First Time Confronted for Flying my Drone

[aerialimagery]

I was photographing an industrial plant today and launched my drone from a field a few hundred feet away. While flying it back, I noticed an interesting looking industrial facility. I quickly made an orbit taking a few photos with the hopes of showing them to the plant manager to show them what I can do or with the hopes of making a sale.

When I got back to my car a fellow pulled up and informed me that he was with security from the plant I photographed. He said they had something to do with "Homeland Security" and were very concerned about a drone flying around the area. I fully cooperated with him giving him my name, showing my license and explained the situation. I told him I would like to contact the plant manager to see if they might be interested in looking at the photos and making a purchase and he gave me that information.

Later I received a call from the Sheriff department about the "run in" I had with security at that plant. I told him I wouldn't call it that, but that I was fully cooperative and that it was a friendly discussion. He told me that they asked me to delete the images and that I refused, which is totally bogus. If they had, I probably would have done so, they wouldn't have been any use to me. The sheriff warned me (for my sake) that I should delete those images right away and that I might be hearing from Homeland Security and they could confiscate my equipment, etc.

Anyway, does anyone know anything about this? I never flew over their plant but did fly around it briefly. Planes and helicopters fly in that area regularly and anyone could easily take few photos from a Cessna any time they wanted.

Any advice?

 

[MapMaker53]

This sounds to me like the security team may have reported back to the plant manager and then got chewed out for allowing you to keep the photographs. They then either reported you to the Sheriff's Department, giving him the fabricated story, or just called you pretending to be the Sheriff's Department to convince you to delete the photos. I think it strange that you got a phone call from the Sheriff's Dept. "advising" you to delete the photos - instead of a patrol car stopping by your house to discuss if some sort of national security was at stake. Did you get any names, especially the person who called from the Sheriff's Department?

If you were not flying in restricted FAA airspace, not flying/hovering at low altitude over their property, and did not know that the industrial complex was for some reason a no-fly zone (like a prison), I would just keep the photos and wait for Homeland Security to show up and provide you an explanation. Or better yet, call your local Homeland Security branch, convey the story and address of the industrial complex, and ask if you did anything illegal. Homeland Security has already vetted you during the Part 107 certification process, so they are already pretty certain you aren't a terrorist and unlikely to confiscate your equipment. Just my opinion.

Can you provide a Google Earth .kml file of the industrial complex so we can take a look at it and the local airspace? These days, Homeland Security is probably concerned about drones scouting industrial complexes and carrying explosive payloads.

 

[aerialimagery]

The Deputy seemed to be concerned about me and that they might confiscate my equipment. I have the phone number number. I think he's legit. How can I find a local Homeland Security office?

 

[MapMaker53]

Try using Google Maps. Zoom to your general area and search "Department of Homeland Security". You should see Dept. of Homeland Security pins pop up on the map with corresponding phone numbers in the left-hand margin. The pin closest to the location of the industrial complex would probably be the one to call to inquire.

 

[BigAl07]

If it was "Sensitive Infrastructure" then it's reasonable to see why you got the "courtesy call".

 

[aerialimagery]

I don't know how I should have known about that plant. I drove by it afterwards and didn't see any conspicuous signs.

At any rate, I found out that in my state one may not fly a UAS less than 400' ABOVE a critical infrastructure, so since I was orbiting around it, I was never over it.

I've looked at laws in various states and there is nothing there about taking photographs. It seems that it's all about the danger of being too close. The fear seems to be of a "weaponized UAS." Yet the security guard and the deputy who followed up with me were all concerned about the photographs. I can't see now that they had any right to them or that I didn't have any right to take them. I don't intend to go back there to make a point, but it seems to me that I should be able to circle that plant with my drone whenever I want to and be within the law. The guard had no cause to chase me down.

 

[R Martin]

I've looked at laws in various states and there is nothing there about taking photographs. It seems that it's all about the danger of being too close. The fear seems to be of a "weaponized UAS." Yet the security guard and the deputy who followed up with me were all concerned about the photographs. I can't see now that they had any right to them or that I didn't have any right to take them. I don't intend to go back there to make a point, but it seems to me that I should be able to circle that plant with my drone whenever I want to and be within the law. The guard had no cause to chase me down.

