1206
Post by: Easy E
I read this little article in Saoln.com by Glenn Greenwald
Excitement over America’s use of drones in multiple Muslim countries is, predictably, causing those weapons to be imported onto U.S. soil. Federal law enforcement agencies and local police forces are buying more and more of them and putting them to increasingly diverse domestic uses, as well as patrolling the border, and even private corporations are now considering how to use them. One U.S. drone manufacturer advertises its product as ideal for “urban monitoring.” Orlando’s police department originally requested two drones to use for security at next year’s GOP convention, only to change their minds for budgetary reasons. One new type of drone already in use by the U.S. military in Afghanistan — the Gorgon Stare, named after the “mythical Greek creature whose unblinking eyes turned to stone those who beheld them” — is “able to scan an area the size of a small town” and “the most sophisticated robotics use artificial intelligence that [can] seek out and record certain kinds of suspicious activity”; boasted one U.S. General: “Gorgon Stare will be looking at a whole city, so there will be no way for the adversary to know what we’re looking at, and we can see everything.”
As of the 2010 year-end report from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), there were already “more than 270 active authorizations for the use of dozens of kinds of drones” (35% held by the Pentagon, 5% by Homeland Security and others by the FBI). Employing them for domestic police actions is following the model quickly being implemented in surveillance-happy Britain, where drones are used for “the ’routine’ monitoring of antisocial motorists, protesters, agricultural thieves and fly-tippers, in a significant expansion of covert state surveillance.”
You can find the entire article here, this was just the intro. http://www.salon.com/writer/glenn_greenwald/
Now, what are peoples thoughta and opinions about using drones in a non-military domestic capacity, and where can you see drone technology expanding to in the non-military field?
50512
Post by: Jihadin
It works. I see no issue of Law Enforcement using drones unless they start mounting Hellfire missiles.
4412
Post by: George Spiggott
Easy E wrote:I read this little article in Saoln.com by Glenn Greenwald
...following the model quickly being implemented in surveillance-happy Britain, where drones are used for “the ’routine’ monitoring of antisocial motorists, protesters, agricultural thieves and fly-tippers, in a significant expansion of covert state surveillance.”
I don't doubt that we're surveillance happy, but fly tipping? Really?
I see this as a good way to save costs, these things have got to be cheaper than helicopters.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Jihadin wrote:It works. I see no issue of Law Enforcement using drones unless they start mounting Hellfire missiles at me.
Corrected your typo.
If its cheaper than guys in helicopters than who cares?
14070
Post by: SagesStone
I think drones with hellfire missiles would make a great chav deterrent.
As they are they're fine, nothing wrong with having an expendable pair of eyes for more riskier situations and the cost to run compared to a helicopter has to be extremely insignificant.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Its a cheaper to operate a drone then an aircraft
241
Post by: Ahtman
Unless they are just constantly monitoring 24/7 with no reason I don't really see this being much worse than putting a chopper in the sky.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Depending on the drone, it would be a lot quieter too. Having been the fun subject of a police helicopter endlessly circling while I tried to sleep more than once, I can say thats a big deal.
29110
Post by: AustonT
Jihadin wrote:It works. I see no issue of Law Enforcement using drones unless they start mounting Hellfire missiles.
I do.
Ahtman wrote:Unless they are just constantly monitoring 24/7 with no reason I don't really see this being much worse than putting a chopper in the sky.
And that's why.
UAVs give you the ability to provide persistent and uninterrupted surveillance without much possibility for detection. Gorgon Stare isn't a UAV it's an imaging system mounted on a UAV, specifically to answer the soda straw nature of UAVs. Without a wide area system a UAV has the tendency to stare at one location, if they are found through random surveillance and then stared at, they fail the fourth amendment reasonable expectation of privacy. The use of UAVS by USCBP in law enforcement is very different than urban law enforcement which is difficult to impossible without ground queing and not nearly as effective as manned assets, depending on how fancy or basic your police force uses it probably wouldn't be cheaper either. I can't see the most cost effective UAVs in use above urban centers, because they aren't safe. Those with redundant systems that I can see in use are markedly more expensive, not including the sensor system itself which may cost more than another helicopter.
TLDR
Drones over your city, not anytime soon.
221
Post by: Frazzled
How is it different then a helicpoter?
29110
Post by: AustonT
Frazzled wrote:How is it different then a helicpoter?
Which part?
221
Post by: Frazzled
The surveillance part. I mean manned helicopter. If there aren't helicopter drones at thi point, I don't see a reason for there not being them in future.
16689
Post by: notprop
Drones are cool, helicopters are old hat.
Damn it Fraz it's sooo obvious!
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Well...I know the Apaches would fly near towns at night with their FLIR on (Ft Bragg) Southern Pines being one....at night...
29110
Post by: AustonT
Frazzled wrote:The surveillance part. I mean manned helicopter. If there aren't helicopter drones at thi point, I don't see a reason for there not being them in future.
There are. 
The thing that gets under estimated is how wide human vision is, and combined with natural and trained inquisitiveness is what makes airborne surveillance so effective. A UAV is like covering one eye and looking through a soda straw in the other. Even in the widest field of view your ability to see and detect is Extreemly limited. You can expand the sensor suite but only with exponentially increasing costs.
With a manned helicopter you can but don't require a sensor to upgrade that wide human field of view, in an unamnned system you are limited to just the sensor.
When you start to talk about costs.
The average police chopper runs about 2M, plus fuel, pilots, ground crew, and sensors
The average cost of a drone with redundant systems comes in around 5M (including aircraft, control system, and antenna) which may or ma not include the price of the sensor (it probably doesn't) plus fuel, operators, and ground crew. You could go cheaper but then your talking about a relatively good chance of putting a dirt dart in someones home.
Does that answer what you were asking?
29408
Post by: Melissia
George Spiggott wrote:I see this as a good way to save costs, these things have got to be cheaper than helicopters.
This.
As long as they're used in the same way helis are, I'm fine with them.
1206
Post by: Easy E
Plus, I think the plan is to just have them loiter around and look for "suspicious behavior". Kind of like the blimps in Gotham City.
I have no doubt such a technique will catch "criminals" , but how many innocent fish will get pulled in with such a wide net? How many of those "criminals" will actually be prosecuted?
I don't know the answer.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Innocent fish? What? Its no different then now. A helicopter is no different than a whole lot of cops walking around.
29110
Post by: AustonT
Easy E wrote:Plus, I think the plan is to just have them loiter around and look for "suspicious behavior". Kind of like the blimps in Gotham City.
I have no doubt such a technique will catch "criminals" , but how many innocent fish will get pulled in with such a wide net? How many of those "criminals" will actually be prosecuted?
I don't know the answer.
Yes because drones use tractor beams to apprehend people, and because its automated no need to Mirandize them either, just put them in the live well until the robot judge sentences them.
4412
Post by: George Spiggott
I was just thinking how blimps would probably be cheaper. Bung some solar panels and some batteries on there and it will stay up there forever, for free (possibly).
29110
Post by: AustonT
George Spiggott wrote:I was just thinking how blimps would probably be cheaper. Bung some solar panels and some batteries on there and it will stay up there forever, for free (possibly).
One of many blimp systems in use. There are more but I dot know the names of all the systems, some are visual seniors and not radar.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tethered_Aerostat_Radar_System
This what you had in mind?
4412
Post by: George Spiggott
What I had in mind was a little more like this  :
Certainly free roaming, with advertising space to lower costs.
1206
Post by: Easy E
AustonT wrote:Easy E wrote:Plus, I think the plan is to just have them loiter around and look for "suspicious behavior". Kind of like the blimps in Gotham City.
I have no doubt such a technique will catch "criminals" , but how many innocent fish will get pulled in with such a wide net? How many of those "criminals" will actually be prosecuted?
I don't know the answer.
Yes because drones use tractor beams to apprehend people, and because its automated no need to Mirandize them either, just put them in the live well until the robot judge sentences them.
Yeah, because no one would be watching the info the drone was feeding and routing cops to where the suspicious activity that the Drone detected, right? Sure.
The drone won't do any apprehending. Instead, they will be a source of information used to route cops to the "suspicious behavior" to apprehend/interrogate the suspect. Of course, "suspiscious behavior" does NOT equal guilty.
Do I honestly need to draw a freakin' picture?
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Suspicious behavior is just that: suspicious behavior.
And while it does not "equal guilty", it certainly does not equal innocent either.
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
Easy E wrote:
Yeah, because no one would be watching the info the drone was feeding and routing cops to where the suspicious activity that the Drone detected, right? Sure.
The drone won't do any apprehending. Instead, they will be a source of information used to route cops to the "suspicious behavior" to apprehend/interrogate the suspect. Of course, "suspiscious behavior" does NOT equal guilty.
Do I honestly need to draw a freakin' picture?
The regular rules for reasonable suspicion and probable cause would still apply, so we're not talking about them having any more power than they do with a helicopter.
29110
Post by: AustonT
George I dont see your picture can I assume it's something similar to the Goodyear dirigible?
221
Post by: Frazzled
Kanluwen wrote:Suspicious behavior is just that: suspicious behavior.
And while it does not "equal guilty", it certainly does not equal innocent either.
Agreed. Whats the issue? Again, its no different from having cops all over or people with phones calling it in.
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
I think it would be a smart idea to have an extra layer of constitutional enforcement JUST IN CASE a drone operator unilaterally decided to push the envelope. I'd be happy to see a law that raised the requirements for using drone evidence just slightly. Not so much that you're losing cases or anything, but just enough that a few extra eyes need to check it first.
I don't think it would hurt and it would make most people feel better about them.
but legally, it's just a helicopter. The exact same powers and restrictions as your local PD's helicopter.
29110
Post by: AustonT
Rented Tritium wrote:Easy E wrote:
Yeah, because no one would be watching the info the drone was feeding and routing cops to where the suspicious activity that the Drone detected, right? Sure.
The drone won't do any apprehending. Instead, they will be a source of information used to route cops to the "suspicious behavior" to apprehend/interrogate the suspect. Of course, "suspiscious behavior" does NOT equal guilty.
Do I honestly need to draw a freakin' picture?
The regular rules for reasonable suspicion and probable cause would still apply, so we're not talking about them having any more power than they do with a helicopter.
Oh so the legal system remains intact? No Robojudges? Weird.
