Do you own the airspace above your house; drones, privacy, and property rights

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Saw this story on MSN this morning:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/you-may-be-powerless-to-stop-a-drone-from-hovering-over-your-own-yard/ar-BBoavvI?li=BBnb7Kz&OCID=msnHomepage

From the story:

 

LOUISVILLE, KY - William Merideth had just finished grilling dinner for his family when he saw a drone hovering over his land. So he did what he said any Kentuckian would do — he grabbed his Benelli M1 Super 90 shotgun, took aim and unleashed three rounds of birdshot.

“The only people I’ve heard anything negative from are liberals that don’t want us having guns and people who own drones,” said the truck company owner, now a self-described “drone slayer.” Downing the quadcopter, which had a camera, was a way to assert his right to privacy and property, he said.

The drone was owned by John Boggs, a hobbyist, who told authorities he was trying to take pictures of the scenery. He argues in a lawsuit filed this month in U.S. District Court in Louisville that Merideth did not have the right to shoot the craft down because the government controls every inch of airspace in America.

For decades, the issue of who controls the nation’s air didn’t matter much to everyday Americans. Planes, after all, typically must stay hundreds of feet above ground while in the air.

But drones that can take off or land almost anywhere -- and the tech companies who dream of using them to deliver goods to your front porch -- are igniting a debate over who exactly owns the air just above ordinary homes and lawns.

“There is gray area in terms of how far your property rights extend,” said Jeramie Scott, national security counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center. “It’s going to need to be addressed sooner rather than later as drones are integrated into the national airspace.”

The issue is becoming more urgent as drones are crowding America’s skies: The Consumer Technology Association estimated 700,000 were sold last year.

According to the Federal Aviation Administration, every inch above the tip of your grass blades is the government’s jurisdiction. “The FAA is responsible for the safety and management of U.S. airspace from the ground up,” said an agency spokesman, echoing rules laid out on its website.

But common law long held that landowners' rights went “all the way to Heaven.” And today, it’s clear that they have some rights.

The story goes on to mention that this was the third time the homeowner had seen the drone hovering over his land he had previously called the police who told him there was nothing they could do.  The cameras on these drones can be very good.  And the article is right, in common law anything over your land, a neighboring trees branches, for example, can be removed at the discretion of the person who's land that branch is hanging over.

Airplanes are well above the local where they are a problem but for noise they generated the article goes on to discuss the case regarding this issue:

 

The rise of air travel initially sparked questions about where those rights end and flyable space begins. The issue reached the Supreme Court during the 1940s in a case called Causby v. United States where a farmer brought a suit against the government over low-flying military planes taking off and landing from a nearby airport. The planes, he said, forced him out of the chicken business -- and he wanted compensation.

The Court gave it to him -- and said that property owners own “at least as much of the space above the ground as [they] can occupy or use in connection with the land.”

Should a landowner be able to take down a drone that is hovering over their land?  I see it as a trespass under Common Law.  This doesn't mean that any aircraft that is overhead is fair game but a hovering drone that is there without permission, I think it is.

 

[sologdin]

scot, isn't the ancient common law rule that one's title in fee simple absolute to a certain piece of ground extends from the nadir to the zenith?  if so, this alleged FAA airspace regulation and DoI rules regarding chthonic rights are obviously the single largest expropriations of private property since the bolshevik revolution. 

like! obviously.

[Ser Arthur Hightower]

Well your ownership doesn't extend to infinity, otherwise planes couldn't fly a few thousand meters above nor helicopters a few hundred meters. The only limit that doesn't seem completely arbitrary is the height of your house, if a drone flies above your house then it can't be said to be violating your property as much as it is above your property, which isn't at all the same thing.

Of course if someone is using a drone to annoy people (or their animals for that matter) or to try and observe them in a manner that would not be possible from public property, then laws would have been broken, and the police could get involved if you wished for them to do so. I don't see why simply flying a drone over someone's property should constitute a crime.

As for the question of shooting it down (not relevant where I live but I'll give my thoughts regardless), I understand someone's frustration if a drone is bothering them and the police can't/won't do anything, but I don't believe you should be able to destroy or damage someone else's property just because it is considered to be on your own.

Also I see it as an opportunity that will be taken by arseholes who get easily annoyed to shoot at drones that aren't bothering them or invading their privacy at all.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Sologdin,

That is the common law position.  However the FAA disagrees.  The question here is whether I can destroy a drone hovering over my yard?  It is clearly trespassing under common law.  We've seen that calling the authorities about such hovering drones is... ineffective.  As such do propery owners have the right to damage or destroy a drone trespassing in their properies airspace?

I think repeated violations of this nature should allow for such.  I'm reminded of a sceen I caught on a news broadcast over the holidays.  News crews were using drones to film people picking through the rubble of their destroyed homes after tornados hit.  I can't the people they were filming didn't even seem to notice the drones (they clearly had more important matters on their minds) but the act of filming them within the remains of their homes without their knowledge just rubbed me the wrong way.  I think they should have been entitled to take out the drone filming them.

[Ormond]

Unfortunately the quotes from the particular man who shot this drone down make him look like an unattractive belligerent misanthrope. However, I really think the standard for how high one's property rights go should be higher than just the roof of any buildings on the property. I think the standard should be quite a bit above that. I will leave it to the experts on aviation rights to sort out just how high, but I really don't agree with the FAA position that they have ownership of all space above the blades of grass in your backyard. That's just as ridiculous as keeping the original standard of owing everything above your property to infinity. There has to be some reasonable compromise between those two positions -- personally 500 feet above anything built or growing on the property sounds reasonable to me at first blush, though again, the exact figure is something experts should be figuring out.