This relates to privacy and they did have the right to raise an issue because you failed to secure their permission to photograph private property. You could have at least ask them if it was alright beforehand. This type of behavior is probably what has prompted the following legislation:
http://www.uniformlaws.org/shared/docs/drones, tort law relating to/2018mar_TLRD_Draft.pdf

Its a lot easier, in this case, to ask permission than to get your hand slapped. Hopefully you didn't do this in Texas. The Privacy Act here is pretty heavy-handed in regards to invading peoples privacy.
GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 423. USE OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT

 

[aerialimagery]

Isn't the first link just a discussion regarding legislation but not actual legislation?

In the second link, I found this:

Sec. 423.003. OFFENSE: ILLEGAL USE OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT TO CAPTURE IMAGE. (a) A person commits an offense if the person uses an unmanned aircraft to capture an image of an individual or privately owned real property in this state with the intent to conduct surveillance on the individual or property captured in the image.

(b) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor.

(c) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the person destroyed the image:

(1) as soon as the person had knowledge that the image was captured in violation of this section; and

(2) without disclosing, displaying, or distributing the image to a third party.

(d) In this section, "intent" has the meaning assigned by Section 6.03, Penal Code.


What if there is no intent to "conduct surveillance"?

 

[Dave Pitman]

Ignorance is bliss, as they say. If there are federal (FAA), State or local laws or regulations that limit or prohibit a type of flight in a particular location, then you need to obey them.

If, on the other hand, there is no 'official' restriction, folks, even with badges, cannot arbitrarily make stuff up to suit their ideals. This is generally referred to as the rule of law. It can work against our wishes and behavior. And it can also work in favor of them.

 

[R Martin]

Isn't the first link just a discussion regarding legislation but not actual legislation?

In the second link, I found this:

Sec. 423.003. OFFENSE: ILLEGAL USE OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT TO CAPTURE IMAGE. (a) A person commits an offense if the person uses an unmanned aircraft to capture an image of an individual or privately owned real property in this state with the intent to conduct surveillance on the individual or property captured in the image.

(b) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor.

(c) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the person destroyed the image:

(1) as soon as the person had knowledge that the image was captured in violation of this section; and

(2) without disclosing, displaying, or distributing the image to a third party.

(d) In this section, "intent" has the meaning assigned by Section 6.03, Penal Code.


What if there is no intent to "conduct surveillance"?

IMO, there was no intent to "conduct surveillance", just a hope to develop a business opportunity. BUT, when you were first confronted that would have been the time to ensure the images of the property in question were permanently deleted. Even now would be a good time. The state actually did a great job crafting our legislation.

The first link is hopefully not ever going to make it out of chambers but in this political climate, it wouldn't surprise me if it did. I just did a cursory read of it yesterday afternoon for ***** and giggles. I'll go over it more closely later in the week when things slow down.

 

[R Martin]

Ignorance is bliss, as they say. If there are federal (FAA), State or local laws or regulations that limit or prohibit a type of flight in a particular location, then you need to obey them.

If, on the other hand, there is no 'official' restriction, folks, even with badges, cannot arbitrarily make stuff up to suit their ideals. This is generally referred to as the rule of law. It can work against our wishes and behavior. And it can also work in favor of them.

That thought train might hold true in Washington Dave, but that is not the case in other parts of the country. Even a legal battle you get wrapped up in that you win is going to cost you time and money defending yourself. Ignorance, in this case, is just that and has no business in our profession. You are supposed to be familiar with the area you are flying in. At least that is my opinion.

 

[dirkclod]

If you saw you were not going to be able to sale them anything would it not have been easier to just have told them you would delete the pictures and been done with it . I mean why bring on unnecessary grief upon yourself when all you had to do was say ok .
I mean like sometimes it's just better to agree and go on .
Just my thoughts .

 

[MapMaker53]

The OP said the security guards gave him the plant manager's information so that he could contact him to see if he was interested in purchasing the photos of his plant. According to the OP, the security guys never asked him to delete his photos. Apparently, the sheriff was told differently and simply advised him to do so. Sounds like people are making up their own rules as they go along since none of the parties are citing a law that would apply in his state.

On the other hand, I do agree it is easier to just apologize for the intrusion and move on.

 

[Timinator]

Would love to see what shows up on google earth, or just a general google search of the address.

 

[Outta Control]

If it was "Sensitive Infrastructure" then it's reasonable to see why you got the "courtesy call".

Yup this accurate.

 

[Outta Control]

My drone teaching boss came back from a state meeting for drone operations. Upon his return, he wanted to add some disclaimer on our slide presentation that any designated buildings/structures that DHS has claimed is absolute off-limits for drone operation within proximity.