You probably should draw some pictures, I hear it's therapeutic.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Rented Tritium wrote:I think it would be a smart idea to have an extra layer of constitutional enforcement JUST IN CASE a drone operator unilaterally decided to push the envelope. I'd be happy to see a law that raised the requirements for using drone evidence just slightly. Not so much that you're losing cases or anything, but just enough that a few extra eyes need to check it first.
That wouldn't be needed. If they stuck a camera in everyone's face, the only usable evidence would still have to pass constitutional muster.
4412
Post by: George Spiggott
AustonT wrote:George I dont see your picture can I assume it's something similar to the Goodyear dirigible?
It's a picture of the blimp from Bladerunner.
1206
Post by: Easy E
Rented Tritium wrote:Easy E wrote:
Yeah, because no one would be watching the info the drone was feeding and routing cops to where the suspicious activity that the Drone detected, right? Sure.
The drone won't do any apprehending. Instead, they will be a source of information used to route cops to the "suspicious behavior" to apprehend/interrogate the suspect. Of course, "suspiscious behavior" does NOT equal guilty.
Do I honestly need to draw a freakin' picture?
The regular rules for reasonable suspicion and probable cause would still apply, so we're not talking about them having any more power than they do with a helicopter.
True. I'm not completely familiar with how the police use helicopters now, but from watching TV (Which never lies!) they are called in to support the officers. They don't waste time loitering around looking for suspicious behavior because it would be a ridiuclous waste of resources.
Drones like the Gorgon Stare would do the opposite. They would call in the ground cops for support of what it does.
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
Like, with red light cameras, the evidence gets trusted a little too fast. In some places they've made the law such that the camera has to get a clear view of the face and at least a certain number of the plate etc. It seems to work really well and remove some of the questionability of it. Something like that would be perfectly reasonable to apply to this.
29110
Post by: AustonT
Rented Tritium wrote:I think it would be a smart idea to have an extra layer of constitutional enforcement JUST IN CASE a drone operator unilaterally decided to push the envelope. I'd be happy to see a law that raised the requirements for using drone evidence just slightly. Not so much that you're losing cases or anything, but just enough that a few extra eyes need to check it first.
I don't think it would hurt and it would make most people feel better about them.
but legally, it's just a helicopter. The exact same powers and restrictions as your local PD's helicopter.
A lot of those requirements are already in place. Carry overs from police aviation, and the use of UAVs for law enforcement on the border especially since CBP started using them actively. There always has to be a filter on a new asset. Especially the unblinking eye of technology.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
I see the main focus on the drones though is the southern border.
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
Easy E wrote:Rented Tritium wrote:Easy E wrote:
Yeah, because no one would be watching the info the drone was feeding and routing cops to where the suspicious activity that the Drone detected, right? Sure.
The drone won't do any apprehending. Instead, they will be a source of information used to route cops to the "suspicious behavior" to apprehend/interrogate the suspect. Of course, "suspiscious behavior" does NOT equal guilty.
Do I honestly need to draw a freakin' picture?
The regular rules for reasonable suspicion and probable cause would still apply, so we're not talking about them having any more power than they do with a helicopter.
True. I'm not completely familiar with how the police use helicopters now, but from watching TV (Which never lies!) they are called in to support the officers. They don't waste time loitering around looking for suspicious behavior because it would be a ridiuclous waste of resources.
Drones like the Gorgon Stare would do the opposite. They would call in the ground cops for support of what it does.
If they had the money to run a helicopter nonstop, they would and regular laws would apply.
Suspicious behavior viewed from a drone is exactly like suspicious behavior viewed from a car. It lets the officer stop you and figure out if there is a crime happening. If the drone sees something behind a fence on private property that isn't an actual crime in progress or an emergency, then they'll have to still go through a judge to go in. If the drone sees something that constitutes probable cause, but is not an actual witnessed crime on private property behind fences, then they'll in most cases STILL need to get a real warrant.
TL : DR version: Anything that the drone can see that's not an actual crime actually occuring right there or isn't happening out in public where a cop could be anyway will end up requiring a judge's go ahead to do very much.
1206
Post by: Easy E
Cool. Thanks for the info.
I can see a future FOX TV show from all the wierd stuff a drone would see happening in people's backyards.
Edit: Redlight Cameras were deemed unconstitutional in my state at one point. I wonder if they are back on line now.
29110
Post by: AustonT
Easy E wrote:
Drones like the Gorgon Stare would do the opposite. They would call in the ground cops for support of what it does.
Maybe while you are off drawing pictures you should google Gorgon Stare and Constant Hawk. Which as I have already pointed out is not a drone, it's a sensor. A sensor that doesn't work right, and is extremely expensive. It also has power requirements, and data collection rates that don't allow real time transmission.
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
Redlight cameras end up being unconstitutional for a few reasons. One is that if the camera doesn't get your face, they charge you because you own the car, then make YOU prove you weren't driving it, rather than the other way around. Since tickets are a civil matter, this one is debatable.
The other reason is that the red light tickets are usually a different fine than when a cop cites you for running a red light. This can be construed as a violation of equal protection because the city can put red light cameras in the swanky neighborhoods and cops in the bad ones. Ruh roh scooby.
If they avoid these things, they tend to be found constitutional.
29110
Post by: AustonT
Easy E wrote: I can see a future FOX TV show from all the wierd stuff a drone would see happening in people's backyards.
No you don't, you're a fear monger.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
You do know they have satellites that can read newspaper in people backyard right?
221
Post by: Frazzled
Rented Tritium wrote:Like, with red light cameras, the evidence gets trusted a little too fast. In some places they've made the law such that the camera has to get a clear view of the face and at least a certain number of the plate etc. It seems to work really well and remove some of the questionability of it. Something like that would be perfectly reasonable to apply to this.
GOOD POINT! I'm ok with that too RT
1206
Post by: Easy E
AustonT wrote:Easy E wrote: I can see a future FOX TV show from all the wierd stuff a drone would see happening in people's backyards.
No you don't, you're a fear monger.
Gee, I guess I did need to add a....  to the end of that sentence.
I guess you never read how to Win Friends and Influence People. Way to get people on your side. 
By the way, why create a "Sensor System" for Drones like Gorgon Stare, and not put it in a drone once you have built it? I didn't think the company built it just for LOLz. I think they intend on selling it to people like the military, police, and other corporations.
So, how about the use of drone by other non-military/paramilitary groups. You know, like journalists and stuff?
29110
Post by: AustonT
George Spiggott wrote:AustonT wrote:George I dont see your picture can I assume it's something similar to the Goodyear dirigible?
It's a picture of the blimp from Bladerunner.
Gotcha, Blimps and dirigibles are susceptible to weather more than other aircraft. It limits their utilization, it's why you won't see them used that way.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
They stick to embed. There's no need to show how military/law enforcement operate in a tactical situation. Look at what happen to Geraldo in Iraq when he describe how a military unit capture a objective.
29110
Post by: AustonT
Easy E wrote:I guess you never read how to Win Friends and Influence People. Way to get people on your side.
much happier with people like you not "on my side."
5534
Post by: dogma
Easy E wrote:
Yeah, because no one would be watching the info the drone was feeding and routing cops to where the suspicious activity that the Drone detected, right? Sure.
Again, how is this different from how police currently operate?
1206
Post by: Easy E
Then enjoy your small tent politics where your ideas don;t go anywhere because politics is about getting other people to agree with you, even people who initially may have disagreed.
So, let's turn the discussion to how non-military groups can utilize drones.
Let's say someone like CNN or FOX news purchases one. What do you think they would use it for? Just like a Helicpoter, or are their other innovative uses you could think of? Automatically Appended Next Post: dogma wrote:Easy E wrote:
Yeah, because no one would be watching the info the drone was feeding and routing cops to where the suspicious activity that the Drone detected, right? Sure.
Again, how is this different from how police currently operate?
Sorry, I missed this. Yeah, I'm starting to believe you guys are right.
All though, after being called a fear monger, I kinda want to dig my heels in just to be a jack ass.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Easy E wrote:Then enjoy your small tent politics where your ideas don;t go anywhere because politics is about getting other people to agree with you, even people who initially may have disagreed.
WTF? Who are you even talking to?
5534
Post by: dogma
Rented Tritium wrote:Redlight cameras end up being unconstitutional for a few reasons. One is that if the camera doesn't get your face, they charge you because you own the car, then make YOU prove you weren't driving it, rather than the other way around. Since tickets are a civil matter, this one is debatable.
I don't see how this is distinct from contesting an ordinary speeding ticket.
1206
Post by: Easy E
Frazzled wrote:Easy E wrote:Then enjoy your small tent politics where your ideas don;t go anywhere because politics is about getting other people to agree with you, even people who initially may have disagreed.
WTF? Who are you even talking to?
AustonT, who doesn't want to convince me he is right because he thinks I'm a fear monger. Despite the venom, I actually think Rented Tritium and AustonT (along with others) were right, and I was concerned for no real reason.
Now, what applications do you see for drone technology outside of the military/para-military. I think Saddam all ready modified some for spraying ( IIRC). Crop dusting is a big deal where I live, perhaps that could be a future market for Drone tech.
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
dogma wrote:Rented Tritium wrote:Redlight cameras end up being unconstitutional for a few reasons. One is that if the camera doesn't get your face, they charge you because you own the car, then make YOU prove you weren't driving it, rather than the other way around. Since tickets are a civil matter, this one is debatable.
I don't see how this is distinct from contesting an ordinary speeding ticket.
With a regular speeding ticket, a human person came up to your window and looked at your face.
A red light camera just saw your CAR, but not you. So now if someone else was driving, you have to contest it and TELL THEM who was driving. You have to prove you WEREN'T driving instead of the other way around.
29110
Post by: AustonT
Easy E wrote:So, let's turn the discussion to how non-military groups can utilize drones.
yes let's.
Let's but that burden on you.
Find the non military agency willing to buy a 30.35M aircraft to strap a 17.5M payload onto. Not including the cost of ground equipment, maintenance, and spare parts.
Let's go ahead and say non-federal too since you want to talk about looking for suspicious activity and actioning police officers which is the function of state and local law enforcement.
