Drone Law Today

What will federal drone policy look like under the Trump administration? What policy choices might carry over from the Obama administration's approach? What might change? How does the commercial drone industry fit into the president-elect's ideas about promoting U.S. industry and job creation? What effect could a policy shift on "1099 contractors" have for the commercial drone industry? What is it about the current federal approach to "independent contractors" that creates potential problems for small businesses? Will Presidential "TFRs" (Temporary Flight Restrictions) be a problem for drone operators near Trump-owned properties? All this and your questions, in today's episode. Listen in for the good stuff. Links for you: Lisa Ellman Interview Chris Proudlove Interview Jonathan Rupprecht Interview Global Aerospace White Paper: UAS Industry Growth FAA Presidential TFR Regulation FAA TFR Guidance IRS 1099 Contractor Guidance   Listen in iTunes! Listen in Stitcher!   Follow @DroneLawToday&nbs

Drones can be used for almost anything that involves gathering information and presenting it in a way that makes sense. That includes the field of criminal law, especially when accident reconstruction is part of the defense. Today's episode is a recording of a panel discussion I was recently a part of at the FSU College of Law. I joined Tallahassee criminal defense lawyer Don Pumphrey, Jr. on a panel discussion with the FSU Aviation and Space Law Society. Our talk circled around the idea of using drones in criminal defense, and much more. Our talk went into areas like federal preemption, why drone law is an especially important branch of "robotics law" generally, how law students can develop expertise in new legal issues, and about why drone law is like Monday Night Football. Join us as we explore these things with the lawyers of the future. Links for you: The Pumphrey Law Firm FSU Aviation and Space Law Society Advisory Circular 91-57A Ausley McMullen / Angel Eyes UAV Amicus Brief in Huerta v. Pirker Alask

Drones have changed the privacy conversation, probably forever. People react to drones differently than they do to any other type of technology. There is something about a drone existing in space, acting on the environment and outside of human reach, that changes the way people think about who is watching whom, and for what purpose. This is a true thing. Drones are serving as a catalyst to the privacy discussion in ways that no laptop computer or smartphone could ever dream of. Fortunately for those of us that care about "drone law," cutting-edge legal academics are grappling with the hard questions of drones and privacy. Our guest today is one of the top voices in this field, Professor Margot Kaminski. Professor Kaminski is on top of the thorniest privacy issues raised by drones specifically and robots generally. She has written one of the best papers out there on the interplay of state and federal drone law in this context, and is actively working with federal agencies to shape national policy. Join us as w

Tom McMahon is at the cutting edge of drone law in the U.S. As Vice President of Advocacy and Public Relations with AUVSI, Tom is working every day to advance common-sense drone policy in Washington, D.C.   AUVSI is the nation's oldest and largest trade association for the unmanned vehicle industry. AUVSI's local chapters are located all around the country, as the organization brings together dedicated industry professionals to work for the common good.   I joined AUVSI in 2013 when I went to its trade show, which was then hosted in Washington, D.C. I still count the connections I made there as some of the most important in my career. The annual show, now branded as XPonential, is the only event that I'm sure to go to each year.   The mix of people that AUVSI brings together is unmatched in variety, quality, and overall passion for the future of the industry.   It's at AUVSI that I met the people who are fighting for the future of the drone industry.   Tom joined the show to discuss w

Now that Part 107 is in place, the commercial drone industry has a clear path to fly. No longer do we need to wait for months on end for a Section 333 Exemption to come through. You can take your sUAS, launch your business, and watch it soar. A question comes up, though, when the boundaries of Part 107 run up against what the customer wants. What if your paying client wants you to fly an operation that doesn't fit with what Part 107 allows? What if you need to fly at night? What if you need to be in airspace where the restrictions are greater? What do you do then? The answer is found in WAIVERS. The FAA's online waiver application is relatively straightforward. But what should you request? How should you word it? How can you "stack" waiver requests to give your business maximum flexibility? We get into that and more with drone attorney Jonathan Rupprecht. Jonathan has been a guest on the podcast before, and he constantly shares great information with the drone community. Join us as we talk Part 107 waivers, w

