Posted on 03/27/2017 8:08:14 AM PDT by Freeport
Requires Law Enforcement To Obtain A Warrant In Most Cases
The West Virginia Senate has passed and sent on the House of Delegates legislation that will regulate how drones can be used in the state.
Under the provisions of the law, it would be illegal for anyone to use a drone to:
•Intentionally take photographs or other types of images or publish such photographs or images of another person without the other person’s permission where the person being photographed or whose image is being captured has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
•Physically harass another person or surveille another person without the express permission of the person surveilled unless the surveillance is for a lawful commercial or law-enforcement purpose;
•Intentionally operate an unmanned aircraft system so as to interfere with the provision of law enforcement or emergency services; or
•Except as exempted by regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration and other provisions of this article, to operate an unmanned aircraft system within one hundred feet of a dwelling or structure without the consent of the owner or occupant thereof: Provided, That the provisions of this subdivision do not apply to a person operating an unmanned aircraft system in the airspace above the person’s real property, real property upon which the person has the consent of the owner to operate the unmanned aircraft system or public property.
Any person violating subsection (a) of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be confined in jail for not more than one year, fined not less than $100 nor more than $1,000, or both confined and fined.
(Excerpt) Read more at aero-news.net ...
Thought it was going to be a bill limiting political speeches to 5 minutes.
Illegal for anyone to use a drone......to operate an unmanned aircraft system within one hundred feet of a dwelling or structure without the consent of the owner or occupant thereof: Provided, That the provisions of this subdivision do not apply to a person operating an unmanned aircraft system in the airspace above the person’s real property.
The way I read it you can't operate a drone within a hundred feet of a structure, but if its in the airspace above the property you can? I'm not sure what the legal definition of "airspace" is, but it would seem a drone would always be operating in the airspace, which would completely nullify the 100 feet rule. Unless what they are trying to say is that it's legal to "pass through" the airspace over a residence going to or from a destination, but if you stop and hover around, then the 100 foot rule kicks in.
Physically harass another person or surveille another person without the express permission of the person surveilled unless the surveillance is for a lawful commercial or law-enforcement purpose;
= = =
What would be the lawful ‘commercial’ purpose?
Typical ignorant over reaction. Drones are an inkblot test to find idiots. Soon this thread will be flooded with those claiming a right to shoot them down, attack people they see flying them, and for cities and states to become junior FAAs and control airspace.
Somebody saw a titty from a woman who parades around naked with the windows open, or lays out in the sun naked. Well now she’s SHOCKED someone saw her tits. So we need a sweeping new law.
WV just raided its rainy day fund to make up for a budget shortfall.
That budget shortfall will be at least double this year with ‘jobs jobs jobs’ new governor (and Democrat) Jim Justice pounding the table for tax increases with or without the jobs promised.
The state is already broke and going broker thanks to rampant heroin and/or painkiller abuse. Because everyone knows state governments that can’t fix roads, build bridges or educate kids properly should be intimately involved in drug rehab and counseling.
Drones may be a problem but they are a flyspeck in the ocean facing WV legislature.
“Physically harass another person or surveille another person without the express permission of the person surveilled unless the surveillance is for a lawful commercial or law-enforcement purpose”
And here is the real reason. They couldn’t care less about privacy and naked women. But they do care about a drone seeing gross violations of pollution laws. They do care about pot grows and moonshiners watching for cops. Essentially this will be interpreted as, “if a police car appears anywhere in your video, you are interfering with law enforcement”.
This is a never take a photo of a cop at any time or distance law. But they cast it as a peeping tom law. Its exactly like when they tell is the entire internet needs to fall under massive government control, because child porn is out there.
“What would be the lawful ‘commercial’ purpose?”
News reporting comes to mind.
This morning I watched cell-phone “Periscope” coverage of the armed Leftists marching in AZ. That’s exactly the kind of group I’d want to “surveil” from a safe distance using a drone, and would be happy to sell that video. That group made it very clear to the right-there reporter that he did NOT have express permission of anyone being recorded.
Interesting that the summarized law might practically _require_ one to sell the images/video (thus invoking “lawful commercial purpose”), to use the drone to watch such a group; I don’t see a “personal use” exemption in that summary.
Half the state is strung out on oxycontin, and they have no jobs..... but drones.
I wonder if _giving_ the police the video/photos (say, by emailing it) as an FYI would cover that issue: I’m _enhancing_ law enforcement by providing more evidence of a given situation. Likewise, could be covered by selling the video.
Could be easy, even profitable, for me to provide a suitable service to wit: WVians, email me your drone video & address and I’ll pay you $0.01 for the right to publish it as “possibly interesting/newsworthy/entertaining drone videos” with the understanding it’s for CYA re: this law. That covers the “law enforcement” issue by engaging the “or” clause.
Go read the rest of the article.
“SB9 would also make it illegal for drones to capture video or still images of any industrial building or site without the express consent of the property owner.”
Not sure about that one. There’s that gray area about not trespassing (say, to photograph commercial violations), but you can take long-distance photos of the site (?). Probably intended to stop interfering busybodies trying to trash the coal industry, but criminalizes someone just taking interesting photos.
“Any person who operates an unmanned aircraft system under the influence of alcohol”
The point is understood, but it’s that issue of showing off one’s new drone at a backyard party after having a brewsky an hour ago that concerns me. Unintentional consequences.
“Any person who equips an unmanned aircraft system with any lethal weapon”
So much for those videos of people mounting Glocks thereon. I don’t think it’s smart, but not sure I quite want to codify it either.
“The law also places restrictions on when law enforcement may use an unmanned aircraft.”
Fair’s fair, I suppose. If I can’t “surveil” someone without permission, don’t want LEOs doing the same without a warrant.
“Drones cannot be used to enforce traffic laws”
Interesting. First thought is speed traps where it simply watches, from above, how long it took a vehicle to cross a known distance. Heck, there’s still signs up all over the country warning “speed checked by aircraft”.
Keep an eye on it. WV not my area, but now that states are issuing their own special & obfuscated laws, can get complicated if you take a drone on vacation or some such.
Just re-read OP and realized I’d overlooked the full context. Not what I was trying to protect, having just watched the armed Leftists marching without comment in AZ.
•Intentionally take photographs or other types of images or publish such photographs or images of another person without the other person’s permission where the person being photographed or whose image is being captured has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
= = =
Seems to me that the AZ group has no expectation of privacy.
“100 feet” is wholly inadequate. It should be 300 feet.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.