“In the Age of the Almighty Computer, drones are the perfect warriors. They kill without remorse, obey without kidding around, and they never reveal the names of their masters.” – Edwardo Galeano
The question of “is it legal to shoot down a drone” has been posed to us multiple times over the last week due to the drone swarms being sighted along the East Coast.
The short answer is: No.
Well, “no” with one exception.
The exception being a scenario in which a drone is creating and immediate and unavoidable fear/threat of grave bodily injury or death to the innocent.
If the drone appears equipped with a Glock, is flying over you, and you can see down the muzzle, that might qualify as a defensive shooting situation. However, we are all still legally, morally, and ethically responsible for every projectile we fire, so, I’m skeptical that there are many reading this who are capable of striking a moving target 200-feet in the air with a single pistol or rifle projectile.
“What if I use a shotgun?”
The drones being observed in New Jersey are flying much higher than skeet range. So, the hollow point or full metal jacket round that’s fired and misses will eventually land somewhere, which brings us to my next point…
The NJ drones are not (that any of us know) posing any threat and shooting at them would open one up to a plethora of legal problems. Discharging a weapon within city limits, reckless endangerment, destruction of property, etc…
Some suggest that drones above one’s house is “trespassing.” That’s a shaky “maybe.” There are states that have passed laws regarding it, California being one. They have outlawed entering private property through the air without permission to take pictures or video. There are problems with that, starting with, “How much air is owned above private property?” That answer has never been clearly defined – The FAA considers 500’ the limit for aircraft in “un-congested” areas, and 1000’ in high traffic areas. But, that’s simply for noise, not because it’s trespassing. Air ownership above property is legally vague.
The other problem is flying a drone over your own, or public, property and then filming your neighbor’s property from that vantage point. There’s a massive amount of case law regarding public photography being a first amendment protected activity. If it can be seen from a public place, it can be photographed. If above 500’ is public and zoom lenses are legal, then we’re back where we started. It also makes one wonder how the CA law applies to Google Earth (hint: it doesn’t.)
The CA law, along with all others I could find, have exemptions written into them for law enforcement, fire departments, surveyors, government agencies, utility companies, utility locators, and even some university/educational institutions and groups. Do we really know who owns the drone and if it is legally or illegally over our property? No, we don’t.
For the sake of argument, let’s say the drone over your house meets the legal criteria for trespassing. It still gives us no right to destroy it – no more than the neighbor’s cow that wanders into our yard. Or the neighbor, himself. Or all the stranger’s camping gear when you find it set up in your woods.
Trespassing (in most states) requires the owner, or an authorized agent, to notify the person trespassing that they must leave the property, and the trespass-ee needs to be given a reasonable chance to do so, and that includes collecting their possessions. Once notified, if the person refuses to leave (or returns after leaving) the authorities may be called to issue an official trespass – and even that is not yet arrestable. It amounts to a stern warning and an escort off the property. Returning after a written trespass is issued is when an arrest might occur.
Where I’m going with this is: The drone’s owner needs be notified of trespass – and, yeah, that’s probably impossible [flipping the bird to the camera doesn’t count] – then the police can be called. And they probably won’t have any idea who the owner is, either. Thus, we’re basically out of luck.
Now, let’s say you successfully knock some utility locating companies $4000 drone out of the sky – they’re going to know exactly [GPS] where it went down and they will come to collect it. When it’s discovered that it was blown into pieces by an angry homeowner, police will be involved, as will civil suits.
Some reading may be thinking to themselves, “That’s what shovels are for.” Good luck with that. It’s called tampering with evidence – which is generally looked at as an admission of guilt. Also, the drone most likely filmed its own demise and transmitted it back to the pilot. Your act of angry marksmanship was witnessed and recorded. Case closed, checkbook open.
Conclusion
I’m not happy about the surveillance state we’ve created, either. We all need to assume that everything we do when we walk out the front door is being recorded, because it is. Ring doorbells, dash, traffic, and security cams, license plate readers, and every person holding a smart phone – smile, we’re being watched. It sucks, and as A.I. is integrated it will become a tyrant’s wet dream.
Many new cars come equipped with cameras in the dashboard that are pointed AT the driver. That video, along with all other data (speed, breaking, seat-belt clicking, RPMs, mileage, GPS location, etc…) may be shared and sold to third parties by the manufacturer. Insurance companies are already using it to raise rates on “reckless” drivers. It won’t be long before speeding tickets just start showing up in the mail. Yes, the future of liberty isn’t looking bright.
However, I can think of one way the lack of privacy could be worse, and that’s in a jail cell.
Don’t shoot at drones.
“The scary thing about the future… there will be tiny cameras everywhere, and they’ll be flying around like mosquitoes and drones. That will be bad. Drones are scary. You can’t reason with a drone.” – Matt Greoning