But since you can't be bothered with performing basic background information searches I won't hold my breath.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
"slowly moves out of the firing lane"
221
Post by: Frazzled
AustonT wrote:Easy E wrote:So, let's turn the discussion to how non-military groups can utilize drones.
yes let's. Let's but that burden on you. Find the non military agency willing to buy a 30.35M aircraft to strap a 17.5M payload onto. Not including the cost of ground equipment, maintenance, and spare parts. Let's go ahead and say non-federal too since you want to talk about looking for suspicious activity and actioning police officers which is the function of state and local law enforcement. But since you can't be bothered with performing basic background information searches I won't hold my breath.
on the positive they already do to an extent. Not the big mondos like you're talking about, but radio controlled helicpoters and such (the cheap crap). They've been used on several movie sets for wide panoramic shots of outside events (Gettysberg was one of the first). on the aquatic front, their use is incredibly common.
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
AustonT wrote:Easy E wrote:So, let's turn the discussion to how non-military groups can utilize drones.
yes let's.
Let's but that burden on you.
Find the non military agency willing to buy a 30.35M aircraft to strap a 17.5M payload onto. Not including the cost of ground equipment, maintenance, and spare parts.
Let's go ahead and say non-federal too since you want to talk about looking for suspicious activity and actioning police officers which is the function of state and local law enforcement.
But since you can't be bothered with performing basic background information searches I won't hold my breath.
Well those are actually only SOME of the drones. There are some smaller cheaper ones with less flight time that will be used commercially. Further, in the next few years they really will get cheaper, I'm sure.
I think the very first regular use for them will be advertising. It would be relatively inexpensive to have small battery powered drones that are small enough and low enough to avoid FAA regulation that could use low power lasers to project things onto fog or clouds or what have you.
Another use is entertainment. I'm SURE disney parks are already looking into using them with animatronics to have flying characters or whatnot.
Also security. A large parking lot could have a drone watching for auto burglaries. Similar to those cherry picker cabs you see right now.
Then the paparazzi. There's good money in celeb pictures. Some of those photo agencies could afford a drone if it was just a tiiiny bit cheaper.
So basically, there are a ton of uses, but the BULK of them will be the small ones under the FAA's altitudes of jurisdiction. Automatically Appended Next Post: There's enough money in things drones can do that there is a HUGE incentive for companies to make them cheaper.
I mean, a robot vacuums my apartment RIGHT NOW. This stuff is GOING to get cheaper.
1206
Post by: Easy E
I reread the thread, and I see why AustonT is po'ed. I apologize for the "draw a picture" comment.
Now, I also can see that as these things become more mainstream the costs WILL go down. As the costs go down, their will be a new demand for commercial entities.
The advertising aspect seems really interesting to me. At first, I was just thinkg they could pull banners around, but animatronics and laser imagery is a much cooler idea?
So does the Journalism/Paparazzi aspect. How do you see Drone technology being used by journalists impacting future privacy discussions? What limitations to Journalists currently have for photography people/events, and would special restrictions be put in place for aerial drones?
722
Post by: Kanluwen
NASA uses drones for various weather related research shenanigans.
It's also worth noting that there's actually a pair of cases dealing with aerial surveillance. California v. Ciraolo established that officers can make an aerial observation of an area within the curtilage of a home without a search warrant. There's another case, which eludes me at the moment, which establishes that it does require a warrant to use specialist equipment like FLIR to notice a house which is growing marijuana internally.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Easy E wrote:I reread the thread, and I see why AustonT is po'ed. I apologize for the "draw a picture" comment.
Now, I also can see that as these things become more mainstream the costs WILL go down. As the costs go down, their will be a new demand for commercial entities.
The advertising aspect seems really interesting to me. At first, I was just thinkg they could pull banners around, but animatronics and laser imagery is a much cooler idea?
So does the Journalism/Paparazzi aspect. How do you see Drone technology being used by journalists impacting future privacy discussions? What limitations to Journalists currently have for photography people/events, and would special restrictions be put in place for aerial drones?
Restrictions on aerial surveillance in general should be put in place, be it drones or other means.
21853
Post by: mattyrm
Rented Tritium wrote:
A red light camera just saw your CAR, but not you. So now if someone else was driving, you have to contest it and TELL THEM who was driving. You have to prove you WEREN'T driving instead of the other way around.
Mate, you dont.
In the UK, speed camera's are pretty common. If your car gets busted from the back, you can get your mom to take your fine. It's easy, everyone does it. No lawyers, you just write on the form the name and address of the person taking the fine and it gets done. Millions of people do it.
If your photographed from the front and they can physically see you driving, then your stuck with the fine though.
You don't HAVE to prove gak.
Having lived in the US and the UK, I have to say that I really dont understand that small percentage of Americans that are just ridiculously paranoid about everything. It truly baffles me. We have some CCTV, but you dont even notice it, and if you happen to get mugged, occasionally there was a camera and the cops get some evidence from it. Thats it. They dont "secretly tape you" while your banging your wife. They dont do anything "secret" they are just there, visibly, and nobody cares, and life is still good, and we can still drink and drive and not get caught, and buy booze, and sleep in garbage cans. Whatever floats your boat.
Why does this American "paranoia" thing about camera's even exist? 
29110
Post by: AustonT
Frazzled wrote:AustonT wrote:Easy E wrote:So, let's turn the discussion to how non-military groups can utilize drones.
yes let's.
Let's but that burden on you.
Find the non military agency willing to buy a 30.35M aircraft to strap a 17.5M payload onto. Not including the cost of ground equipment, maintenance, and spare parts.
Let's go ahead and say non-federal too since you want to talk about looking for suspicious activity and actioning police officers which is the function of state and local law enforcement.
But since you can't be bothered with performing basic background information searches I won't hold my breath.
on the positive they already do to an extent. Not the big mondos like you're talking about, but radio controlled helicpoters and such (the cheap crap). They've been used on several movie sets for wide panoramic shots of outside events (Gettysberg was one of the first).
on the aquatic front, their use is incredibly common.
There is a world of difference between R/C and Drones. They certainly aren't unrelated, but the automation neccesary to make an R/C into a drone is staggering in weight, cost, and complexity. There ARE low cost drones, but with lower cost comes lowered capabilities. Completely ignoring FAA requirements which those inexpensive drones will not meet.
We're talking about "big mondos" because of this:
Easy E wrote:
By the way, why create a "Sensor System" for Drones like Gorgon Stare, and not put it in a drone once you have built it? I didn't think the company built it just for LOLz. I think they intend on selling it to people like the military, police, and other corporations.
So, how about the use of drone by other non-military/paramilitary groups. You know, like journalists and stuff?
Which is where cost and size become an issue. Not a Blade EP with a nose camera.
Rented Tritium wrote:
Well those are actually only SOME of the drones. There are some smaller cheaper ones with less flight time that will be used commercially. Further, in the next few years they really will get cheaper, I'm sure.
I think the very first regular use for them will be advertising. It would be relatively inexpensive to have small battery powered drones that are small enough and low enough to avoid FAA regulation that could use low power lasers to project things onto fog or clouds or what have you.
Another use is entertainment. I'm SURE disney parks are already looking into using them with animatronics to have flying characters or whatnot.
Also security. A large parking lot could have a drone watching for auto burglaries. Similar to those cherry picker cabs you see right now.
Then the paparazzi. There's good money in celeb pictures. Some of those photo agencies could afford a drone if it was just a tiiiny bit cheaper.
So basically, there are a ton of uses, but the BULK of them will be the small ones under the FAA's altitudes of jurisdiction.
Just because an aircraft operates in class G airspace doesnt mean it's unregulated. The airspace is unrestricted not the aircraft. To obtain an airworthiness certification even small commercial use UAVs will require AT LEAST level 2 autonomy and probably more. Redundant navigation systems, sense and avoid, and other requirements drive the cost and complexity up. The FAA is making real steps towards integrating the national airspace but widespread commercial use wont be cheap or widespread for quite sometime. There is no such thing as flying below FAA regulation, they govern ground level to Class A. THere is no such thing as too small or too low to avoid FAA regulation with the current structure, but proposals for size vs safety considerations have been proposed.
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
Easy E wrote:So does the Journalism/Paparazzi aspect. How do you see Drone technology being used by journalists impacting future privacy discussions? What limitations to Journalists currently have for photography people/events, and would special restrictions be put in place for aerial drones?
That question has been asked and answered to DEATH in the courts because paparazzi have been using helicopters for years.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote:
In the UK, speed camera's are pretty common. If your car gets busted from the back, you can get your mom to take your fine. It's easy, everyone does it. No lawyers, you just write on the form the name and address of the person taking the fine and it gets done. Millions of people do it.
You're not getting what I'm saying.
You have to either take the fine or tell them who does take the fine.
You MUST. Those are your two answers. If you decline to answer the question at all, it's automatically you.
See the issue? You refuse to incriminate yourself and they, without any evidence you were actually in the car, can fine you. You SHOULD be able to cross your arms and ask THEM to prove you were in the car.
221
Post by: Frazzled
We probably should define drone then. I'm using the concept of any remotely piloted UAV.
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
AustonT wrote:
Just because an aircraft operates in class G airspace doesnt mean it's unregulated. The airspace is unrestricted not the aircraft. To obtain an airworthiness certification even small commercial use UAVs will require AT LEAST level 2 autonomy and probably more. Redundant navigation systems, sense and avoid, and other requirements drive the cost and complexity up. The FAA is making real steps towards integrating the national airspace but widespread commercial use wont be cheap or widespread for quite sometime. There is no such thing as flying below FAA regulation, they govern ground level to Class A. THere is no such thing as too small or too low to avoid FAA regulation with the current structure, but proposals for size vs safety considerations have been proposed.
Wrong. I absolutely promise that drones will be small enough VERY SOON to fit into the R/C toy class and ignore 99% of this.
I can make a self piloting quadrotor RIGHT NOW out of a kit that can provide a LOT of functionality without any FAA rules outside of the usual don't fly near airports business.
21853
Post by: mattyrm
Rented Tritium wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote:
In the UK, speed camera's are pretty common. If your car gets busted from the back, you can get your mom to take your fine. It's easy, everyone does it. No lawyers, you just write on the form the name and address of the person taking the fine and it gets done. Millions of people do it.
You're not getting what I'm saying.
You have to either take the fine or tell them who does take the fine.
You MUST. Those are your two answers. If you decline to answer the question at all, it's automatically you.
See the issue? You refuse to incriminate yourself and they, without any evidence you were actually in the car, can fine you. You SHOULD be able to cross your arms and ask THEM to prove you were in the car.
I get your point mate, but I dont see the issue. It's video/CCTV footage, surely you only have two options anyway right? I mean, you can take the fine, or you can say that your mate was driving, what other options are there?! And how would it be different if it was a live copper pulling you over with a speed gun?
