DuckSouth.com

"The lawyer also pointed out to Ars, through an online hunting course, that hitting an object at 272 feet with Number 8 birdshot would be feasible."

90 yards in the air with bird shot feasable?

CAUTION: Do not take this as being a smartass reply, just my unimportant opinion.

SCOTUS opinion interpretation is very dynamic and rarely easy. The chicken farmer case Pomonkey cited (Causby is prominent but not on point) was based on the issue of government "taking" of property without compensation in violation of the 5th Amendment. It is easily distinguishable from a drone trespass situation. There is a strong argument for drone use actually being better claimed as "nuisance" and the 3-part test (Brown factors, drones probably fail on 3rd element, noise/vibration/fumes) adopted by the 5th Cir. is pursuant to physical "takings" framework.

A landowner generally has rights against those who "unreasonably interfere with his complete enjoyment of the surface" but there is no bright-line rule or number governing this because it is all decided on the facts of each unique case. There is also a lot of other elements important to trespass and people would be well served to educate themselves before destroying someone's property. Negligence applies to an individual's actions, and isn't limited to negligence "per se," so those flying these things (just like any other act) should remember they are liable for actions that aren't necessarily defined in a statute.

This is an interesting area of law developing and I am curious to see how it evolves, and how settled areas of law are integrated.

So the vessel "trespassing" for all entended purposes, is used primarily for picture taking, correct? Therefore if said landowners daughter was laying out by the pool, there is probable cause for a voyeuristic opportunity for the drone owner who would not have had that opportunity in any other facet due to that being trespassing. If the courts hold the homeowner accountable for anything more than discharging of a firearm in a residential setting, and that's debatable due to the situation, this world(on top of lions, flags, and other foolishness), is in serious hurt due to lawyers and the legal system.

Show me the video. I want to see what the drone recorded, and not just its flight path.

If any of have ever been around one you will know that it is not quiet. Not loud but you can tell if one is in the area. A girl laying out would hear that thing long before it ever got close enough to take a decent picture. Hell I bet I could go on google earth and find girls laying out by the pool. Anyways.. I bought a drone and I have enjoyed it around the farm. Unfortunately no girls there.

Two words. EMP GUN!

I got to play with a buddy's Phantom 3 this morning. He gave me the controls, I understood how it worked and I proceeded to fly it right over our head. I flew it into a power line that I had forgotten was immediately behind us. Luckily, only the top of the props skimmed the insulated line and it continued to hover right on the other side. I quickly gave the controls to my friend who seemed to be un-phased by the incident. He flew it back to us and landed it. Then I asked him how much it cost. I was not un-phased.

That was a stupid move that almost cost me $1K. However, flying that thing might also have cost me $1K anyways, because now I want to buy one.

Believe it or not, drone law was a topic at a CLE seminar that I recently attended. ( GC can verify because he was sitting next to me ).

A couple of takes from the discussion ( pertaining to non-commercial drone use):

There is little to no sympathy for those who use drones for voyeuristic purposes.

There will likely be state legislation in the near future ( next session) that will revise and beef up the
"Peeping Tom" statutes, adding language specific to the use of drones for such activity, and increasing the fines and punishment ( think likely jail time).

And we may see state legislation making it a "trespass violation" to fly one of these things over someone else's property without their permission --- especially when hovering below tree height and near homes.

There is no legal duty owed to a trespasser until the presence of the trespasser is known. And at that point, the only duty is not to intentionally harm the trespasser. Harming the drone? Meh. Not so much. Let's just say that if you are operating a drone with a camera over someone else's property, without their permission, in close proximity to a residential dwelling, and your drone gets shot down, you will likely have bigger problems than worrying about the loss of the drone. Claiming the drone might not be a good idea.

If you are the shooter of the drone in that situation, you could face a charge for illegally discharging a firearm if you live in a city. If not in city limits? Then I would say that the green light is on for shooting drones down with a shotgun --- if in shotgun range, it is probably too close.

video of yet another drone owned in mid air.
https://youtu.be/Hr-xBtVU4lg

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/medical-helicopter-has-close-call-with-drone-in-california/

Just a matter of time before a drone causes something terrible to happen.