Universal Hub reports that Newton doctor Michael Singer filed suit in US District Court alleging that the city is violating his First Amendment rights with the new drone ordinance.
Citizen challenges new drone ordinance in court
by Adam Peller | Jan 18, 2017 | Newton, Public safety | 16 comments
What are my rights vis-a-vis using a slingshot in the air over my property? Not a lawyer, just curious.
I should think there are other ways to document suspected illegal snow dumping without opening a pandora’s box of privacy and property rights issues
The FAA has been clear in requesting states and municipalities to NOT pass laws as they relate to airspace. Any FAA regulation will supersede state and local laws, making then without standing. States and municipalities are under the impression that they can regulate under 500′, but the FAA is staking their claim to this airspace as well.
Time to take a stand against this type of infringement. Congress has given the FAA jurisdiction over NAS and the perimeters they establish enable any citizen to use it, whether for hobby or commercial use, while minding the regulations set forth to keep the airspace safe for all.
This local city council overstepped their authority when creating legislation regarding uas.
More often than not it’s the government that infringes on people’s privacy. So when an arm of the government [in this case the Newton City Council] takes any action to protect privacy, [as they did in this case], I applaud it wholeheartedly. However, these restrictions should not apply to public lands. Only private property where people have rightful expectation of privacy.
If this goes to court, the good citizens of Newton should know that practically everyone in your city government was contacted by myself, as well as a multitude of other drone operators, warning that this will happen. We warned them that the ordinance was unenforceable, and violated both Federal Preemption, as well as the Constitution of the United States.
Instead, they chose to ignore all of the advise of many drone operators, and at least one drone lawyer, and pass this anyway. Many, many other cities we have contacted have agreed with us. They’ve understood that there was no need for such laws. They also understood that they did not have the authority to control the airspace. They got it. And they aren’t being sued.
This lawsuit by Dr. Singer was inevitable.
Remember this next time the Mayor, or any of the City Council members who voted for this, are up for election. Their ego and pig headedness may end up costing your fair city a sizable chunk of it’s budget. Federal lawsuits are not cheap. I guess you all are lucky Dr. Singer isn’t asking for damages.
I strongly suggest that you contact your town officials and have them vacate this silly (illegal) ordinance as soon as possible, before they dig an even larger hole for you to bail them out of.
To answer Mr. Striar’s comment on privacy and private property.
The Supreme Court of the U.S. has ruled in multiple cases (Ciraolo v. CA, and Riley v. FL to name two) that there is no “reasonable expectation of privacy” from the air. The airspace above your home is considered a public thoroughfare, just like the street in front of your home.
So unless you’re under a covered patio or similar, there is zero expectation of privacy while in your back yard.
Sorry, Vic, but the reality is that there has been no definitive ruling on who owns the airspace below 500 feet. The FAA may believe that they control the airspace down to the ground, but it has not been clarified that this belief supersedes state and local laws regarding property rights. The cases you cite deal with law enforcement aircraft well above 500 feet; case law on drone use, by law enforcement, businesses, and private citizens, is still evolving.
Dr. Michael Singer Issues Statement on Pending Litigation Against the Newton, Massachusetts Unmanned Aircraft Ordinance
NEWTON, MASSCHUSETTS—January 19, 2017
“On January 17th I filed a federal lawsuit challenging a City of Newton ordinance against unmanned aircraft. As a physician and inventor, I believe that commercial unmanned aircraft will provide transformative benefits in people’s lives, and that this technology deserves appropriate freedom to develop within the bounds of a civilized society.
I believe that our nation’s aviation experts at the FAA are more qualified than local politicians to regulate unmanned aircraft. The skies over Newton, only miles outside of Boston’s Logan Airport, include some of the busiest and most complex airspace in the country. For Newton to claim control over some of this airspace sets a dangerous precedent.
I also believe the ordinance has unintended victims. For example, it appears to require children with rubber band-powered model airplanes to register with the FAA, register with the City Clerk, and pay the city a $10 fee. Children have played with toys such as these for over 90 years, and our community has never had a problem with them.
