{"id":621,"date":"2018-03-07T12:14:20","date_gmt":"2018-03-07T18:14:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/?p=621"},"modified":"2019-07-03T23:41:58","modified_gmt":"2019-07-04T04:41:58","slug":"drones-airspace-private-property-rights","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?p=621","title":{"rendered":"Drones, Airspace, & Private Property Rights"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"
Image by Peter Linehan<\/a>, CC-BY 2.0 License<\/a>.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

When it comes to flying drones, the issue of property rights to low-altitude airspace above privately owned property is murky. Some claim that a property owners’\u00a0rights generally extend up about 500 feet<\/a>, which gives them the right to prevent drones from flying or hovering over their land. \u00a0Others argue that drones represent an important technological innovation<\/a>, and\u00a0decisions about where and when they can fly should be made collectively, not by landowners through tort law.<\/p>\n

The courts have taken very few stabs at clarifying this issue, at least for altitudes below 500 feet. However, the uncertainties surrounding the property rights to this airspace (above privately owned property) have not deterred the FAA or state and local officials from sprinting to regulate the burgeoning drone industry<\/a>.\u00a0This blog post argues that any current and future drone regulation must preserve the sanctity of private property rights.<\/p>\n

Some commentators have argued<\/a> that since drones represent the next frontier in aviation, regulations should open the airspace above private property up to drone flight, in the name of technological advancement. They argue<\/a> that if the FAA had prohibited airplanes from flying over personal property, society would have lost out on a major mode of transportation. But airplanes and drones fly at very different altitudes, with drones possessing the ability to hover as low as the blades of grass on one\u2019s lawn. This begs the question of where a property owner’s rights to be secure in her property fit into the equation.<\/p>\n

Others argue that drones do not have, and should not be given, a legal right to fly over private property in defiance of the wishes of the landowner.<\/a> This argument is more persuasive because drone flight in low-altitude airspace above private property implicates the same policy considerations for excluding other forms of trespass; chiefly among those is that a property owner has the right to the private enjoyment of her land without unreasonable interference. Drones arguably obstruct a property owner\u2019s visual enjoyment of her property and take up physical space, which could interfere with the ways in which the property owner desires to use her land.<\/p>\n

Additionally, people have the right to be secure in their homes; as the often-quoted phrase goes: a person\u2019s home is her castle. Drone flight above private property could potentially undermine this value. Drones are equipped with cameras and other surveillance devices, which easily enable a drone operator to peer through windows on buildings and spy on intimate events. For example, in 2014 a drone operator<\/a> was arrested for video recording through the outside windows of exam rooms in a hospital.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, a property owner\u2019s desire to preserve her privacy can also provoke her to make rash decisions in the name of self-defense, which presents safety risks to herself and others. This is precisely what happened in 2015<\/a>\u00a0when William Meredith, a Kentucky man, shot down a drone hovering over his property. Although there are conflicting accounts of how the event transpired, Meredith claims the drone operator was spying on his family. He alleged that the drone operator hovered the device over Meredith\u2019s property and below the tree line three separate times in a single day. Upon the drone\u2019s third flyover, Meredith felt harassed and feared for his family\u2019s privacy interest. Meredith then used a gun to shoot the drone out of the sky. The police were called, and Meredith was charged with wanton endangerment for firing a gun within city limits.\u00a0 The county district court judge ultimately dismissed these charges, however, agreeing with Meredith that he had the right to defend his property. Even though no serious damage resulted from these events (well, besides the bullet-riddled drone), this case highlights the potential risk we would create if the FAA were to allow drones to fly over personal property.<\/p>\n

Ultimately, drone regulation\u00a0must protect private property rights to ensure the privacy and safety of property owners.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

When it comes to flying drones, the issue of property rights to low-altitude airspace above privately owned property is murky. Some claim that a property owners’\u00a0rights generally extend up about 500 feet, which gives them the right to prevent drones from flying or hovering over their land. \u00a0Others argue that drones represent an important technological innovation, and\u00a0decisions about where and when they can fly should be made collectively, not by landowners through tort law. The courts have taken very few…<\/p>\n