The commercial drone industry is a high-tech, exponential market. New players are entering the game every day. The business potential is nearly limitless – it's a frontier open to whomever stakes their claim.   In an industry like this, intellectual property may be the most valuable thing a business has. "IP" law is critical whether you are designing a better airframe, creating a drone software "app," or building up a brand that your customers can trust.   When we say "IP" law, what do we mean? Generally, we are talking about patents, copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets. These terms refer to property rights that have value, and that you must defend in order to keep!   What is a patent? What is a copyright? What is a trademark? What is a trade secret? When are these rights important? How do you get them? How might you lose them?   That's what we are talking about today with attorneys Marty Sipple and Bill Hollimon.   Marty Sipple is a veteran "IP Law" litigator at my firm, Ausley

How we grapple with artificial intelligence may end up as the most important technological question of our time. What does it mean to be human if we create super-intelligent machines? If a robot seems to have a conscience, or consciousness, what then? Could an A.I. entity own property, control its own money, and make its own decisions? Could an A.I. become a virtual "person" like a corporation, and maybe live forever? Will A.I. even be recognizable to us? Will it resemble our human minds, or will it be entirely foreign, like a cuttlefish? Or an ant? Can you sue a robot? Can you punish software? Would that be like "suing the devil?" These are defining questions. They are at the edge of what it means to be human. What it means to live with each other. And, at bottom, that's what law is about. When drones are controlled by A.I. systems, whatever those look like, the legal questions get immediately sticky. They get very difficult. This is all going to happen, faster than you think. In today's episode, our guest i

Welcome back, Drone Law Nation! Today we are back with Part 6 of our series on the Constitutional issues raised when police use drones.   Our talk today hits the second of our three "aerial surveillance" cases, Dow Chemical v. U.S. This case deals with aerial photographs of a 2,000 acre chemical plant by a contractor working for the U.S. Government. Is that a "search" under the Fourth Amendment that requires a warrant? If not, why not? How might drone technology & advanced sensors change the game in the future?   Listen in to find out!   Links for you: Police Drones Part 1 Police Drones Part 2 Police Drones Part 3 Police Drones Part 4 Police Drones Part 5 Dow Chemical v. U.S. U.S. Constitution: Amendment 4   Listen in iTunes! Listen in Stitcher!   Follow @DroneLawToday on Twitter!   What questions do you have about Drone Law? Click here to let us know!   Nothing in this podcast is legal advice! Please don't make legal decisions for yourself or yo

Welcome back, Drone Law Nation! Today, we have a special treat for you. On August 31, right after Part 107 came out, SGS and I hosted a webinar on what the new regulations mean for the future of commercial drones.   SGS is the world's leading inspection, verification, testing, and certification company. Tracy Lamb heads up SGS' global "RPAS" team (RPAS standing for "Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems"). As the Global RPAS Safety Manager for SGS, she brings her years of experience as a commercial aviation pilot to the drone industry. Tracy and the SGS team are ensuring the safety and compliance of drone operations all around the world.   Our webinar focused on both the legal issues and practical realities of ensuring that drone operators are in compliance with the applicable regulations. How do you know you're compliant? How do you know your systems are "safe"? What does "safe" even mean? What is an acceptable risk?   These are questions we get into, and more.   Check out the recording for

Welcome back, Drone Law Nation! Today we are back with Part 5 of our series on the Constitutional issues raised when police use drones.   Our talk today hits the first of our "aerial surveillance" cases, California v. Ciraolo. This case deals with naked-eye observation of the "curtilage" of a home (the backyard) from a fixed-wing aircraft. Is that a "search" under the Fourth Amendment that requires a warrant? If not, why not? How might drone technology change the game here?   Listen in to find out!   Links for you: Police Drones Part 1 Police Drones Part 2 Police Drones Part 3 Police Drones Part 4 California v. Ciraolo U.S. Constitution: Amendment 4   Listen in iTunes! Listen in Stitcher!   Follow @DroneLawToday on Twitter!   What questions do you have about Drone Law? Click here to let us know!   Nothing in this podcast is legal advice! Please don't make legal decisions for yourself or your business before consulting counsel of your choice.   Do