In this case, it would be wise to delete those photos/videos immediately. The security guard might have been nice but they have to report the incident which escalated to the Sheriff Dept which takes DHS issue more seriously.

This is what the OP experienced.

As a side story, my buddy and fellow instructor, was flying around in Oakland near the shipyards. He was filming the surrounding building and such. Three hours later he gets a knock on his door and 2 FBI agents asked him sole questions about his flight for 2 hours. Apparently he was flying near or next to an FBI building and was tracked down and interrogated.

Remember, DHS designated sensitive areas will not show up on google maps or any other source except for contacting DHS. It is a tricky thing and a hassle but it is what it is.

 

[aerialimagery]

I want to be compliant with the laws, but I also don't want to be intimidated with a misinterpretation of the law.

I did not do anything illegal, even if I had known in advance that that was a "critical infrastructure" facility. I didn't fly "over" it. It's legal to fly "around" it. However, had I known, I wouldn't have bothered. I'm looking for customers and not pushing the limits of the law, and upsetting the plant manager or his security is no way to achieve that, even if everything is legal.

What angers me about this incident is that the security guard gave me the impression that everything was fine. He appreciated my full cooperation and believed I was harmless, etc., but then I received the call from the deputy calling it a "run in" and that I was asked to delete images and refused, which never happened. He gave me the impression that the guard gave him the impression that I was "combative," which I wasn't. Also, I felt that although the deputy was presenting himself as a friend to me, and just was concerned about what the feds could do to me, could confiscate my drone and my computer and I might never see them again, etc, so I better delete those images and hope for the best, that that might have been an intimidation tactic on behalf of the plant. But According to Homeland Security regulations, it's all about the danger the drone could pose, and there is nothing there at all about taking pictures (unless I missed something). So he had no business encouraging me to delete the images, as if having those images was a violation of the law.

I was reading the Texas laws regarding taking photographs and expectations of privacy, etc. I'm not sure how to read the laws regarding what is "lawful" as there are some very specific statements about that, and I'm wondering if anything outside of that should be considered "unlawful." But when I read the second part regarding violations, it's only about images taken for the sake of surveillance. The plant that I photographed was not in Texas, and putting the Homeland Security issue aside, if it had been in Texas, could they have cited me for violation of privacy or anything like that when there was no intent to use the photographs for surveillance purposes and that the only intent was for a possible business relationship with the property owners?

 

[aerialimagery]

If you saw you were not going to be able to sale them anything would it not have been easier to just have told them you would delete the pictures and been done with it . I mean why bring on unnecessary grief upon yourself when all you had to do was say ok .
I mean like sometimes it's just better to agree and go on .
Just my thoughts .

Agreed, but that's not how it happened. I wasn't asked by the guard to delete the images. That subject never came up. But apparently he decided to make up a story to tell the sheriff department that I "refused" to delete them. If he had asked me on the spot, I would have agreed to do it.

 

[Earnest Ward]

if it had been in Texas, could they have cited me for violation of privacy or anything like that when there was no intent to use the photographs for surveillance purposes and that the only intent was for a possible business relationship with the property owners?

Short answer, "yes." Texas has some of the strictest drone laws in the country. Taking the photos without getting permission first can be seen as an invasion of privacy. And failure to destroy the images (even without being asked) can make it actionable. Furthermore, Texas has a long list of Critical Infrastructure that are "no photo" sites - including dams, power plants... and feed lots.

Also, checking AirMap and looking for "No Drones" postings doesn't always work either. Most Army Corps of Engineers properties prohibit drones but don't post that fact. You have to do some serious digging through the district's website, or wait till the ranger confronts you.

Your best bet (your safest bet) is to research online and make a few phone calls ahead of time ("due diligence") and - if a serendipitous, spur-of-the-moment opportunity presents itself - introduce yourself (business card and sales pitch time) and ask permission. (There are even apps available for your phone or tablet - hold-overs from the Part 333 days - that offer a permission form that property owners can actually sign... and having it in writing is ALWAYS best.)

 

[dirkclod]

Agreed, but that's not how it happened. I wasn't asked by the guard to delete the images. That subject never came up. But apparently he decided to make up a story to tell the sheriff department that I "refused" to delete them. If he had asked me on the spot, I would have agreed to do it.

Truly sorry ... I missread .