Read More Read More<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"BLOG: \"Drones, Airspace, & Private Property Rights,\" by Jim Montelongo, explores the property issues implicated by drones flying over homes and other private property.","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[55],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-621","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-board-member-contribution"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9jSvD-a1","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":1361,"url":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?p=1361","url_meta":{"origin":621,"position":0},"title":"Closed for Business \u2013 Open for Litigation?","author":"Steven M. Silva","date":"April 29, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Can a business-closure regulation of commercial property in a pandemic be a taking?\u00a0 In the midst of a pandemic, it generally falls to government to enact laws and regulations in an effort to curtail the spread of disease. For example, the Supreme Court discusses compulsory vaccination in Jacobson v. Massachusetts\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Constitutional Issues"","block_context":{"text":"Constitutional Issues","link":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?cat=134"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":1325,"url":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?p=1325","url_meta":{"origin":621,"position":1},"title":"The Necessity of Firearm Stores During the COVID-19 Pandemic","author":"Adam Sopko","date":"April 22, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Gun owners and would-be gun purchasers are arguing that state measures to prevent the spread of the novel coronavirus infringe on their Second Amendment rights. To the extent the premise is correct\u2014the Second Amendment guarantees access to a firearm store\u2014it\u2019s not clear that their conclusion follows. In response to the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Board member contribution"","block_context":{"text":"Board member contribution","link":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?cat=55"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":1419,"url":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?p=1419","url_meta":{"origin":621,"position":2},"title":"The Right to Repair in a Pandemic","author":"Joshua D. Sarnoff","date":"May 20, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, companies, organizations, and individuals have used 3D printing and other measures to address supply chain gaps, producing spare parts and products such as ventilator tube splitters, nasopharyngeal swabs, and face shields. To facilitate similar efforts, the National Institute of Health has created a 3D\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Congressional Responses"","block_context":{"text":"Congressional Responses","link":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?cat=160"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":1826,"url":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?p=1826","url_meta":{"origin":621,"position":3},"title":"The Disregarded Canary: On the Plight of Black Women Voters","author":"Carliss Chatman & Marisa Jackson Sow","date":"October 29, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cDe nigger woman is de mule uh de world so fur as Ah can see.\u201d \u2013 Zora Neale Hurston, Their Eyes Were Watching God In American politics the Black woman voter is both mule and canary. Black women vote at higher rates than most demographics, and overwhelmingly and consistently vote\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Professor contribution"","block_context":{"text":"Professor contribution","link":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?cat=43"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":1183,"url":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?p=1183","url_meta":{"origin":621,"position":4},"title":"An Education Right Long Denied; An Education Crisis Thus Continues","author":"Susan Bitensky","date":"February 17, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"The following piece is a part of NULR of Note's \u201cBring Back The \u201890s\u201d initiative, aimed at exploring the evolution of legal thinking over the past three decades. For more, click here. Photo by\u00a0Element5 Digital\u00a0on\u00a0Unsplash Most Americans would probably be surprised to discover that there is no right under the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Bring Back the '90s"","block_context":{"text":"Bring Back the '90s","link":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?cat=56"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/01\/element5-digital-OyCl7Y4y0Bk-unsplash-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/01\/element5-digital-OyCl7Y4y0Bk-unsplash-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/01\/element5-digital-OyCl7Y4y0Bk-unsplash-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/01\/element5-digital-OyCl7Y4y0Bk-unsplash-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/01\/element5-digital-OyCl7Y4y0Bk-unsplash-1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/01\/element5-digital-OyCl7Y4y0Bk-unsplash-1.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":135,"url":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?p=135","url_meta":{"origin":621,"position":5},"title":"Equal Protection and the Social Sciences Beyond Criminal Justice","author":"Noor Tarabishy","date":"November 7, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"Following a discussion about the use of social science evidence in the criminal justice system at the Northwestern University Law Review Symposium, Professor Laura Beth Nielsen\u00a0(Northwestern, Sociology) moderated a panel that explored the varying degrees of success social science has had and the challenges faced by advocates in civil rights\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "On Campus"","block_context":{"text":"On Campus","link":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/?cat=17"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/IMG_0606-1024x613.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/IMG_0606-1024x613.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogofnotesite.wpengine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/11\/IMG_0606-1024x613.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/621","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/56"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=621"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/621\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=621"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=621"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.northwesternlaw.review\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=621"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}