good. this is unreasonable search and seizure. The space above your house is part of your private property up to a certain elevation, this is also trespassing. And if Ohio has a 2 party consent law for recording, this is also unlawful.
I wonder if the officers operating the drones have their FAA Unmanned arial vehicle operator licenses? To operate a drone for commercial purposes I believe you need one.
I think those laws are based on state, and just would hazard a guess it depends on the size of the drone.
A coworker bought a pair of rc planes, and actually had to register one with the faa becauae of its size, which i cant imagine anybody older than 3 thinking it was a full size plane...
I agree with you as long as the property surveilled is their curtilage and they have installed sufficient coverage to prevent view from a public roadway (fence, hedge, trees). They would then have a (diminished) expectation of privacy.
The issue are the SCOTUS decisions in California v. Ciraolo (fixed wing aircraft surveillance from 1,000 ft) and Florida v. Riley (helicopter surveillance of a greenhouse from 400 ft above private property).
yeah, like I said, from a certain elevation. Apparently not 1000 ft, nor 400 ft, but this drone which is 20-50 ft or so would, i assume, fall into that expectation of privacy.
But as another user pointed out, this photo is from Australia, and I dont know the laws there, more cucked than the US though but I dont know in what capacity.
While I love this photo as a whole, that is a Great Northern beer bottle so almost guaranteed to be a photo from my home state of Queensland, Australia.
I'd be very fucking surprised if somebody did. It's a decent drop but for some reason you guys never get our good ones and only get Foster's which not one person in Australia drinks.
Aussie pede here, I manage a liquor store in a country town. You're right the beer that bloke is throwing is a 375ml stubby of Great Northern Original 4.2% lager. We refer to it as White Fish, see the marlin on the label. We call their mid-strength version Black Fish because the marlin is black on the label. There is also a can of XXXX Gold mid-strength beer on the ground. These guys are from Northern NSW / Southern Qld, not Ohio.
I think this literally happened in Missouri and the courts sided with the property owner. Something about the first hundred feet above your property being considered part of your land so the drone was trespassing.
Free trap shooting training, grab your shotguns fellaz!
good. this is unreasonable search and seizure. The space above your house is part of your private property up to a certain elevation, this is also trespassing. And if Ohio has a 2 party consent law for recording, this is also unlawful.
Its illegal in 2 potentially 3 aspects.
I wonder if the officers operating the drones have their FAA Unmanned arial vehicle operator licenses? To operate a drone for commercial purposes I believe you need one.
Very unlikely since when I was flying I got ramped by local PD and none of them know the regulations.
Its a satire page on fb
Especially if the drone is out of LOS
I think those laws are based on state, and just would hazard a guess it depends on the size of the drone.
A coworker bought a pair of rc planes, and actually had to register one with the faa becauae of its size, which i cant imagine anybody older than 3 thinking it was a full size plane...
Anyhoo, just tossing that out as consideration
Look at the fb page..... satire
yeah too good to be true
Ohio is a 1 party state.
I agree with you as long as the property surveilled is their curtilage and they have installed sufficient coverage to prevent view from a public roadway (fence, hedge, trees). They would then have a (diminished) expectation of privacy.
The issue are the SCOTUS decisions in California v. Ciraolo (fixed wing aircraft surveillance from 1,000 ft) and Florida v. Riley (helicopter surveillance of a greenhouse from 400 ft above private property).
yeah, like I said, from a certain elevation. Apparently not 1000 ft, nor 400 ft, but this drone which is 20-50 ft or so would, i assume, fall into that expectation of privacy.
But as another user pointed out, this photo is from Australia, and I dont know the laws there, more cucked than the US though but I dont know in what capacity.
While I love this photo as a whole, that is a Great Northern beer bottle so almost guaranteed to be a photo from my home state of Queensland, Australia.
Could he (or a local retail establishment) not have imported it?
I'd be very fucking surprised if somebody did. It's a decent drop but for some reason you guys never get our good ones and only get Foster's which not one person in Australia drinks.
They also look quintessentially Aussie.
Aussie pede here, I manage a liquor store in a country town. You're right the beer that bloke is throwing is a 375ml stubby of Great Northern Original 4.2% lager. We refer to it as White Fish, see the marlin on the label. We call their mid-strength version Black Fish because the marlin is black on the label. There is also a can of XXXX Gold mid-strength beer on the ground. These guys are from Northern NSW / Southern Qld, not Ohio.
It is a bloody funny story though.
We can buy imported beer in the USA lol this isn't North Korea dude.
I don't doubt that but the most simple explanation is usually the correct one 🤷♂️
LMAO, THIS IS HILARIOUS!
I think this literally happened in Missouri and the courts sided with the property owner. Something about the first hundred feet above your property being considered part of your land so the drone was trespassing.
That is a federal offense, so wear a mask.
This was on a satire page