I would like to emphasize that the city and I agree on many things, among them, the importance of public safety, stewardship of community spaces, and respect for our neighbors’ privacy and property. As a homeowner in Newton, I value peace and privacy as much as my neighbors. I believe that Newton already has sufficient laws to protect these values but support other sensible laws if needed. In this respect, thus far Newton’s police department has recorded only one incident regarding an airborne drone—and that drone was owned and operated by the city itself.
Newton is a city rich in expertise and enterprise. We have a robust community of medical and aviation experts, entrepreneurs, and investors. We are only a few miles from world-class institutions like MIT and Harvard. The people of Juist, Germany already receive medicine deliveries by drone. A team in Iran has developed a drone that can rescue swimmers on the Caspian sea. Newton should be on the forefront with communities such as these.”
Thank you Dr. Singer. I hope you thoroughly trounce the city and do wish you had sought damages.
Don Quixote, MD.
Noble Sir. Could we have a picture of you posed astride your noble steed, Rocinante? There is a statute of him right next to the main branch of the public library. If you could be holding a drone, rather than a sword, that would be even better.
I’ll wager your complaint will win the crank of the week award down at the federal courthouse, and if justice is to be served, you’ll get a certificate thereof, suitable for framing.
Onward for Freedom!
can a paper airplane still be launched into the air or will that be micromanaged soon too?
Go Elmo!
As predicted. Who are the Councilors who were wise enough to abstain or vote against drone rules?
According to the definition of ‘Pilotless Aircraft’ (a term unique to Newton’s ordinance), paper airplanes are not included. But a small airplane (balsa, or even paper) powered by a rubber band requires registration with the City, and may require permission to fly it on public property.
The federal rule exempted very small aircraft, and it is a mystery to me why the Newton ordinance did not do the same. You can concentrate on the drafting issues if you like, but the City Council did address a pressing problem, and they got to it before anybody got hurt. That’s a good thing.
Voting against were Harney, Auchincloss (apparently he wants to wait for some serious damage so that he can be sure that there is a problem that needs addressing), Lennon, Fuller, Danberg and (I can’t figure this one out) Norton. The vote was 16-6, not even close.
I have a little story to tell. A kid in my neighborhood got a drone for Christmas and it made a noise that any leaf blower would envy. Loud, irritating, nasal–really bad (Elmo needs to get some of these to fly around his neighborhood; why rely on lawn mowers when you can really torment your neighbors with these things?). Within a minute or two the kid flew it into a tree or something and I could hear an awful grating noise as (I assume) it tore itself apart. Then silence, lovely silence.
Now, it was a very nice turn of fate that the drone flew into something other than a human being. Clearly, it was out of control, which is why it came to its early demise. A young man in Brooklyn a few years ago flew his remote controlled helicopter into his own head and died (a Darwin Award finalist, I hope). Others have been injured. Many, many have been frightened or annoyed. If I had been in the way of the drone on its first and last flight I might not be writing this. So, for the record, thank you Nanny State for doing your bit to make my neighborhood safer and quieter through micromanagement. Anything you do that would prevent a 12 year old boy from flying a machine that can weigh up to 55 pounds (under the federal regulations) at up to 80 mph around my neighborhood will probably have my support. That’s because I am a lily-livered, Hillary-loving, limousine liberal, and I don’t want anyone to have any fun EVER. Dr. Quixote, on the other hand, seems to think that doing this sort of thing is his constitutional right. Well, it surely beats healing the sick, eh Doc?
It does seem to me that this is the sort of thing that should not be legislated piecemeal at the town or city level. And, Oh Wise One I can’t for the life of me think why you think this is a pressing problem.
FWIW, this story was picked up by Ars Technica. The comments are fairly extensive.
A comment claiming to id an anonymous commenter has been removed.
Thanks, Robert. Happy to let ArsTechnica manage the discussion, and the trolls. I think this thread has outlived its usefulness.