What do you think of this drone/multi-rotor accident ? 30 days jail + 5K fine

Toggle sidebar
No word back from court yet BUT Seattle Police Department sent me 106 page police report and photos (with some redactions) in response to Public Records Request within 48 hours. Did not include video footage taken at time of accident but did include witness statements, photos, flight reconstruction, and chronology of investigation. Lots of bad facts including flying smack dab in congested downtown area and pilot fled scene of accident. He did not turn himself in until dragnet started to close. Police used video from security cameras in area and reverse image searches to ID possible witnesses. Image taken by drone at takeoff showed pilot's car and license plate number. After doing a little more background research, I discovered this was third serious drone incident for SPD in 18 months. Take a look:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Space Needle is over 600 feet high.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
SPD reconstruction of flight based on "the drone's internal position monitoring and recording system."


1.jpg8.jpg15.jpg
 
Last edited:
The SPD found several photos of this person inside the drone. They knew she took photos of the drone and drone pilot with her cell phone. They did a reverse image search, found her on social media and called her on the telephone and asked what she knew...


visnap.png
 
SPD found this photo and ran the license plates. They were looking for a guy with a tattoo of a woman on his right arm. It was game over.


DJI_0020.JPG
 
Last edited:
I am having trouble posting pdf excerpts from the SPD report. So, here is my own summary for now:

The drone actually bounced off one guy's head and into the female victim's forehead where it left a cut (photo of victim's face is redacted from report). She was not "knocked out cold" as reported by some news media but she did go to hospital and was apparently diagnosed with concussion (medical record not in file). Both the man and the woman worked for a law firm located nearby and were with a group of lawyers supporting the parade. They grabbed drone right away. Drone operator or his friend walked up and asked for drone back. When told no, he got belligerent but "fled" when informed the police were called. Police got there quick, seized drone and started taking witness statements. Drone broke two props but not much other visible damage. Photo below was obtained from SPD report.

The SPD was all over this case from the get go. Some interesting twists and turns including witnesses described seeing a second drone flying overhead in the same area shortly after the accident. That operator was caught on a security camera with a DJI controller in hand but was never identified or charged as near as I can tell.

I have to clarify one point in the chronology of the investigation. The police did not officially inspect the micro disc from the drone until the suspect gave written consent 2 weeks after the accident. That surprised me because you would think they had probable cause to search and could have gotten a warrant if they wanted to.


2015-218622 002.JPG
 
Here are some more important details in the chronology of the investigation. The accident happened at 11:30 am on Sunday, June 28, 2015. The SPD took Phantom into custody and began investigation as to identity of its owner/operator. Two days later, the SPD received a telephone call from a lawyer for P. Skinner (PS).

Lawyer said he was calling to confirm that his client owned the drone. He asked SPD to relay his contact info to the injured party so he could arrange payment of her medical bills. Lawyer then asked whether his client would be charged with a crime and could he get the drone back?

The SPD said they had just started their investigation and needed to review matters with the City Prosecutor's office. They said they would release the drone from custody "at the conclusion of the case." Lawyer said in that case his client would decline any interview and make no statement.

PS was on the line with his lawyer and the detective in the three way call. That might explain why the prosecutor was able to get the lawyer's statements on the telephone into evidence at trial over hearsay and/or 5th Amendment (right against self-incrimination) objection in order to help prove drone ownership.

My hunch is that drone operator's fleeing the scene was serious aggravating factor at trial.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Firefly
The SPD contacted the FAA two days after the accident. The SPD investigator's report states the FAA "educated me on unmanned aircraft rules." The FAA said "they were already aware of the incident and maybe interested in the case to possibly pursue a civil penalty." The SPD report contains a 17 page summary of FAA regulations with certain passages (line of sight and flying over crowds) highlighted in yellow.
 
Curious; your obsession with this. Do you have a personal connection? Amateur P.I.? Hobby?
As a former investigator, just wondering why you are going to so much effort.
 
Jubalr said:
Curious; your obsession with this. Do you have a personal connection? Amateur P.I.? Hobby?
As a former investigator, just wondering why you are going to so much effort.
Click to expand...

No personal connection to case or people. No PI experience. Hobby drone flyer only. The more I get into drones the more I think I should know about local, state and federal laws and regulations governing airspace. This is the first case of its kind in the USA and it happened right up the freeway from me. Id be a fool not to know it by heart. The original question that split the group was whether 30 days in jail was fair or not? Given your background and experience, what say you? For sake of discussion, I was just reading thread about the FAA case against the commercial operator who conducted 65 illegal drone flights over congested skies over Chicago and New York over two years putting thousands of lives at risk. I know the company was fined $200K but will anyone spend even one night in jail?
 
Last edited:
You can't put a case that 'puts lives at risk' next to one where someone actually got hurt. Planes fly over our heads all the time and 'put lives at risk' should pilot error or mechanical cause them to fall. But anytime someone actually gets hurt, you open a whole other line of criminal and civil liability. And being this case is the first of it's kind in your area, prosecutors are more likely to try and make a statement with it.
 
Jubalr said:
You can't put a case that 'puts lives at risk' next to one where someone actually got hurt. Planes fly over our heads all the time and 'put lives at risk' should pilot error or mechanical cause them to fall. But anytime someone actually gets hurt, you open a whole other line of criminal and civil liability. And being this case is the first of it's kind in your area, prosecutors are more likely to try and make a statement with it.
Click to expand...
I don't think you can compare a hobby industry where a lot of manufacturers and small stores struggle to make a profit to an industry where companies spend millions and sometimes billions on research and development of their aircraft to make them safe. Also their track record (even though there have been lives lost) is far better than this hobby when comparing only the number of incidents vs how long they've been around.
 
wcc963 said:
I don't think you can compare a hobby industry where a lot of manufacturers and small stores struggle to make a profit to an industry where companies spend millions and sometimes billions on research and development of their aircraft to make them safe. Also their track record (even though there have been lives lost) is far better than this hobby when comparing only the number of incidents vs how long they've been around.
Click to expand...
I was speaking in general, not MTBF specifics. Any analogy involving the reliability of man made objects and failure/risk would work. Whether it is .01% or 10%, risk is a factor. And certainly in criminal prosecution profit isn't a factor and in civil it could play into the amount of damages a plaintiff is seeking. Neither profit or amount spent on R&D of a product is a defense in court. Failure is failure when someone/property is damaged. When a part falls off an airliner, they pay.
 
Jubalr said:
You can't put a case that 'puts lives at risk' next to one where someone actually got hurt...
Click to expand...

We are talking about a one time hobbyist flight that led to cut on one person's forehead which required no stitch vs 65 flights for money over heavily populated areas and some of the most congested airspace in the country which could have caused 9/1/1 scale disaster. More importantly, we should compare the cases side by side because "putting lives at risk" is the essence of a reckless endangerment charge. No proof of actual injury is required.
 
If we're talking "putting lives at risk" I just drove through Detroit at rush hour. I believe my life was at risk far more from other drivers (even though no accident occured) than having a drone or plane fly overhead. But this isn't the first time a drone has flown over or crashed into a person on the ground. This one just happened to result in jail time and a fine so this article was published. I doubt this will be the last time something like this happens
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Posts

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 151 (members: 0, guests: 151)

Forum statistics

Threads
13,164
Messages
148,288
Members
16,219
Latest member
Hanmer22