When a small-town US roofer took legal action against a neighbor for shooting down his drone, the local dispute sparked a case that could help shape the newest frontier of property rights law: Who owns the air?
Drone owner David Boggs filed a claim for declaratory judgement and damages in a US federal court after his neighbor, William Merideth from Hillview in Kentucky, blasted his US$1,800 drone with a shotgun in July last year.
Boggs argued to a US district court in Kentucky that the action was not justified as the drone was not trespassing nor invading anyone’s privacy, while Merideth said it was over his garden and his daughter.
After a year of counterargument, a decision on which court jurisdiction should hear the complaint is expected within weeks and this could set new precedents for US law.
Experts are watching the case closely as the burgeoning drone industry, fueled both by hobbyists and commercial operators, highlights the lack of regulation governing lower altitude airspace not just in the US, but globally.
“We are in an interesting time now when technology has surpassed the law,” said Boggs’ lawyer, James Mackler, a former Black Hawk helicopter pilot and partner at Frost Brown Todd and one of a handful of attorneys specializing in uncrewed aircraft law.
“Operators need to know where they can fly and owners must know when they can reasonably expect privacy and be free of prying eyes,” said Mackler, whose work involves advising both corporate and government clients planning commercial drone use.
The landmark case comes amid a sharp increase in the global market for drones, or uncrewed aerial vehicles, with research firm Markets and Markets estimating an annual growth rate of 32 percent every year to a US$5.6 billion industry by 2020.
RIGHTS ABOVE?
The US Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) forecasts about 2.5 million drones will be buzzing in US skies by the end of this year — and that number will more than triple by 2020.
However, with the global industry surging, all parties, including Merideth, and Boggs’ lawyer, Mackler, agree the use of drones in lower airspace urgently needs to be clarified and defined.
“To be honest with you, at the time I did what I did I was reacting as most homeowners would, protecting their property, their kids... I didn’t know who was operating the drone or for what purpose,” Merideth said. “In the end, I’m hoping that laws can be put into place to protect not just the home owner, but the individual who owns the drone. They have rights too. It is a huge grey area and for now nobody knows what they are allowed to do.”
Mackler estimates about a drone a month is shot down in the US as residents grapple with the legal confusion about what constitutes their property and their rights.
“What happens typically is that law enforcement doesn’t know what to do and civil suits are uncommon as most people don’t want to get involved due to the costs,” he said in a telephone interview.
Boggs’ complaint states that the drone was flying at about 60m above ground level for about two minutes over residential Bullitt County when it was blasted out of the sky.
The height at which the drone was flying is disputed as Merideth insists it was much lower — an integral part of the legal case because higher airspace used by commercial planes is clearly defined in law.
For now, there is no real agreement on who owns the airspace below that height and there are also no rules that identify who has the right to say how it can be used.
The court challenge filed by Boggs in January shows Merideth’s defense for downing the drone hinged on his belief it might have been taking video or still images of his daughter.
When Boggs challenged his neighbor, Merideth warned him that not only was he was protecting his family’s rights, but he was not to come any further.
Police were called and Merideth was charged with felony, wanton endangerment and criminal mischief, but Kentucky District Court Judge Rebecca Ward dismissed the criminal charges in October last year, saying he “had a right to shoot at the aircraft.”
Boggs’ lawyer, Mackler, said the case is not about payment for the damaged drone, but about carving legally clear boundaries between unregulated lower airspace and personal property.
If the case is heard in the US District Court, he said, it will not be binding in other federal court jurisdictions, but will be influential in other courts. However, if it is appealed and sent to a higher court, it could create a precedent for the country.
OPENING THE SKIES
Despite the lack of legal clarity over airspace, the US moved to free up the use of small drones on Aug. 30 by relaxing rules requiring drone operators to have a manned pilots license and specific FAA approval.
These have been replaced with a new class of FAA license which is much less onerous and less expensive, allowing the use of drones weighing less than 25kg for routine educational or commercial use such as power line and antenna inspections.
The rules stopped short of allowing package deliveries, as proposed by Amazon.com, and currently drones can only be used in sight of the operator and not over people.
The FAA expects within a year 600,000 drones will be used commercially — up from 20,000 registered now for commercial use.
Anglo-American property law academics trace the first principles of law for the air back more than 800 years to the Latin cujus est solum ejus est usque ad coelom et ad infernos.
This effectively meant that earthly property ownership was deemed to include everything below land to the center of the Earth and upward in the sky to heaven.
However, with the advent of commercial air travel this principle was laid to rest because property owners could not be considered as owners of the air thousands of meters above their homes if air travel was to prosper.
In the US, the legal principles that emerged over the 20th century focused on nuisance: flights at great heights came to be permitted without regard to the rights of property owners, while low altitude flights, including takeoffs and landings, had to factor in the impact on nearby property.
The most important case to define these principles in the US involved the health of a farmer’s chickens.
Known as the “United States versus Causby,” the challenge unfolded during World War II when noisy military aircraft started flying from the Greensboro-High Point Airfield and over Thomas Causby prosperous chicken farm in nearby North Carolina.
The constant roar of planes sent Causby’s 400 chickens into a frenzy and they stopped laying eggs, ruining his livelihood.
The farmer sued the US Federal Government and both the lower courts and the US Supreme Court found in his favor, stating that a landowner “owns at least as much of the space above the ground as he can occupy or use in connection with the land.”
This has been a guiding principle of US law for more than 70 years.
By 1958, federal regulations evolved to clearly define navigable airspace to include everything that was 152.4m or more above ground level, along with “airspace needed to insure safety in takeoff and landing of aircraft.”
The “ad coelom,” or to the sky, doctrine, “had no place in the modern world,” wrote Justice William Douglas in his Causby judgement in 1946, arguing there exists “public highway” in the sky which was part of the “public domain.”
Mackler said the current tensions over drones partly derived from the lack of clarity over the legality of their use.
“People have a visceral reaction to seeing a drone. Unmanned aircraft are something different, something they often don’t expect,” he said. “But if you know that in advance that a drone is being used by your utility company to inspect the safety of the local power lines, you will be less fearful. Law and technology have always had this tension: It takes time, especially if it has to go through the courts. But it will work its way out.”
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under