Welcome back, Drone Law Nation! Today former FAA attorney Chris Poreda is back to run down what's changed, and what hasn't, with the new Part 107 Drone Regulations!   If you missed our first interview with Chris, check it out in the archives!   Listen in for the latest!   Links for you:   Our First Interview with Chris Poreda Poreda Aviation Law Website   Listen in iTunes! Listen in Stitcher!   Follow @DroneLawToday on Twitter!   What questions do you have about Drone Law? Click here to let us know!   Nothing in this podcast is legal advice! Please don't make legal decisions for yourself or your business before consulting counsel of your choice.   Download your FREE copy of "The Drone Revolution: How Robotic Aviation Will Change the World," right here: CLICK FOR BOOK!   Check out the FREE Drone Law Course at www.dronelawtoday.com/course! Keep on flying,   Steve

Welcome back, Drone Law Nation! Today we look at an issue that sound "sci-fi," but is all too real: Drones and Artificial Intelligence.   What happens when robotic "brains" are as good as ours? Can a robot be "conscious?" If a drone you own (and operate) is making decisions on its own, and those decisions end up hurting a person or their property, are you to blame? Or is the drone? How will the courts handle these things? How can we even begin to think about these things?   This subject was brought to mind by a number of things. This podcast is our attempt to frame these issues in a way that gives you some "mental models" for working through these difficult concepts. I should say they aren't difficult because they are hard to understand. They are difficult because no one has had to actually deal with them before. The answers are not obvious. There may not be a "right way" to handle these things.   But that's the point of having the conversation, isn't it?   Listen in for the latest!  

Welcome back, Drone Law Nation! Today our guest is Carlos Soltero of the McGinnis Lochridge firm in Austin, Texas. Long time members of Drone Law Nation will remember that we interviewed Jessica Palvino from the same firm a while back to talk about Texas Drone Law.   Carlos is on the show today to talk about an "equal protection" challenge his firm has brought against a part of Texas' Drone Law. An "equal protection" challenge against a state law is lawsuit arguing that a state is treating some citizens unfairly in a way that violates the U.S. Constitution. The lawsuit Carlos and his firm is litigating may have far-reaching implications for challenges to state "drone laws" around the nation.   Listen in as we talk about the limits on state authority to regulate drones, the "culture clash" between drone entrepreneurs and aviation regulators, and cross-border issues in the drone world.   Links for you:   Carlos Soltero's Contact Information Our interview with Jessica Palvino Our interview

Police Use of Drones & the Fourth Amendment, Part 4!   Welcome back, Drone Law Nation! Today we continue our special series on Drone Law Today: Drones and the Fourth Amendment!   This third episode looks at the case of Oliver v. U.S., a Supreme Court case from 1984. In this case, the Court addresses the "open fields doctrine." This doctrine is an "exception" to the Fourth Amendment. Essentially, this means that if the police gather evidence in an "open field," then no warrant is required.   This case builds on Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3 of our series. These episodes established the "trespass" and "reasonable expectation of privacy" concepts in Fourth Amendment law.   The "open fields" doctrine is another piece of this puzzle. This concept is both a "bridge" to the aerial surveillance cases as well as a stand-alone concept that will be important for future drone cases.   Understanding these cases will help you, Drone Law Nation, to protect yourself and your business by seeing how t

Welcome back, Drone Law Nation! Today we continue our special series on Drone Law Today: Drones and the Fourth Amendment!   This third episode looks at the case of U.S. v. Jones, a Supreme Court case from 2012 that considers whether GPS tracking technology can be a "search" under the Fourth Amendment.   These cases are important to the future of police use of drone technology.   And why is that? Because our "search and seizure" case law changes over time when the Court considers what society thinks about new technologies.   In Part 1 of this series, we looked at the 1928 Olmstead decision. In that case, the Court held that wiretaps were NOT searches under the Fourth Amendment! That case was all about "trespass" – without trespass, there was no search!   In Part 2 of this series, we looked at how the Court changed the law (in Katz) to focus on a person's "reasonable expectation of privacy" to determine whether a "search" occurred. Remember: if it's a "search" under the Fourth Amendme

