FEDERAL DRONE LAW IN THE UNITED STATES UAS Operations during Nighttime UAS operations are permitted during nighttime hours provided that the aircraft is equipped with an active anti-collision beacon. Nighttime is defined as the period between official sunset and official sunrise at a specific location. The anti-collision beacon must be active, be visible for a minimum of three statute miles, and flash at a rate sufficient to avoid a collision. 14 C.F.R. § 107.29. The FAA does not define a rate sufficient to avoid a collision, but it is generally regarded to be between 40 and 100 flashes per minute. The RPIC may dim, but not outright extinguish, the intensity of the beacon if in his or her judgment it is in the interest of safety to do so. 14 C.F.R. § 107.29. The UAS Must Be Flown within Unaided VLOS of the RPIC or a VO At all times at least one member of the flight crew must be able to discern by direct visual observation the position of the aircraft, its altitude, attitude, and direction of travel, as well as maintaining surveillance of the surrounding airspace for potential conflicts with other aircraft. This must be accomplished without any tool or device, such as binoculars, that enhances normal human vision. The only exception to this requirement is the use of corrective lenses. 14 C.F.R. § 107.31. The navigable airspace is generally above 1,000 feet in urban areas and 500 feet in rural areas, plus the airspace needed for taking off and landing. 14 C.F.R. § 91.119(b) and (c); 49 U.S.C. § 40102(32). Helicopters may operate at lower levels as long as they do so without hazard to persons or property below. 14 C.F.R. § 91.119(d). But small UAS are required to fly at an elevation below 400 feet, with the only exceptions being special FAA permission and flights around tall structures, discussed above. See 14 C.F.R. § 107.51 (commercial fliers); 49 U.S.C. § 44809(a)(6) (recreational fliers). In the NAS, between the surface and 400 feet are important property and personal rights. The issue, as in any takings case, is the impact of the governmental activity on the property owner. Similarly, drones hovering over private property photographing a family in their backyard where they can see and hear the drone is also more likely to warrant trespass liability. The probability of trespass liability for hovering, photographing, or eavesdropping drones, has recently been underscored by a state court that decided that trespassing drones are particularly intrusive, relying upon the unique federal rules that govern them. Such rules reflect the fact that drones are qualitatively different from airplanes and helicopters, as they are vastly smaller and operate within a close distance from the ground. A drone is therefore necessarily more intrusive into a person's private space than an airplane overflight. Long Lake Twp. v. Maxon, 2021 Mich. App. LEXIS 1819 (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). The Long Lake court explained that while Causby rejected the ancient understanding that land ownership extended upwards forever, landowners are still entitled to ownership of some airspace above their properties and that intrusions into that airspace will constitute a trespass no different from an intrusion upon the land itself. Long Lake Twp., 2021 Mich. App. LEXIS 1819, at *20. While the case was ultimately decided on Fourth Amendment grounds, the court nonetheless observed that drones fly below what is usually considered public or navigable airspace and, consequently, flying them at legal altitudes over another person's property without permission or a warrant would reasonably be expected to constitute a trespass. The U.S. Supreme Court's opinion in Ciraolo contains a vigorous discussion of curtilage (the land immediately surrounding or attached to a house), concluding that the backyard was within the curtilage. But the Court also considered whether it was reasonable for the defendant to believe that his yard was secure from observations by the naked eye, and concluded that either a passing aircraft or even a power company repair mechanic on a pole overlooking the yard could have seen the illicit crop. The Court's conclusion was that simple visual observations from a public space (obviously including the navigable airspace) do not violate the Fourth Amendment, even if they invade the curtilage. In Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001), a case involving police thermal imaging from a car on a public street, the Supreme Court found using sense-enhancing technology to obtain information about what is going on inside a home was an unlawful search and seizure, although four dissenting justices saw nothing unconstitutional about the use of thermal imagery in a search. The Court majority held that using technology enhancements not in general public use to obtain information about the going on in a private home, where privacy expectations are most heightened, is unlawful, Kyllo, 533 U.S. at 34, citing Dow Chemical v. United States, 476 U.S. 227, 237 n.4 (1986). In Dow Chemical, the Supreme Court decided that technological perception enhancements were not an unlawful search and seizure of an industrial complex. At least one state