Don't Let Law Enforcement Bully You - NYS Incident

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.
 
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.
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.
 
@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.

So, just what is an arrest? When an officer tells you are not free to go, as in getting a traffic ticket, you are being detained, not arrested.

When you are detained and the officer moves you from one place to another using physical force, you are arrested. There is much confusion amongst LEO's about handcuffing a person and placing them in the patrol car while they investigate a suspicious situation, attempting to determine if the person has committed a crime.

Many officers will argue this is "investigative detention", not an arrest. However, the U.S. Supreme Court says that is an arrest. Most LEO's get away with it because they are well intentioned and just trying to do their job.

For any LEO's reading this, I assisted the FBI investigating other officers for civil rights violations (false arrest, etc,.)
If an FBI agent tells you they are investigating you for civil rights violations (and you did it), your career is over but you don't know it yet. Even if your innocent, being under the federal microscope will make you wish you were a painter instead.:cool:
 
  • Like
Reactions: gnomad and Mauiwind
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.

Not a problem.
I enjoy conversing about many topics. I know, at times folks get passionate. I'm guilty of that as well. I deal with medical staff on a daily basis. There's a plethora of type "A"s in that field. Nurses are are some of the most challenging.

It's all good.
Thanks for explaining the difference.

Don.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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 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.

There have been plenty of cases concerning filming in public and the Supeme Court has ruled none of us have a reasonable expectation of privacy when in public. Which is understandable when you consider how many places people use cameras. The question now is how high is public? I would have to say it doesn't matter. If I take a picture from the top of a football stadium or the Empire State Building the people in my shot have no reasonable recourse and I have committed no crime. An officer can not request my camera/sd cards or ask me to delete anything because someone complained. Let alone threaten to arrest me for not giving them my ID.

I say this only to point out the only folks who know where the shots came from on the drone were the PIC, the Crew if there was one and the folks on the private property. If the drone was on the perimeter of the property in public space and is in 107 compliance it has the right to take shots of any area below. If the drone folks were crossing the property then maybe the property owners can file a civil suit against the other party however I think they would have a hard time with any criminal actions against the drone folks. Had an officer seen it with his own eyes and determined they were harassing them maybe they have a complaint.

There are several cases that have been ruled on in favor of drone operators and filming. There are several on youtube that show police interaction and the police stating they are there because they received a complaint and when asked what crime was committed they get back in the car and move on because the drone operators are within their legal right to do what they are doing.

It will be interesting to see what happens in the coming years.

Arkansas is considered a Stop and Identify State However the Law only covers Loitering. When you consider Police offers can legally lie to get information from us how many times do you think that they tell folks you have to show your ID by law and people do so thinking they will be arrested if they don't.

My personal opinion is the Trooper overstepped his bounds by stopping them in the 1st place. He said he thought they might be breaking the but could not state how or give a reasonable articulation of why which he is required to do.. It appears to me anyway that he found that out in his talk with his supervisor and went for the next best thing. The 4 or 5 other county officers who showed up just made things worse for the trooper IMHO. The trooper seemed he was going to get them for one thing or another and when the 2 that refused to ID he finally got to flex his muscle and did. Why the off duty officer felt the need to be there is totally beyond me. All of it was a major over reaction to a local business complaint. The whole thing to me is what gives the public bad feelings toward police today.

Of course this is all my opinion and this is the internet so it doesn't mean a thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gnomad and Maddog
Anecdotal evidence suggests it is best to not rile up the troopers. Especially when in a rural area. I believe the upstate expression for what may happen when you tick them off is "getting tuned up." Something to consider when you interact with one. Respect the uniform is the advice a sergeant gave my friend once when he was pulled over by a rookie trooper and mouthed off to him. The old pro took him aside and told him the facts of life. He got the message, apologized to the rookie, and was told to move on. No tuneup received!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Maddog
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...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Maddog
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...
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gnomad and Maddog
Back in the day, I was a part time dispatcher in my town. Some idiot called from the beach claiming he saw a "learjet" flying recklessly at "like 500ft" buzzing over the beach. Everyone thinks all private jets are learjets, and all reckless aircraft are at 500ft. He said they were flying sideways and doing acrobatic maneuvers too. Riiiiight.

I asked the caller to describe the aircraft in more detail figuring his story would fall apart as usual. He described in detail, even the approximate number of windows. So as unlikely as it sounded, there was some merit to the call. My LT said well you know more about planes than me, see what you can dig up.

I have a friend who's dad was at the time the QC manager NY Approach. So I called him and asked him if he could run the radar tapes back and take a look. I told him you're looking for something about the size of a G4 or Challenger, low altitude, VFR along the coast near MAD. He laughed and thought I was kidding. But later on he sent me a graph and summary. It was a Global Express at 1,100ft, VFR flight following, doing 170kts, just over the water. Well I'll be damned. Perfectly legal, but certainly not something you see every day.
 
Like Rambo said"But I didn't do anything". As a animal lover ...thank you!
 
  • Like
Reactions: gnomad
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
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 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.
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gnomad
I agree it may have went better for all had they complied with the ID request.
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gnomad
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.
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'
 
  • Like
Reactions: Maddog
...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...

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 #?
 
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'
OK, I appreciate the input. I'll call you when I get hassled in NYS. :)
 
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 #?
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.

And yes, the FAA has asked that if you are asked by law enforcement to show lic/reg for the aircraft that you comply. But the issue would be if you didn't there would likely be no local/state ordinance that a LEO could charge you with. He would have to refer the case to the FAA and even then would be doubtful they would follow up.
 
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 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
Reactions: gnomad and Jubalr
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.
.

I agree what all you said.

It appears to me from the video, that the "off duty" officer (calling the shots, demanding id's, perhaps "make the complaint") , was working in his off hours as an employee for Marshall Farms.

This then creates a conflict between LEO's, land owners and UAS operators.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gnomad

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
13,093
Messages
147,741
Members
16,047
Latest member
pvt solo