I mean, I suppose you could "cross your arms and ask them to prove you were in the car" but they are talking to you, and you are!
29110
Post by: AustonT
mattyrm wrote:They dont "secretly tape you" while your banging your wife.
Or do we?
"appears to be fornication in the convertible"
EDIT: wont embed...you need to log into youtube.
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
mattyrm wrote:
I get your point mate, but I dont see the issue. It's video/CCTV footage, surely you only have two options anyway right? I mean, you can take the fine, or you can say that your mate was driving, what other options are there?! And how would it be different if it was a live copper pulling you over with a speed gun?
In America, when you get accused of something or are sued, the person doing the accusing has to actually show it was you. If all they have is a picture of your car, they should not be able to just ASSUME it must be you unless you can prove otherwise. They should have to prove that there WASN'T anyone in the car.
This is a pretty basic component of the American legal system.
When you are pulled over with a speed gun, the cop actually SEES YOU. When you are hit with a camera, they never get a picture of your face, just of your car. Cars don't commit violations, people do.
221
Post by: Frazzled
You have the right under the COnstitution to face your accuser. redlight camera corporations vitiate that right.
29110
Post by: AustonT
Rented Tritium wrote:
Wrong. I absolutely promise that drones will be small enough VERY SOON to fit into the R/C toy class and ignore 99% of this.
I can make a self piloting quadrotor RIGHT NOW out of a kit that can provide a LOT of functionality without any FAA rules outside of the usual don't fly near airports business.
I bow to your years of expertise in the field.
(sarcasm in case my sarcasm font isnt working)
50512
Post by: Jihadin
They dont "secretly tape you" while your banging your wife.
Apache...FLIR...Southern Pines... Ft Bragg...night flights...gun video...1/82nd Attack Bn...
1206
Post by: Easy E
I'm prety sure their are plenty of modle that all ready do, however the media may have been refering to them as "drones" when they aren't technically part of that category.
I still see the big difference between drones and helicopters being loiter capability and signature. If a helicopter is following you or hovering over your porperty it "can" be pretty obvious (depending on camera tech). Smaller drones are designed to reduce the detectability. That could equla the difference between Helicopter surveillance and Drone surveillance.
However, I maybe totally misunderstanding drone tech. Thats why I am here, to learn more about it.
Edit: Thanks for the Case name. Stupid(er) question. What does within the "Curtainage" mean?
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
Frazzled wrote:You have the right under the COnstitution to face your accuser. redlight camera corporations vitiate that right.
Well this actually isn't true since the "accuser" in this case is a person who reviewed the footage.
The issue is that they are not being required to meet a sufficient burden of proof.
Requiring the camera to catch your face would solve the whole problem. Automatically Appended Next Post: AustonT wrote:Rented Tritium wrote:
Wrong. I absolutely promise that drones will be small enough VERY SOON to fit into the R/C toy class and ignore 99% of this.
I can make a self piloting quadrotor RIGHT NOW out of a kit that can provide a LOT of functionality without any FAA rules outside of the usual don't fly near airports business.
I bow to your years of expertise in the field.
(sarcasm in case my sarcasm font isnt working)
Tell me more about the fantasy world you live in where R/C planes are fully regulated by the FAA. Automatically Appended Next Post: Easy E wrote:I'm prety sure their are plenty of modle that all ready do, however the media may have been refering to them as "drones" when they aren't technically part of that category.
I still see the big difference between drones and helicopters being loiter capability and signature. If a helicopter is following you or hovering over your porperty it "can" be pretty obvious (depending on camera tech). Smaller drones are designed to reduce the detectability. That could equla the difference between Helicopter surveillance and Drone surveillance.
However, I maybe totally misunderstanding drone tech. Thats why I am here, to learn more about it.
You don't have any inherent right to know you're being looked at. If there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in a given place, then you can assume nobody is and if there is not a reasonable expectation of privacy, then the law acts like you are being watched all the time.
21853
Post by: mattyrm
Jihadin wrote:They dont "secretly tape you" while your banging your wife.
Apache...FLIR...Southern Pines... Ft Bragg...night flights...gun video...1/82nd Attack Bn...
I'm on about static CCTV camera's that you sometimes see in British cities mate, the point im making is that its not part of a "conspiracy" its just.. you know... something they use to help catch criminals.
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
mattyrm wrote:Jihadin wrote:They dont "secretly tape you" while your banging your wife.
Apache...FLIR...Southern Pines... Ft Bragg...night flights...gun video...1/82nd Attack Bn...
I'm on about static CCTV camera's that you sometimes see in British cities mate, the point im making is that its not part of a "conspiracy" its just.. you know... something they use to help catch criminals.
It's not that video is bad, it's that authorities are sometimes allowed to use video that doesn't constitute actual proof. Just because it's video doesn't mean the regular rules for evidence don't apply.
When you get pulled over they ask for your license, see your face, know who you are, make you sign the ticket, right there at the scene. With a traffic cam, they ASSUME it was you and mail the ticket to you. They are NEVER required to prove it was you.
29110
Post by: AustonT
Jihadin wrote:They dont "secretly tape you" while your banging your wife.
Apache...FLIR...Southern Pines... Ft Bragg...night flights...gun video...1/82nd Attack Bn...
Pretty sure this is from a Kiowa at NTC, but I've been wrong before.
I've video tapped COUNTLESS hajjis banging goats, other men, and sometimes even women.
21853
Post by: mattyrm
Rented Tritium wrote:mattyrm wrote:
I get your point mate, but I dont see the issue. It's video/CCTV footage, surely you only have two options anyway right? I mean, you can take the fine, or you can say that your mate was driving, what other options are there?! And how would it be different if it was a live copper pulling you over with a speed gun?
In America, when you get accused of something or are sued, the person doing the accusing has to actually show it was you. If all they have is a picture of your car, they should not be able to just ASSUME it must be you unless you can prove otherwise. They should have to prove that there WASN'T anyone in the car.
This is a pretty basic component of the American legal system.
When you are pulled over with a speed gun, the cop actually SEES YOU. When you are hit with a camera, they never get a picture of your face, just of your car. Cars don't commit violations, people do.
Yeah, and as I said what IS the difference? You said we only have two choices, there is no third option in the USA either!
If the camera gets the arse end of your car and your brother was driving it, then you tell them, and he gets the fine.
If it gets your front, then your banged to rights cos they saw your face.
How is it different? And what is the problem?! Those are the only two options regardless of it is a human cop with a camera, and just a camera, because you cant "fold your arms and say YOU weren't driving" cos the copper is talking to you. You cant say "It wasn't me officer!" from behind your steering wheel!
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
mattyrm wrote:
If the camera gets the arse end of your car and your brother was driving it, then you tell them, and he gets the fine.
What if you don't know who was driving? What if you can't remember? What if you want to exercise your rights to tell them nothing?
In all of those cases, they simply give you the ticket without EVER being required to prove anything.
As it's civil and not criminal, the level of proof is lower and the 5th amendment isn't in force, but seriously what if you honestly don't know who was driving?
29110
Post by: AustonT
Rented Tritium wrote:
AustonT wrote:Rented Tritium wrote:
Wrong. I absolutely promise that drones will be small enough VERY SOON to fit into the R/C toy class and ignore 99% of this.
I can make a self piloting quadrotor RIGHT NOW out of a kit that can provide a LOT of functionality without any FAA rules outside of the usual don't fly near airports business.
I bow to your years of expertise in the field.
(sarcasm in case my sarcasm font isnt working)
Tell me more about the fantasy world you live in where R/C planes are fully regulated by the FAA.
AustonT wrote:There is a world of difference between R/C and Drones.
Tell me about the fantasy world where Radio Controlled and Drones are the same.
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
AustonT wrote:Rented Tritium wrote:
AustonT wrote:Rented Tritium wrote:
Wrong. I absolutely promise that drones will be small enough VERY SOON to fit into the R/C toy class and ignore 99% of this.
I can make a self piloting quadrotor RIGHT NOW out of a kit that can provide a LOT of functionality without any FAA rules outside of the usual don't fly near airports business.
I bow to your years of expertise in the field.
(sarcasm in case my sarcasm font isnt working)
Tell me more about the fantasy world you live in where R/C planes are fully regulated by the FAA.
AustonT wrote:There is a world of difference between R/C and Drones.
Tell me about the fantasy world where Radio Controlled and Drones are the same.
No dude. You're the self proclaimed expert here. Tell me why they're not. Tell me what definition of R/C is SO STRICT that you cannot possibly fit a drone into it.
You have been tossing around FAA lingo in here to establish authority. Responsibility comes with that. You are playing internet FAA toughguy in here and I am calling you on it. Explain the categories that you claim to know so well.
29110
Post by: AustonT
Rented Tritium wrote:
No dude. You're the self proclaimed expert here. Tell me why they're not. Tell me what definition of R/C is SO STRICT that you cannot possibly fit a drone into it.
You have been tossing around FAA lingo in here to establish authority. Responsibility comes with that. You are playing internet FAA toughguy in here and I am calling you on it. Explain the categories that you claim to know so well.
UAV Fact Sheet
Unmanned Aircraft Systems ( UAS) come in a variety of shapes and sizes, and serve diverse purposes. They may have a wingspan as large as a Boeing 737 or smaller than a radio-controlled model airplane. A pilot on the ground is always in charge of UAS operations.
Recreational use of the NAS is covered by FAA Advisory Circular ( AC) 91-57 which generally limits operations to below 400 feet above ground level and away from airports and air traffic.
To address the increasing civil market and the desire by civilian operators to fly UASs, the FAA is developing new policies, procedures, and approval processes. Developing and implementing new UAS standards and guidance is a long-term effort.
The FAA created the Unmanned Aircraft Program Office (UAPO) and the Air Traffic Organization (ATO) UAS office to integrate UASs safely and efficiently into the NAS.
The FAA is working closely with stakeholders in the UAS community to define operational and certification requirements. It is critical to develop and validate appropriate operational procedures, regulatory standards and policies for routine UAS access to the NAS.
The FAA has asked RTCA– a group that frequently advises the agency on technical issues – to work with the industry and develop UAS standards. RTCA will answer two key questions:
1. How will UASs handle communication, command, and control?
2. How will UASs “sense and avoid” other aircraft?
The introduction of UASs into the NAS is challenging for the FAA and the aviation community. UAS proponents have a growing interest in expediting access to the NAS. There is an increase in the number and scope of UAS flights in an already busy NAS.