court has ruled that drone surveillance in the context of a land use code enforcement case violated the federal Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures. In Long Lake Township v. Maxon, the Michigan Court of Appeals explained that drones are simply different and that FAA regulations (14 C.F.R. pt. 107), require drone operators to keep drones within visual observation at all times, fly drones no higher than 400 feet, refrain from flying drones over human beings, and obtain a certification. Such rules reflect that drones are qualitatively different from airplanes and helicopters, as they are vastly smaller and operate within little more than a football field's distance from the ground. Consequently, a drone is necessarily more intrusive into a person's private space than an airplane overflight. Furthermore, unlike airplanes, which routinely fly overhead for purposes unrelated to intentionally targeted surveillance, drone overflights are not as commonplace or as costly. In other words, drones are intrinsically more targeted in nature than airplanes and much easier to deploy. Additionally, given their maneuverability, speed, and stealth, drones are—like thermal imaging devices— capable of drastically exceeding the kind of human limitations that would have been expected by the Framers not just in degree, but in kind. Imagery taken of people inside the curtilage of their own homes from public rightsof-way (whether terrestrial or atmospheric) can result in liability (and Fourth Amendment violations) if the means used involve technology not deemed in general public use. The naked eye from 400 feet up and above may be acceptable, but images taken at 400 feet by high powered unfamiliar technology is not. Burgess v. Commonwealth Virginia Appeals Court|Mar 11, 2014|2014 Va. App. LEXIS 74 A police officer may seize what is in plain sight if he is in a place where he is constitutionally entitled to be. And where such a plain view seizure takes place there is in effect no search at all.But it must be immediately apparent to the investigating officer that the property to be seized is contraband. The "plain view" doctrine is applicable only where it is immediately apparent to the police that they have evidence before them; the "plain view" doctrine may not be used to extend a general exploratory search from one object to another until something incriminating at last emerges. People v. White Colorado Appeals Court|Jun 20, 2002|64 P.3d 864 The plain view doctrine never occurs until a lawful search, usually under a warrant, is in progress, and may not be used by government officials to bootstrap themselves into an exploratory search until they find what they are looking for. Any evidence will be in plain view, at least at the moment of seizure. The plain view doctrine comes into play only where the observation made is postintrusive. Preintrusive observations merely give rise to probable cause. California Poppy California Department of Fish and Wildlife On March 2, 1903 the California poppy, Eschscholzia californica, became the official state flower of California (Ca. Government Code Section 421). The plant's bright orange flowers are an unmatched symbol of the Golden State, perhaps viewed as a floral representation of the “fields of gold” sought during the gold rush. The California poppy is commonly seen blooming in the spring and summer along country roads and freeways throughout much of the state, making this plant a highly recognizable symbol of California, and April 6 of each year is officially designated as California Poppy Day. It is often believed that there are laws prohibiting the cutting or damaging of the California poppy because it is the state flower. While there is no law protecting the California poppy specifically, California Penal Code Section 384a requires written landowner permission to remove and sell plant material from land that a person does not own, and removing or damaging plants from property that a person does not own without permission may constitute trespass and/or petty theft. However, these laws do not prevent the collection of California poppies on private land by the landowner. California poppies are a beautiful and easy-to-grow addition to your garden, and although you may choose to pick them from your property, they last much longer in the ground! Live plants and seeds of the opium poppy are widely sold by seed companies and nurseries in most of the western world, including the United States. Poppies are sought after by gardeners for the vivid coloration of the blooms, the hardiness and reliability of the poppy plants, the exotic chocolatevegetal fragrance note of some cultivars,[which?] and the ease of growing the plants from purchased flats of seedlings or by direct sowing of the seed. Poppy seed pods are also sold for dried flower arrangements. 1. Though "opium poppy and poppy straw" are listed in Schedule II of the United States' Controlled Substances Act, P. somniferum can be grown legally in the United States as a seed crop or ornamental flower.[39] "Culinary Poppy Cultivation". WSU Mount Vernon NWREC. Washington State University. Archived from the original on 21 April 2021. Retrieved 14 May 2021.
