1971
I like beer (media.patriots.win) THE RESISTANCE
posted ago by bannedninjabit ago by bannedninjabit +1971 / -0
Comments (110)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
127
LesboPregnancyScare 127 points ago +127 / -0

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.

69
cookiesforsale 69 points ago +69 / -0

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.

29
Golvic 29 points ago +29 / -0

Very unlikely since when I was flying I got ramped by local PD and none of them know the regulations.

20
cookiesforsale 20 points ago +20 / -0

ahhh yes the rookie cop who likes planes finds he can ramp people... then has no idea what he needs to ask you for nor has probably ever seen a pilot's license... They are very colorful.

11
Bidencrimefamily911 11 points ago +11 / -0

Its a satire page on fb

1
PepePinochet 1 point ago +1 / -0

Especially if the drone is out of LOS

1
brotatofarmer 1 point ago +1 / -0

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

11
Bidencrimefamily911 11 points ago +11 / -0

Look at the fb page..... satire

2
223_Liberty_Tree 2 points ago +2 / -0

yeah too good to be true

5
Golvic 5 points ago +5 / -0

Ohio is a 1 party state.

2
TheNimbleHamburgler 2 points ago +2 / -0

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).

1
LesboPregnancyScare 1 point ago +1 / -0

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.