The design of many UASs makes them difficult to see and adequate “detect, sense and avoid” technology is years away. Decisions being made about UAS airworthiness and operational requirements must fully address safety implications of UASs flying in the same airspace as manned aircraft, and perhaps more importantly, aircraft with passengers.
Interim Approval Guidance:
Unmanned Aircraft: A device used or intended to be used for flight in the air that has no onboard pilot. This includes all classes of airplanes, helicopters, airships, and translational lift aircraft that have no onboard pilot. Unmanned aircraft are understood to include only those aircraft controllable in three axes and therefore, exclude traditional balloons
This document and the processes prescribed do not apply to hobbyists and amateur model aircraft users when operating systems for sport and recreation. Those individuals should seek guidance under Advisory Circular ( AC) 91-57, Model Aircraft Operating Standards, which is currently under revision.
Civil UAS operations require a special airworthiness certificate and should follow the process as specified in this document.
AC 91-57 shall not be used as a basis of approval for UAS operations and is applicable to recreational and hobbyists use only.
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
I'm still waiting for you to give me the definitions for R/C and UAV.
You've given me some nice copypasted rules for UAVs, but you still haven't told me how the term is defined. That's pretty important for your entire case, austinT.
Also, 3/4 of what you posted isn't even relevant to this. Are you trying to just overload me with info so I don't notice you didn't bother answering the question?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, how do you explain the fact that there are already a half dozen approved commercial UAV's in use with no issues?
29110
Post by: AustonT
Rented Tritium wrote:You've given me some nice copypasted rules for UAVs, but you still haven't told me how the term is defined. That's pretty important for your entire case, austinT.
The term is defined in the interim guidance under Unmanned Aircraft. It's pretty cut and dry. I can't read for you.
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
AustonT wrote:Rented Tritium wrote:You've given me some nice copypasted rules for UAVs, but you still haven't told me how the term is defined. That's pretty important for your entire case, austinT.
The term is defined in the interim guidance under Unmanned Aircraft. It's pretty cut and dry. I can't read for you.
Aha. Now I understand what you are arguing.
No, when I said flying below FAA regulation, I am referring to flying them in uncontrolled airspace. Yeah, sure, they have to submit some forms first big whoop.
There are literally commercial drones flying RIGHT NOW and you are in here all:
To obtain an airworthiness certification even small commercial use UAVs will require AT LEAST level 2 autonomy and probably more. Redundant navigation systems, sense and avoid, and other requirements drive the cost and complexity up.
widespread commercial use wont be cheap or widespread for quite sometime.
So you say they need "level 2 authonomy", then you quote the FAA saying you just need the special airworthiness certificate. As much as you claim to know, you should know that's not really a problem.
37597
Post by: sparkywtf
Now I am no expert on aviation, but my comprehension of what you copied and pasted, there is no difference between a "drone" or R/C plane....
Course what do I know, maybe you actually ride around inside your R/C planes.
29110
Post by: AustonT
Rented Tritium wrote:AustonT wrote:Rented Tritium wrote:You've given me some nice copypasted rules for UAVs, but you still haven't told me how the term is defined. That's pretty important for your entire case, austinT.
The term is defined in the interim guidance under Unmanned Aircraft. It's pretty cut and dry. I can't read for you.
Aha. Now I understand what you are arguing.
No, when I said flying below FAA regulation, I am referring to flying them in uncontrolled airspace. Yeah, sure, they have to submit some forms first big whoop.
There are literally commercial drones flying RIGHT NOW and you are in here all:
To obtain an airworthiness certification even small commercial use UAVs will require AT LEAST level 2 autonomy and probably more. Redundant navigation systems, sense and avoid, and other requirements drive the cost and complexity up.
widespread commercial use wont be cheap or widespread for quite sometime.
So you say they need "level 2 authonomy", then you quote the FAA saying you just need the special airworthiness certificate. As much as you claim to know, you should know that's not really a problem.
When was the last time you filed a COA?
or got an airworthiness certification?
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
AustonT wrote:
When was the last time you filed a COA?
or got an airworthiness certification?
I just got done reading the requirements. They seem pretty basic. Anyone making these things for sale will have zero problem getting through that on the cheap.
I mean, it can't be that hard, since people have literally already done it. You are aware that you are now arguing with actual reality since there are actual literal commercial UAVs that have actually literally been approved for this, right?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sparkywtf wrote:Now I am no expert on aviation, but my comprehension of what you copied and pasted, there is no difference between a "drone" or R/C plane....
Course what do I know, maybe you actually ride around inside your R/C planes.
They are.
R/C planes LITERALLY ARE uav's. If your UAV is being used for entertainment or sport and follows the general R/C guidelines, it is an R/C plane.
29110
Post by: AustonT
Rented Tritium wrote:AustonT wrote:
When was the last time you filed a COA?
or got an airworthiness certification?
I just got done reading the requirements. They seem pretty basic. Anyone making these things for sale will have zero problem getting through that on the cheap.
I mean, it can't be that hard, since people have literally already done it. You are aware that you are now arguing with actual reality since there are actual literal commercial UAVs that have actually literally been approved for this, right?
Im glad we went valley girl, it will make this so much more enjoyable for me.
The requirements are so basic that LITERALLY anyone could get one right. I mean you could LITERALLY build your automated quadcopter today and LITERALLY have a airworthiness certificate or COA in hand LITERALLY tomorrow. I mean LITERALLY NASA hasn't even been turned down.
COAs are known amongst the UAS industry as moderately unattainable and even agencies like the National Aeronautics and Space Administration have been denied, according to the FAA website
sparkywtf wrote:Now I am no expert on aviation, but my comprehension of what you copied and pasted, there is no difference between a "drone" or R/C plane....
Course what do I know, maybe you actually ride around inside your R/C planes.
The FARs havent even been updated to draw that line yet, as it stands if its for recreational use its R/C and if its for commericial or public use it's an Unmanned Aircraft; there are hopes that line in the sand will be more deep. As it stands if you fly above 400ft you're either breaking R/C guidance or flying a UA.
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
AustonT wrote:
The requirements are so basic that LITERALLY anyone could get one right. I mean you could LITERALLY build your automated quadcopter today and LITERALLY have a airworthiness certificate or COA in hand LITERALLY tomorrow. I mean LITERALLY NASA hasn't even been turned down.
You can do whatever flailing you want. Real companies have applied for and were approved for all of that. Commercial UAVs are currently approved and in use, so your original point is debunked. Moving on.
And if anything, it's likely to get EASIER when they change those guidelines, so I am really not sure why you are still arguing that it can't be done.
29110
Post by: AustonT
Rented Tritium wrote:AustonT wrote:
The requirements are so basic that LITERALLY anyone could get one right. I mean you could LITERALLY build your automated quadcopter today and LITERALLY have a airworthiness certificate or COA in hand LITERALLY tomorrow. I mean LITERALLY NASA hasn't even been turned down.
You can do whatever flailing you want. Real companies have applied for and were approved for all of that. Commercial UAVs are currently approved and in use, so your original point is debunked. Moving on.
And if anything, it's likely to get EASIER when they change those guidelines, so I am really not sure why you are still arguing that it can't be done.
like I said I bow to your years of experience in the field. Meanwhile the last COA I filed is being used as the example on the FAA website.
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
AustonT wrote:Rented Tritium wrote:AustonT wrote:
The requirements are so basic that LITERALLY anyone could get one right. I mean you could LITERALLY build your automated quadcopter today and LITERALLY have a airworthiness certificate or COA in hand LITERALLY tomorrow. I mean LITERALLY NASA hasn't even been turned down.
You can do whatever flailing you want. Real companies have applied for and were approved for all of that. Commercial UAVs are currently approved and in use, so your original point is debunked. Moving on.
And if anything, it's likely to get EASIER when they change those guidelines, so I am really not sure why you are still arguing that it can't be done.
like I said I bow to your years of experience in the field. Meanwhile the last COA I filed is being used as the example on the FAA website.
That's pretty sweet. I'm sorry it's so irrelevant. Commercial UAV's already exist, so your argument that the rules are so strict that we won't see them soon is 100% untrue. It has happened.
I am really wondering why you keep dropping these appeal to authority posts. I don't care if you wrote the FAA rules cover to cover. You're saying something can't happen that has already happened.
Posts like this are just you flailing around trying to obscure the fact that you were wrong by mentioning your experience in the field and it's making you look like more of a fool. Automatically Appended Next Post: The bottom line is you still have to make your arguments. You don't see me posting my law enforcement cred in those cop threads, I just make the arguments and post the facts. That's how debate works.
29110
Post by: AustonT
You just fail to grasp the concept. An RC is not a UAS. A UAS certification or COA is not easy to get. The FAA has regulatory authority over all UAS. You put forward the idea that each of those was untrue, and that your roomba was applicable to this discussion. Not only are you uninformed, you refuse to be informed. And similar to previous threads when faced with opposition you throw tantrum that equates to "no no no, only I can be right, the sky is falling or will be falling soon"
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
AustonT wrote:You just fail to grasp the concept. An RC is not a UAS.
YOUR POST says that it is. Go back and read it.
A UAS certification or COA is not easy to get.
Yet several companies have gotten them, sooooo
The FAA has regulatory authority over all UAS.
Yes, and? So you get some paperwork and fly in uncontrolled airspace. Yes, the FAA is "regulating" you SO HARD aren't they. Yeah, of course the FAA has authority over those things. They barely exert that authority at all, so it's not a big deal.
You put forward the idea that each of those was untrue
And then you provided proof in your OWN POST
and that your roomba was applicable to this discussion.
As an example of how fast tech can miniaturize and get cheap? It sure is relevant.
Not only are you uninformed, you refuse to be informed.
Alllmost a personal attack
And similar to previous threads when faced with opposition you throw tantrum that equates to "no no no, only I can be right, the sky is falling or will be falling soon"
Dingdingdingding. We have immature personal attacks! Hooray! AustinT cedes the high ground. Rented Tritium wins!
29878
Post by: Chowderhead
` Hungarian UAV.
And hey, it's commercial! Fancy that!
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
Austin, bottom line is you are still arguing that commercial UAV's won't be a thing despite several ALREADY EXISTING.
29110
Post by: AustonT
You have to be this tall to ride this attraction.
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
AustonT wrote:You have to be this tall to ride this attraction.
I don't see anything in this post about how commercial UAV's already exist. Perhaps you are editing the post to include some content that's on-topic?