Welcome back, Drone Law Nation! Today we continue our special series on Drone Law Today: Drones and the Fourth Amendment!   This second episode looks at the case of Katz v. United States, a Supreme Court case that shows how our police "search and seizure" case law changes when the Court considers new technology.   In Part 1 of this series, we looked at the Olmstead decision (from 1928) where the Court held that wiretaps were not searches under the Fourth Amendment! That means that police did not need a warrant to put up a wiretap!   Does that sound crazy to you? It should, because that is certainly not the law today! This shows you how new technology crashes into the Constitution in unpredictable ways. The Court over time "changes its mind" to adjust to new things.   The Katz decision is part of this evolution. Instead of considering "liquor smuggling" like in Olmstead, this case looks at the use of telephone technology to run a gambling ring (and FBI "bugs" on phone booths).   And w

Police Use of Drones & the Fourth Amendment!   Welcome back, Drone Law Nation! Today we start a special series on Drone Law Today: Drones and the Fourth Amendment!   Police use of drone technology will be an important legal issue going forward. To understand how it may play out – and the constitutional issues involved – we have to look at the case law that has come before.   For generations, the U.S. Supreme Court has been grappling with questions about how police use of new technology fits within the constitutional limits on police "search and seizure" authority. The way these cases have been decided will impact future cases involving police use of drones.   How will the courts look at drone "searches" under the Fourth Amendment? Will warrants be required? How does new "drone tech" fit within the existing aerial surveillance case law?   The answer is it depends! No one really knows how the first "drone search" case will turn out.   But we can understand how the courts will m

Welcome back, Drone Law Nation! Today we have a special two-part interview with James Mackler of the Frost Brown Todd law firm in Nashville, Tennessee, and Justin Robinson, a UAS consultant in Murfreesboro, Tennessee.   The center of the interviews is government use of drone technology – what it takes for governments to get "up and flying" with their drone programs. With the FAA's announcement of the Part 107 drone regulations, many more government entities than ever are considering drone programs. What should these governments consider when they put their programs together? Should they go through the Public COA process, or fly under Part 107? Or should they do both? Our talk gets to the bottom of these issues.   We also talk with James about his work on the landmark Boggs case that is grappling with huge questions about drones as "aircraft," the scope of private property in air rights, and a whole lot more.   You can contact James Mackler at the Frost Brown Todd website, or on Twitter at @Vete

Welcome back, Drone Law Nation! Today's episode starts out with an apology and ends with a gift.   The apology is to James Mackler of the Frost Brown Todd law firm in Nashville, Tennessee, and to Justin Robinson, a UAS consultant in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. We had an AMAZING talk with those guys that covered Government use of UAS, Justin's work to set up the drone program for Murfreesboro, Tennessee, James' work on the landmark Boggs case that is grappling with huge questions about drones as "aircraft," and SO MUCH MORE.   Trust me, it was an awesome talk.   So what happened to this conversation? Where did our awesome talk go?   It went to the land of bad audio. The recording was useless. TRAGEDY!   Hopefully we can have James and Justin back on soon – those guys are awesome. In the meantime, you can contact Justin Robinson at uasopsconsulting@gmail.com, and James Mackler right here.   And the gift? Well, that's the Drone Law Course! It LAUNCHED for real on July 1, 2016. You can

Welcome back, Drone Law Nation! Our guest today is Diana Marina Cooper of PrecisionHawk! Diana is the Senior Director of Legal and Policy Affairs at PrecisionHawk. Prior to joining PrecisionHawk, Diana developed and led the UAS and Robotics Practice Group at LaBarge Weinstein – the first practice of its kind at a national Canadian law firm. Diana has presented on technology law issues at Stanford, Columbia, New York University, and NASA. She is a legal contributor at Robohub and her articles have appeared in numerous publications. Diana is a leading expert in Canadian and U.S. Drone Law, and we are glad to have her on to share her perspective. Tune in for the latest on Diana's perspective on U.S. Drone law, how the U.S. compares to Canadian drone regulations, and how a leading drone company like PrecisionHawk navigates the legal landscape. You can learn more about Diana and her practice at www.precisionhawk.com her personal blog at www.dianamarinacooper.com. Follow her on Twitter for the latest at @Diana_M_Co