[Fez]

For some reason I thought property rights did extend into the air, something like 100 feet? I guess not. Is it possible some states passed laws saying that? I swear I saw that somewhere.

[Solmyr]

No drones in my country, but law clearly states that you own the air above your land. What you can do in said air could be severely limited by city or state policies, however other people can't do even that.

Let me complicate the casus though. My home is the second and third floor of a house, whose first floor is owned by a distant relative. The yard is split lengthwise and the house is in the middle, first floor has a separate entrance, so does the rest of the house. Nobody has access to any of the areas of the other. House foundations, chimneys, walls, roof are undivided property (equal shares). Floors, staircase, cellar, garages are individual property with separate deeds. No party can make changes to the undivided property parts without the consent of the others. However, the air about the house is my property. If I wanted to raise the roof and build another floor I need consent from my first-floor relative, but whatever I build up there is my own.

Considering the above, if my neighbour's drone flies over the house and I shoot it because it's in my airspace, am I in the right?

[sologdin]

scot, any idea how high property rights extend?

if mere trespassing fails to authorize lethal force, why should it authorize destructive force contra drones?  that's kinda anti-property rights, or discriminating contra rights in movables, which are not regulated, in favor of a very plainly regulated right to immovables, no?

[litechick]

I see an opening in the market for a device which interrupts the control signal to the drone or highjacks it and causes it to crash without birdshot.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Yeah you probably just need the right secret code on a universal remote, then just push the power button.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

scot, any idea how high property rights extend?

if mere trespassing fails to authorize lethal force, why should it authorize destructive force contra drones?  that's kinda anti-property rights, or discriminating contra rights in movables, which are not regulated, in favor of a very plainly regulated right to immovables, no?

Sologdin,

I just don't see any other way to discourage people from trespassinf with their drones.  I've no clue how high up the limit should be.  Can we make it a fluxuating limit based upon the resolution of the cameras on the drone?  The higher the resolution the higher the drone is required to fly?

 

[Free Northman Reborn]

What could possibly be more satisfying and self-affirming than blowing an invading drone out of your airspace with a shotgun!

On a more serious note, these drones have high resolution spy cams on them. Surely if my wife is tanning next to the pool in our backyard I am fully within my rights to blow a Peeping Tom's hovering spy drone out of the sky above our house?

[sologdin]

is one permitted to shoot a voyeur? I can't see why firearm discharges should be encouraged.  there are other remedies than violent self-help.

 

scot, that's not unreasonable, though is the drone's voyeurism the only objection?

[lessthanluke]

is one permitted to shoot a voyeur? I can't see why firearm discharges should be encouraged.  there are other remedies than violent self-help.

Such as what in a case like this?

[Free Northman Reborn]

is one permitted to shoot a voyeur? I can't see why firearm discharges should be encouraged.  there are other remedies than violent self-help.

I'm talking about the principle of disabling the offending spy drone. Let's forget for the moment about the issues regarding the firing of guns in built up areas. Assume you live on a smallholding or semi-remote piece of land that is far enough away from neighbours not to endanger them when a gun is fired.

Or lets even forget about firearms. Assume you have a device that emits a brief EMP pulse that disables any electronics it is aimed at. If a drone hangs above your house, spying on the sunbathing of your wife or minor daugthers even, surely you are entitled to disable it, thus causing it to crash to the ground and be destroyed?

[sologdin]

luke, if it is in fact trespassing, call the police? it's not like there's any imminent threat of irreparable injury from a drone flying over the yard.

[sologdin]

I'm talking about the principle of disabling the offending spy drone. Let's forget for the moment about the issues regarding the firing of guns in built up areas. Assume you live on a smallholding or semi-remote piece of land that is far enough away from neighbours not to endanger them when a gun is fired.

Or lets even forget about firearms. Assume you have a device that emits a brief EMP pulse that disables any electronics it is aimed at. If a drone hangs above your house, spying on the sunbathing of your wife or minor daugthers even, surely you are entitled to disable it, thus causing it to crash to the ground and be destroyed?

that's damned interesting. a directed EMP to disable drones trespassing in airspace.  if it was not in fact a camera drone, does liability for its destruction pass back to the disabler?  curious.

[Free Northman Reborn]

that's damned interesting. a directed EMP to disable drones trespassing in airspace.  if it was not in fact a camera drone, does liability for its destruction pass back to the disabler?  curious.

What would be your rights if someone planted spy cams in your house or on your property? Are you then entitled to destroy them at will? If so, I would hope that the same rights apply if someone is spying on you from a drone 200 feet above your house.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

is one permitted to shoot a voyeur? I can't see why firearm discharges should be encouraged.  there are other remedies than violent self-help.

 

scot, that's not unreasonable, though is the drone's voyeurism the only objection?

Sologdin,

The voyeurism is a big part of my objection.  We're talking about people's homes and having cameras hovering overhead observing me really bothers me.  We have a reasonable explanation of privacy.  You suggest we call the police but what can they do when we have no idea who is operating the drone?  I don't think blasting away at the drone with a shotgun is ideal, particularly, in residential areas but taking out an one with a rock or slingshot seems reasonable if the authorities can't do anything about it.

[Larry of the Lawn]

You disable it and catch it on a big trampoline, then use it as evidence in a charge of peeping tomfoolery, or charge the owner a delivery and rescue fee to return it to them.