Perhaps I need help understanding the point you're making in this post. Could you clarify?
29110
Post by: AustonT
Chowderhead wrote:` Hungarian UAV.
And hey, it's commercial! Fancy that!
Can you give me the Cliff notes, I tried google translate but there appears to be some kind of obsession with the word "naming" showing up over and over again.
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
I certainly don't doubt that once the FAA relaxes the requirements, there will be MORE drones. That goes without saying. But the requirements that exist right now are not actually prohibitive, evidenced by commercial drones already existing.
Any serious manufacturer that's going to be mass producing something is going to be able to meet them.
29110
Post by: AustonT
Rented Tritium wrote:the requirements that exist right now are not actually prohibitive
50512
Post by: Jihadin
R/C to a UAV
R/C = Radio control
UAV = Unmanned but piloted by a human operater via television
commercial UAV's are starting to be implemented into the public market. Not the military UAV's
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
AustinT posted the FAA category and UAV covers both of them. An R/C plane is just a UAV that's being used for private entertainment or sport.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
R/C radio control since I don't R/C fly them I'm guessing they stay under 400 ft?
well I actually looked it up. Holy freaking crap they've gotten big since mid 80's. You literally have to file a flight plan with some of those aircrafts
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
Oh man yeah. They have jet powered hobby planes now. It's pretty sweet.
They stay low if they want to just follow the hobbyist guidelines. They can fly higher if they want to have to comply with more rules, though.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Explain why the knucklehead of a terrorist wanting to use the R/C planes to hit the Pentagon now
29110
Post by: AustonT
Jihadin wrote:R/C radio control since I don't R/C fly them I'm guessing they stay under 400 ft?
well I actually looked it up. Holy freaking crap they've gotten big since mid 80's. You literally have to file a flight plan with some of those aircrafts
Bill Hempel stored his 50% cub in our hootch for a couple weeks. Thing was a goddamn monster, dual AM receivers, 150cc motor, 15 ft wing span. He even let SSG Valencia fly it at the Phoenix open. fething ridiculous and now he's making 60%s, the man knows no boundaries.
IMO his dad's worse, I never got to see it fly in person but he was building an MD 11. The glass work alone was enough to make you cry. Giant scale are the playground of kings though. Septagenerarians with trailers filled with 4-8 20k a piece planes...
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
Jihadin wrote:Explain why the knucklehead of a terrorist wanting to use the R/C planes to hit the Pentagon now
Yeah, I mean, you can get a lot of power into those airframes, so they could carry sufficient explosives to be a big deal. They wouldn't have gotten like giant numbers, but they could have done serious damage visible from a distance.
If we hadn't caught it in advance it would have been pretty bad. They could have piloted them from a car, so even when someone sees the plane and knows that those aren't allowed near the pentagon, the only good outcomes are if you shoot it down, find the guy with the controller or you just get lucky and it hits empty offices. That's not great odds.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Have to take Dean approach from Supernatural...I hate dealing with living people...at times. Whats the Terrorism charges?
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
I don't understand the question
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Sorry Rent. It was brought up yesterday on a different topic but somewhat related to this.
8800
Post by: Cannerus_The_Unbearable
Yeah, the police do drone. "Roooooooooxaaaaaaaaaaanne"
Sound like a squeaky door frame being slowly opened.
5534
Post by: dogma
Rented Tritium wrote:
With a regular speeding ticket, a human person came up to your window and looked at your face.
A red light camera just saw your CAR, but not you. So now if someone else was driving, you have to contest it and TELL THEM who was driving. You have to prove you WEREN'T driving instead of the other way around.
Yes, and when served with a ticket because of speeding infraction contesting its assessment requires that you go to court and testify against the serving officer in attempt to prove that you were not, in fact, speeding.
Red light cameras are no more Unconstitutional than any other traffic ticket.
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
dogma wrote:Rented Tritium wrote:
With a regular speeding ticket, a human person came up to your window and looked at your face.
A red light camera just saw your CAR, but not you. So now if someone else was driving, you have to contest it and TELL THEM who was driving. You have to prove you WEREN'T driving instead of the other way around.
Yes, and when served with a ticket because of speeding infraction contesting its assessment requires that you go to court and testify against the serving officer in attempt to prove that you were not, in fact, speeding.
Red light cameras are no more Unconstitutional than any other traffic ticket.
That is not actually true.
When you challenge a ticket, you are asking the officer to testify that you WERE speeding.
The burden of proof is not on you, it is on them. It just so happens that it's very easy for them to meet when the officer came up to the car and saw your face.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
If it were a true civil case with another party, that would be one thing. It would just be an unchallenged assertion, But since it's a civil case with the government attempting to fine you for something against the law, it acts like a criminal case for the purposes of the 5th amendment via Boyd v. United States
5534
Post by: dogma
Rented Tritium wrote:
That is not actually true.
When you challenge a ticket, you are asking the officer to testify that you WERE speeding.
The burden of proof is not on you, it is on them. It just so happens that it's very easy for them to meet when the officer came up to the car and saw your face.
How is that distinct from traffic cameras? When you contest a ticket assessed by a traffic camera, testimony is presented by an expert witness regarding the image taken by the traffic camera, and the nature of the traffic camera.
My larger point here is that, either both traffic camera tickets and normally assessed tickets are unconstitutional due to the burden of proof being placed, de facto, on the accused. Or neither one is unconstitutional, because they both involve the state submitting evidence that the accused committed a civil offense.
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
dogma wrote:Rented Tritium wrote:
That is not actually true.
When you challenge a ticket, you are asking the officer to testify that you WERE speeding.
The burden of proof is not on you, it is on them. It just so happens that it's very easy for them to meet when the officer came up to the car and saw your face.
How is that distinct from traffic cameras? When you contest a ticket assessed by a traffic camera, testimony is presented by an expert witness regarding the image taken by the traffic camera, and the nature of the traffic camera.
My larger point here is that, either both traffic camera tickets and normally assessed tickets are unconstitutional due to the burden of proof being placed, de facto, on the accused. Or neither one is unconstitutional, because they both involve the state submitting evidence that the accused committed a civil offense.
My complaint has nothing to do with the fact that a camera collected the evidence. My complaint is that none of the evidence has to place you at the scene. They built a case against your CAR, not you and then you have to prove that you WEREN'T driving.
That's a 5th amendment violation because though it's a civil case, it's a government fine for an infraction, which makes it count as criminal for the purposes of the 5th amendment.
With a regular traffic case, if the cop can't place you at the scene the ticket gets thrown out. If they ask the cop and he testifies that he never saw your face, the ticket is going to get thrown out. If you challenge a camera ticket and they don't have a picture of your face, it's magically different somehow.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
So if a traffic camera takes a picture of the driver and license plate...like the ones in Europe...how would that go?
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
Jihadin wrote:So if a traffic camera takes a picture of the driver and license plate...like the ones in Europe...how would that go?
That's how I want them to be. It would perfectly fulfill the burden of proof. They establish the violation AND they place you there. I 100% support making them like this.
I'd also like the fine to be the same whether it's a camera or a cop to avoid the issue with neighborhoods being targeted.
5534
Post by: dogma
Rented Tritium wrote:
My complaint has nothing to do with the fact that a camera collected the evidence. My complaint is that none of the evidence has to place you at the scene. They built a case against your CAR, not you and then you have to prove that you WEREN'T driving.
No, they built a case against you. You own the car, the car was photographed violating a traffic law, and you are the most likely person to be driving your car. The case isn't particularly strong, but its still a case against you. The photograph is evidence offered in support of the notion that you committed this infraction, and, just as with any other evidence offered in criminal proceedings you have the option of disputing it, or allowing it to stand.
Again, you are no more assumed to be guilty due the presence of this evidence, no matter how often the court trusts it, than you are when faced with a police officer's testimony.
Look at it this way: A house is robbed, no one saw who entered the house, but if we found person X's drivers license in the house, and person X was neither the owner, or an friend of the owner, you would not say charges brought against person X were charges brought against his drivers license.
Rented Tritium wrote:
With a regular traffic case, if the cop can't place you at the scene the ticket gets thrown out. If they ask the cop and he testifies that he never saw your face, the ticket is going to get thrown out. If you challenge a camera ticket and they don't have a picture of your face, it's magically different somehow.
Where are you getting the idea that its somehow magically different? If you show up to challenge a trafic infraction assessed according to evidence presented by a camera, and the prosecution cannot show that you were driving the vehicle, the ticket will be thrown out. I've seen this happen with many of my friends. Poorly placed traffic cameras, those that do not include images of the driver, exist because the majority of people do not challenge speeding tickets.
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
dogma wrote:
Where are you getting the idea that its somehow magically different? If you show up to challenge a trafic infraction assessed according to evidence presented by a camera, and the prosecution cannot show that you were driving the vehicle, the ticket will be thrown out. I've seen this happen with many of my friends. Poorly placed traffic cameras, those that do not include images of the driver, exist because the majority of people do not challenge speeding tickets.
Then you live somewhere awesome, because the ones here are all single snaps of the back of the car and when you challenge them, they are like "well who WAS driving" and you are forced to testify or assume guilt.
Every now and then one of my friends gets one where you can see their face, but it's not strongly enforced that they need to.
What should be happening is that they should not be allowed to even issue the ticket if they don't have a clear view of the face.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
In Germany they send a pic of your face, your plate, and your car in the mail. No arguing it since the intersection and time the pics were taken are printed on the pics.
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
Jihadin wrote:In Germany they send a pic of your face, your plate, and your car in the mail. No arguing it since the intersection and time the pics were taken are printed on the pics.
That rules.
It's frustrating having any objections to the cameras since I HATE people getting away with things on the road.
1206
Post by: Easy E
Just to prove that the unconstitutionality of traffic cameras is not just RT's idea....
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/16/1688.asp
There is a quick article about the Minnesota Supreme Court ruling against the city of Minneapolis' version of the Camera program.
Minnesota Supreme Court Strikes Down Red Light Cameras
The Minnesota Supreme Court delivers a unanimous decision striking down the legality of red light cameras.
The Minnesota Supreme Court today delivered the highest-level court rebuke to photo enforcement to date with a unanimous decision against the Minneapolis red light camera program. The high court upheld last September's Court of Appeals decision that found the city's program had violated state law (read opinion).
