http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/08/65-year-old-woman-takes-out-drone-over-her-virginia-property-with-one-shot/
"For now, American law does not recognize the concept of aerial trespass.
But as the consumer drone age has taken flight, legal scholars have
increasingly wondered
about this situation. The best case-law on the issue dates back to
1946, long before inexpensive consumer drones were technically feasible.
That year, the Supreme Court ruled in a case known as United States v. Causby that a farmer in North Carolina could assert property rights up to 83 feet in the air.
In that case, American military aircraft were flying above his farm,
disturbing his sleep and upsetting his chickens. As such, the court
found he was owed compensation. However, the same decision also
specifically mentioned a 'minimum safe altitude of flight' at 500
feet—leaving the zone between 83 and 500 feet as a legal gray area. 'The
landowner owns at least as much of the space above the ground as he can
occupy or use in connection with the land,' the court concluded.
Last year, a pilot in Stanislaus County, California, filed a small claims lawsuit
against a neighbor who shot down his drone and won. However, it is not
clear whether the pilot managed to collect. Similarly, a case ensued in
Kentucky after a man shot down a drone that he believed was flying above
his property. The shooter in that case, William Merideth, was cleared
of local charges, including wanton endangerment."
Maybe have a compromise and you can capture it, but not destroy it?
No comments:
Post a Comment