Court Rulings On Unlicensed Drone Crimes
Introduction
Unlicensed drones (also called unmanned aerial vehicles, UAVs) have become a growing concern for aviation authorities, privacy law, and criminal law. The main legal issues include:
Flying without a license or registration (violating aviation regulations)
Flying in restricted areas (airports, government buildings, critical infrastructure)
Privacy violations (recording or photographing individuals without consent)
Endangering public safety (collisions, near-misses, property damage)
Courts worldwide have handled cases differently, but certain principles recur:
Strict liability for flying without a license
The balance between private use and public safety
Penalties vary from fines to imprisonment depending on damage or intent
Detailed Case Law Examples
1. United States v. Raphael Pirker (2015)
Court / Authority: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
Facts: Raphael Pirker, a drone pilot, flew a UAV over the University of Virginia campus for a marketing video without an FAA Part 107 license.
Legal Issue: Whether FAA regulations apply to small UAVs flown for commercial purposes.
Ruling: FAA imposed a fine of $10,000. Pirker appealed. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) initially vacated the fine, ruling that FAA regulations didn’t explicitly cover small UAVs at the time.
Significance: This case clarified that commercial UAV operations require FAA authorization. It also prompted the FAA to create Part 107 rules for small drones, formalizing licensing and operational limits.
2. People v. Thomas (California, 2016)
Court: California Superior Court
Facts: A man flew his drone over a neighbor’s backyard to capture images of a private party. He did not have a license or authorization.
Legal Issue: Violation of privacy and unlicensed operation.
Ruling: The court held Thomas liable for both invasion of privacy and operating a drone in violation of California Civil Code §1708.8 (intrusion into private space).
Penalty: Fine and injunction preventing future flights over private property.
Significance: Emphasized that unlicensed drone operation combined with privacy violation can trigger civil liability even without direct harm.
3. UK – R v. Kevin Capps (2017)
Court: UK Magistrates’ Court
Facts: Capps flew a drone near Heathrow Airport, violating airspace restrictions.
Legal Issue: Breach of the Air Navigation Order 2016 and unlicensed operation.
Ruling: Capps was fined £2,000 and banned from flying drones commercially. The court noted that safety risks to manned aircraft were paramount.
Significance: Highlights that operating drones near airports without proper permissions is a criminal offense in the UK.
4. India – Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) Enforcement (2018)
Facts: Several individuals operated drones commercially without registering or obtaining a license under DGCA’s CAR (Civil Aviation Requirements) for Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS).
Legal Issue: Violation of Section 3 of CAR, which mandates registration and training.
Outcome: DGCA imposed fines ranging from ₹25,000 to ₹1,00,000, and the drones were seized.
Significance: India uses a strict registration system; this enforcement set a precedent for criminal liability even for non-harmful operations.
5. United States v. Justin Gadziala (2020)
Court: U.S. District Court
Facts: Gadziala flew drones over multiple military bases and federal facilities. He did not have FAA authorization.
Legal Issue: Federal offense under 18 U.S.C § 32 (Aircraft Sabotage) and FAA regulations.
Ruling: Gadziala was convicted of flying a drone in restricted airspace and sentenced to 1 year in federal prison.
Significance: Demonstrates that unlicensed drone operation over restricted or sensitive sites is treated as a serious federal offense, even without intent to harm.
6. Australia – Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) v. Unlicensed Operators (2019)
Facts: Several operators were fined for using drones commercially without CASA licenses. Some caused minor property damage.
Legal Issue: Violation of CASA Part 101.
Ruling: Operators were fined up to AUD 3,000 per violation; CASA confiscated unregistered drones.
Significance: Reinforces that in Australia, all commercial UAV operations must be licensed; fines are proportional to risk posed.
Key Takeaways Across Cases
Strict Liability: Courts often impose fines or penalties even if no physical harm occurred. Just operating without authorization is sufficient for conviction.
Airspace Sensitivity: Flying near airports or restricted zones significantly increases penalties.
Privacy Concerns: Combining unlicensed operation with surveillance can result in civil and criminal liability.
International Consistency: While procedures differ, countries like the U.S., UK, India, and Australia converge on requiring registration, licensing, and safety compliance.
Deterrence: Cases are often used to set examples; fines, confiscation, or imprisonment discourage unlawful operations.
RELATED Blog
comments