The supreme court found that Minneapolis had disregarded a state law imposing uniformity of traffic laws across the state. The city's photo ticket program offered the accused fewer due process protections than available to motorists prosecuted for the same offense in the conventional way after having been pulled over by a policeman. The court argued that Minneapolis had, in effect, created a new type of crime: "owner liability for red-light violations where the owner neither required nor knowingly permitted the violation."
"We emphasized in Duffy that a driver must be able to travel throughout the state without the risk of violating an ordinance with which he is not familiar," the court wrote. "The same concerns apply to owners. But taking the state's argument to its logical conclusion, a city could extend liability to owners for any number of traffic offenses as to which the Act places liability only on drivers. Allowing each municipality to impose different liabilities would render the Act's uniformity requirement meaningless. Such a result demonstrates that [the Minneapolis ordinance] conflicts with state law."
The court also struck down the "rebutable presumption" doctrine that lies at the heart of every civil photo enforcement ordinance across the country.
"The problem with the presumption that the owner was the driver is that it eliminates the presumption of innocence and shifts the burden of proof from that required by the rules of criminal procedure," the court concluded. "Therefore the ordinance provides less procedural protection to a person charged with an ordinance violation than is provided to a person charged with a violation of the Act. Accordingly, the ordinance conflicts with the Act and is invalid."
Article Excerpt:
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN SUPREME COURT
A06-568
Filed: April 5, 2007
Hanson, J.
State of Minnesota, Appellant,
vs.
Daniel Alan Kuhlman, Respondent.
S Y L L A B U S
Minneapolis Code of Ordinances sections 474.620 to 474.670, which make the owner of a motor vehicle guilty of a petty misdemeanor if the vehicle is photographed running a red light, are invalid because they are in conflict with the Minnesota Traffic Regulations, and specifically with Minn. Stat. Section 169.06, subd. 4(a) (2006), and Minn. Stat. Section 169.022 (2006).
Affirmed.
Heard, considered, and decided by the court en banc.
O P I N I O N
HANSON, Justice.
In September 2004, the Minneapolis City Council enacted Minneapolis Code of Ordinances sections 474.620 to 474.670, which authorized photo enforcement of traffic control signals. The Minneapolis police began enforcing the new ordinance in July 2005, and on August 11, 2005, one of the cameras photographed a car as it failed to stop at a red light at the intersection of West Broadway Avenue and Lyndale Avenue North. The Minneapolis Police Department mailed a citation to the registered owner of the car, respondent Daniel Alan Kuhlman, for violating the ordinance. Kuhlman challenged the ordinance, arguing that it conflicted with state law and violated the due process rights of registered owners. The district court granted Kuhlman's motion to dismiss without reaching the constitutional issues, holding that the ordinance conflicted with state law. The court of appeals affirmed the dismissal. State v. Kuhlman, 722 N.W.2d 1, 2 (Minn. App. 2006). We affirm.
Ordinance section 474.640 penalizes an owner of a motor vehicle whose car is photographed running a red light: "If a motor vehicle is operated in violation of section 474.630 [running a red light] and the violation is detected by a recorded image taken by an automated traffic law enforcement system, the owner of the vehicle or the lessee of the vehicle is guilty of a petty misdemeanor." Minneapolis, Minn., Code art. 1, Section 474.640 (2004) (emphasis added). The ordinance further provides, in section 474.660 entitled "Evidence," that
(a) In the prosecution of a violation, as set forth by section 474.640, captured by an automated traffic law enforcement system, prima facie evidence that the vehicle described in the citation was operated in violation of this section, together with proof that the defendant was at the time of such violation the owner or lessee of the vehicle, shall constitute in evidence a rebuttable presumption that such owner or lessee was the person who committed the violation. The presumption shall be rebutted if the owner or lessee:
(1) Provides a sworn affidavit delivered by United States mail to the city or agency that he or she was not the owner or lessee of the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation and provides the name and current address of the person operating the motor vehicle at the time of the violation; or
(2) Submits a copy of a police report showing the vehicle had been reported as stolen in a timely manner before the date of the violation.
(b) If the city or agency finds that the person named in the citation was not operating the vehicle at the time of the violation or receives evidence under paragraph (a)(1) of this section identifying the person driving the vehicle at the time of the violation, the city or agency shall issue a citation to the identified driver through the United State mail, no later than fourteen (14) days after receipt of this information.
Minneapolis, Minn., Code art. 1, Section 474.660 (2004).
Section 660(a)(1) suggests that an owner will remain liable, even if he or she provides the name of another person who operated the vehicle, unless the owner also proves that he or she was not the owner at the time of the alleged violation. But an affidavit submitted by Minneapolis police in response to Kuhlman's motion to dismiss states that police will not issue a citation to both the vehicle owner and the person the vehicle owner identifies as the driver, and acknowledges that courts cannot convict both the owner and driver of the same violation. At oral argument, the state further explained that if a vehicle owner identifies another person as the driver, the ordinance charge against the owner would be dismissed and the driver would be charged, but the driver would not be charged under the ordinance because the ordinance only provides for owner liability, not driver liability. Instead, the driver would be charged under the Minnesota Traffic Regulations ("the Act"), Minn. Stat. ch. 169 (2006), which imposes liability on motor vehicle drivers for red-light violations. See Minn. Stat. Section 169.06, subds. 4(a), 5(a) (2006).
The Act also requires that its provisions "shall be applicable and uniform throughout this state and in all political subdivisions and municipalities." Minn. Stat. Section 169.022 (2006). The Act does not provide owner liability for traffic light violations.
The district court dismissed the state's case against Kuhlman, deciding that the Minneapolis ordinance conflicts with the Act. The district court reasoned that the ordinance and the Act cover the same subject matter but that the Minneapolis ordinance provides fewer "due process protections" than are guaranteed to vehicle owners who are prosecuted under the Act. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the district court, reasoning that (1) an owner-liability ordinance would impede state-wide uniformity and therefore conflicts with the Act; and (2) because the ordinance actually seeks to penalize drivers, rather than owners, it again conflicts with the statute because the ordinance imposes a lesser burden of proof on the state. Kuhlman, 722 N.W.2d at 6-8.
The question before us is very narrow, whether the Act, and specifically Minn. Stat. SectionSection 169.06 and 169.022, preempt the Minneapolis ordinance. This is a question of law that we review de novo. Peterson v. BASF Corp., 675 N.W.2d 57, 69 (Minn. 2004), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 544 U.S. 1012 (mem.) (2005).
Generally, "municipalities have no inherent powers and possess only such powers as are expressly conferred by statute or implied as necessary in aid of those powers which have been expressly conferred." Mangold Midwest Co. v. Vill. of Richfield, 274 Minn. 347, 357, 143 N.W.2d 813, 820 (1966). Minneapolis is a home-rule-charter city with a general welfare clause, and as such has some power to enact traffic regulations, but those traffic regulations are not valid if they are in conflict with state law. See Minn. Stat. Section 410.015 (2006); State v. Sugarman, 126 Minn. 477, 479, 148 N.W. 466, 467 (1914).
To consider whether the ordinance conflicts with the Act, we begin with Minn. Stat. Section 169.022, which imposes a uniformity requirement on traffic regulations throughout the state:
The provisions of this chapter shall be applicable and uniform throughout this state and in all political subdivisions and municipalities therein, and no local authority shall enact or enforce any rule or regulation in conflict with the provisions of this chapter unless expressly authorized herein.
We have held that this "provision requiring uniformity and statewide application clearly showed the legislative intent to preempt this field except for the limited local regulation the statute expressly permitted." Mangold, 274 Minn. at 359, 143 N.W.2d at 821; see also Duffy v. Martin, 265 Minn. 248, 252, 121 N.W.2d 343, 346 (1963) ("In order to provide uniformity in traffic regulations throughout the state, our legislature has prohibited the enactment of ordinances by municipalities in conflict with state statutes, at least since 1911, except where expressly authorized." (footnote omitted)). But we have further held that even though the state has preempted the field of traffic law, " ‘no conflict exists where the ordinance, though different, is merely additional and complementary to or in aid and furtherance of the statute.' " City of St. Paul v. Olson, 300 Minn. 455, 456, 220 N.W.2d 484, 485 (1974) (quoting Mangold, 274 Minn. at 352, 143 N.W.2d at 817). If the ordinance covers specifically what the statute covers generally, it does not conflict with the statute. Id. at 457, 220 N.W.2d at 485.
We have applied the preemption doctrine in the context of traffic regulations in three principal cases, Olson, Duffy, and State v. Hoben, 256 Minn. 436, 98 N.W.2d 813 (1959). In Olson, the defendant, charged with violating a Saint Paul ordinance prohibiting unreasonable acceleration, challenged the ordinance on the ground that it conflicted with state law. 300 Minn. at 455-56, 220 N.W.2d at 484-85. We determined that the ordinance did not conflict with state law because state law contained a general prohibition against careless driving and unreasonable acceleration was one form of careless driving. Id. at 456-57, 220 N.W.2d at 485. Because the ordinance covered specifically what the statute covered generally, we held that the ordinance did not conflict with state law. Id. at 457, 220 N.W.2d at 485.
In Duffy, a district court had given jury instructions in a civil action relating to the actions drivers must take before moving a parked car. 265 Minn. at 251-52, 121 N.W.2d at 345-46. The state statute required that the person should not move a vehicle " ‘unless and until such movement can be made with reasonable safety.' " Id. at 251, 121 N.W.2d at 346. The Minneapolis ordinance used the same standard, but also required the person to give a hand signal. Id., 121 N.W.2d at 346. We held that the Minneapolis ordinance was invalid because it "adds a requirement that is absent from the statute." Id. at 254-55, 121 N.W.2d at 347-48. We emphasized that "[t]he purpose of uniformity required by our statutes is to enable a driver of a motor vehicle to proceed in all parts of the state without the risk of violating an ordinance with which he is not familiar." Id. at 255, 121 N.W.2d at 348.
In Hoben, the defendant was convicted without a jury of violating an Edina ordinance for driving an automobile while intoxicated. 256 Minn. at 436, 98 N.W.2d at 814. The Edina city charter allowed for trial without a jury for ordinance violations. Id. at 436, 98 N.W.2d at 814. A statute also prohibited driving while intoxicated, making it a criminal offense and thus affording a defendant the right to a jury trial. Id. at 437 & n.2, 98 N.W.2d at 815 & n.2. A related statute also provided a presumption of innocence, requiring that the state prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and provided protection against double jeopardy. Id. at 438, 98 N.W.2d at 815. We noted that although the legislature favored concurrent jurisdiction over the issue of driving under the influence, "[i]t would be a strange anomaly for the legislature to define a crime, specify the punishment therefor[e], provide that its application shall be uniform throughout the state, and then permit a municipality to prosecute that crime as a civil offense." Id. at 444, 98 N.W.2d at 818-19. We concluded that the municipality was required in any prosecution for driving under the influence, "to insure uniformity of treatment" by "afford[ing] the defendant all [of] the protection[s] of criminal procedure[,] including the right of trial by jury and immunity from double punishment." Id. at 444, 98 N.W.2d at 819.
