanded & educated. It's always easy to Monday Morning QB the situation after the fact and say 'No Way! They don't have to 'show their papers!'. But not everyone is or can afford a civil rights attorney to make a point of a bad stop. They certainly could have in this situation. But since the Trooper made the stop, then Yes, by NY state law, they did have to show 'their papers'
Since the FAA has ruled UAS as aircraft, they have told state and local jurisdictions not to enact laws that deal with airspace as the FAA already has federal authority over it. They can regulate where you can take off and land from, but once it is in the air it is supposed to be governed by the FAA. The issue becomes that locals will try to regulate it anyway and will until someone with enough money challenges it.Yes, I agree. I am not sure I see a vital principle worth the time and expense of arguing your way into an arrest in these circumstances.
Several states have already made or are in the process of making flying over private property illegal especially if its for the express purpose of "spying" on what is not visible from a public vantage point. Anyone know NY law specifically? Could the officer in the course of a trespass investigation demand to inspect the drone to see if it had the required FAA #?
I agree that providing their ID would have probably ended the contact but I am concerned that the information might have been given to Marshall security. Marshall Farms has a "reputation" for employing the "scorched earth" principle to harassing and intimidating anybody who tries to expose what they do.Like I said, I believe the stop was bad to begin with as the trooper did not have valid PC since the drone was not doing anything illegal. But that can not be determined during the stop as far as the motorist is concerned. The PC/Legality of the stop can only be determined after the fact and in court since they were cuffed and taken to HQ for not showing ID on a traffic stop, as is required by NY law.
My point was had they shown their ID (again, as required) the officer would not have had anything else and would have likely had to let them on their way. At that point, they could have filed a complaint against the validity of the traffic stop and hopefully got the officer reprimanded & educated. It's always easy to Monday Morning QB the situation after the fact and say 'No Way! They don't have to 'show their papers!'. But not everyone is or can afford a civil rights attorney to make a point of a bad stop. They certainly could have in this situation. But since the Trooper made the stop, then Yes, by NY state law, they did have to show 'their papers'
I am not sure anyone backed down. I think they Police got what they wanted "Identity" when they went through the person affects like wallets or purses or possibly finger prints and were then satisfied.....
Why the off duty officer felt the need to be there is totally beyond me.
.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.