Overall, our jurisprudence related to preemption and conflict in the context of traffic violations can be distilled into four main points of law: (1) state law preempts the field of traffic law except for that which is expressly permitted by state statute; (2) no conflict exists when an ordinance is merely additional and complementary to a state law and covers specifically what the statute covers generally; (3) municipalities must provide the same procedural protections as the state when prosecuting offenses that are covered by an ordinance and a statute; and (4) a municipality may not prohibit by ordinance conduct that is not prohibited by statute.
Because the Act generally preempts municipal traffic law, we first address whether the Act expressly authorizes the ordinance. Minnesota Statutes Section 169.04(a)(2) (2006) expressly authorizes a city to regulate "traffic by means of police officers or traffic-control signals." The state argues that this section authorizes Minneapolis to enact the ordinance.
Minnesota Statutes Section 169.01, subd. 27 (2006), defines "police officer" as "every officer authorized to direct or regulate traffic or to make arrests for violations of traffic rules." Minnesota Statutes Section 169.01, subd. 42 (2006), defines "traffic control signal" as "any device, whether manually, electrically or mechanically operated, by which traffic is alternately directed to stop and permitted to proceed." The state argues that the ordinance is "regulating traffic" by means of a traffic control signal and enforcing those traffic control signals through the use of photographic and video evidence captured by the cameras. But the legislature has narrowly defined "police officer" and "traffic control signal," indicating its intent to limit the meaning of these terms. And those narrow definitions confirm that the purpose of section 169.04 is only to authorize a city to direct the movement of vehicles on the roadway, not to authorize a city to establish the rules of the road or to enlarge a city's authority to enforce traffic laws.
We conclude that the narrow provision cannot be read to authorize a city to prohibit conduct that is not prohibited by the Act, or to provide lesser procedural protections to a person charged under the ordinance than to a person charged under the Act. Accordingly, we hold that section 169.04 does not expressly authorize the ordinance. To the contrary, previous attempts to obtain enabling legislation to authorize municipalities to enact photo enforcement of traffic violations have not been successful. See Kuhlman, 722 N.W.2d at 8.
Because the ordinance is not expressly authorized, we next address whether the ordinance conflicts with the state law on red-light violations. Both section 169.06 and section 474.630 of the ordinance define the proper procedures that drivers must follow at red lights. The statute only penalizes the driver for violating section 169.06. See Minn. Stat. Section 169.06, subd. 4(a) ("The driver of any vehicle shall obey the instructions of any official traffic-control device applicable thereto * * * .") The ordinance goes further. First, the ordinance allows for photo enforcement of red-light violations. Second, the ordinance penalizes the owner of the motor vehicle. Finally, the ordinance contains a rebuttable presumption that the owner was the driver of the motor vehicle.
The state argues that there is no conflict because the ordinance covers specifically what the Act covers generally. In support of its argument, the state asserts two theories: (1) the ordinance, through section 474.640, is a specific application of owner liability found generally in the Act; and (2) the ordinance, through section 474.660, is a mechanism by which the city can indirectly enforce the statutory prohibition against drivers.
Kuhlman argues that if the ordinance is construed as imposing liability on owners, it violates the uniformity requirement of section 169.022 by expanding an owner's liability in a way that the Act does not. Kuhlman further argues that the ordinance actually imposes liability on drivers, rather than owners, because it presumes that owners are drivers. He contends that the ordinance's language creates a different burden of proof for driver liability than is imposed by the Act, violating Hoben's requirement that a municipality must provide the same procedural protections for prosecution under an ordinance as exist under the Act.
The state's first argumentâ€"that the ordinance is a specific application of owner liability created generally by statuteâ€"must fail because the Act does not create general owner liability for traffic violations. Instead, the Act places liability for traffic violations on owners in only specific, limited circumstances. First, an owner is guilty of a petty misdemeanor if the motor vehicle fails to stop for a school bus that is displaying a stop signal arm and flashing red lights. Minn. Stat. Section 169.444, subds. 1, 6 (2006). Second, an owner is guilty of a petty misdemeanor if the motor vehicle fails to stop for a passing emergency vehicle. Minn. Stat. Section 169.20, subds. 5, 5b (2006). Third, it is unlawful for an owner "to require or knowingly permit" the driver to violate the Act. Minn. Stat. Section 169.90, subd. 2 (2006). Thus, the Act does not provide for owner liability for the failure of the motor vehicle to stop for a red light unless the owner requires or knowingly permits the driver to fail to stop. In this sense, the owner liability provided by the ordinance is more general, not more specific, than that provided by the Act.
Additionally, the more limited owner liability under the Act applies equally throughout the state, whereas the broader owner liability created by the ordinance would apply only in Minneapolis. Section 474.640 thus "adds a requirement that is absent from the statute," Duffy, 265 Minn. at 254, 121 N.W.2d at 347, namely owner liability for red-light violations where the owner neither required nor knowingly permitted the violation.
We emphasized in Duffy that a driver must be able to travel throughout the state without the risk of violating an ordinance with which he is not familiar. Id. at 255, 121 N.W.2d at 348. The same concerns apply to owners. But taking the state's argument to its logical conclusion, a city could extend liability to owners for any number of traffic offenses as to which the Act places liability only on drivers. Allowing each municipality to impose different liabilities would render the Act's uniformity requirement meaningless. See Minn. Stat. Section 169.022. Such a result demonstrates that section 474.640 conflicts with state law.
The state's second argumentâ€"that the statute does not conflict with state law because the ordinance allows the city to enforce red-light violations by drivers, which is conduct prohibited by the statute, must also fail. That argument would require us to treat the owner as the driver under the ordinance because section 474.640 of the ordinance only imposes liability on owners, not drivers. And that argument would also require us to enforce section 474.660, which creates a presumption that the owner was the driver. Subdivision (a) of section 474.660 states that
prima facie evidence that the vehicle described in the citation was operated in violation of this section, together with proof that the defendant was at the time of such violation the owner or lessee of the vehicle, shall constitute in evidence a rebuttable presumption that such owner or lessee was the person who committed the violation.
The problem with the presumption that the owner was the driver is that it eliminates the presumption of innocence and shifts the burden of proof from that required by the rules of criminal procedure. This violates the rule in Hoben that an ordinance cannot provide less procedural protection to the person charged than would be available if the person were charged under the Act. 256 Minn. at 444, 98 N.W.2d at 819.
The state argues that the ordinance meets Hoben's requirements and does not conflict with the Act because the rules of criminal procedure are applicable to both a charge under the ordinance and one under the Act. The state also cites to the court of appeals decision in State v. Eakins for the proposition that the presumption in the ordinance could not violate principles of criminal law because a petty misdemeanor is not within the definition of a crime under the criminal code. 720 N.W.2d 597, 601 (Minn. App. 2006) (citing Minn. Stat. Section 609.02, subd. 1 (2006), which defines a "crime" as "conduct which is prohibited by statute and for which the actor may be sentenced to imprisonment, with or without a fine").
Regardless of whether petty misdemeanors are considered to be "crimes" under the criminal code, the rules of criminal procedure specifically apply to petty misdemeanors. Minn. R. Crim. P. 1.01. And those rules require that a defendant be "presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." Minn. R. Crim. P. 23.05, subd. 3. Thus, in any prosecution under the Act, the state has the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the owner was driving at the time of the red-light offense, and the owner has no obligation to prove anything.
On the other hand, section 474.660 of the ordinance requires the owner to rebut the presumption that he or she was the driver, or face liability as the owner. Therefore the ordinance provides less procedural protection to a person charged with an ordinance violation than is provided to a person charged with a violation of the Act. Accordingly, the ordinance conflicts with the Act and is invalid.
The state argues that even if section 474.660 is invalid because it creates a presumption that the owner is the driver, that section can be severed and the owner may still be held liable under section 474.640. But, as we discussed above, section 474.640 is itself in conflict with state law because it imposes liability on owners who would not be liable under the Act. Thus we need not analyze the question of severance because it would not alter the outcome in this case.
The state argues that there are compelling public safety considerations that underlie the ordinance, citing that numerous accidents occur as a result of red-light violations and they often lead to "serious injuries, death, extensive property damage and high insurance costs." Our decision is not meant to minimize those considerations, but only to clarify that they are not relevant to a preemption analysis and are most appropriately addressed to the legislature.
We hold that Minneapolis Code of Ordinances sections 474.620 to 474.670 are invalid because they are in conflict with the Act, and specifically with Minn. Stat. Section 169.06, subd. 4(a), and Minn. Stat. Section 169.022.
Affirmed.
PAGE, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.Source: Minnesota v. Kuhlman (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 4/5/2007)
5534
Post by: dogma
Rented Tritium wrote:
Then you live somewhere awesome, because the ones here are all single snaps of the back of the car and when you challenge them, they are like "well who WAS driving" and you are forced to testify or assume guilt.
Still not seeing how the camera is distinct from police testimony.
33541
Post by: Rented Tritium
dogma wrote:Rented Tritium wrote:
Then you live somewhere awesome, because the ones here are all single snaps of the back of the car and when you challenge them, they are like "well who WAS driving" and you are forced to testify or assume guilt.
Still not seeing how the camera is distinct from police testimony.
It's not.
That's my entire argument.
If a cop said you did something without ever seeing your face, it would get thrown out.
If a camera says you did something without ever seeing your face, that's somehow allowed to stand?
My argument has ntohing to do with it being a camera. The problem is that it's not being held to the same standard as a cop. The burden of proof in a traffic case is with the state. The state would NEVER be allowed to give you a ticket if a cop just assumed it was you. Why is an automated ticket allowed to just assume it was you?
Read the ruling that was just posted. It explains my position perfectly. Automatically Appended Next Post: The problem with the presumption that the owner was the driver is that it eliminates the presumption of innocence and shifts the burden of proof from that required by the rules of criminal procedure.
Here is the key point, dogma.
|
|
