I was wondering if anyone on the forums knows if there is a list of cities and towns that have passed ordinances against flying drones within their boundaries.

I recently called my local PD(Sunny Isles Beach, FL) and asked if there was such an ordinance because they even passed an ordinance banning any skateboarding on public sidewalks here because of safety concerns. Ya. Safety.

I was told on the phone that there was such an ordinance and recieved a call a few minutes later from a representative in the police department actually stating the exact ordinance number to me for clarification. I've since looked for the statute in the city's online ordinance directory but can not find it. I was told it was 119-xx or 120-xx. The directory can be found at www.sibfl.net

So any help would be appreciated.

Had a similar situation in Huntington Beach, CA. heard (on this forum) that there was some kind of ordinance banning them, but I haven't been able to track down any actual text. Plenty about banning the use of RC cars in parks, but nothing on RC aircraft.

Unfortunately this will become the norm.  

I am on the east coast of Florida. I did see the law that they might be referring to on the site you linked. Many Florida cities have the same local law. You can't fly anything over public parks below 1000ft.

Rule 12. Aircraft.
(2) No person operating any aircraft shall do any stunt flying over or fly lower than 1,000 feet above the highest obstruction located in any park or recreation areas that are considered to be populated areas requiring compliance with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations regarding same.

I see nothing about flying over non-public parks areas.

Check and see if this is what they are talking about or if there is another law they are referring to.

suqsid.bobmail Posted at 2015-6-16 23:19
I am on the east coast of Florida. I did see the law that they might be referring to on the site you ...

That's what I am interpreting also.

There is nothing about launching a craft from private property, only parks.

I mean, I can fly a Cessna 172 all over the place here at lower than the drone(UMA) 400ft FAA ceiling...

If you're in Florida you might want to take a look at Senate Bill 766 recently signed into law by Gov. Scott.  This law is so broad that you can be civilly sued for merely taking a picture over someone's property.  The law will likely open the flood gates for litigation given that it specifically allows fee shifting.  Very bad news for Florida hobbyists.  

I think you are safe to fly AND with the "stunt flying" language I would argue that you are not doing ANY stunt flying but aerial cinematography. So you could probably get away with it in parks too.

BobbyB Posted at 2015-6-17 00:05
If you're in Florida you might want to take a look at Senate Bill 766 recently signed into law by Go ...

BS. I know all about the law. It is a great law.

The law requires the plaintiff to prove the the operator had the "intent to commit surveillance". Then they also have to prove damages.

The fee shifting is great because when the plaintiff can't prove there was any "intent to commit surveillance" , they have to pay the operator's legal fees.

They define what surveillance is and "merely taking a picture over someone's property" is NOT surveillance and there is no damage.

venturedrone Posted at 2015-6-17 00:08
I think you are safe to fly AND with the "stunt flying" language I would argue that you are not doin ...

"or fly lower than 1,000 feet above the highest obstruction located"

See the "or"?

With this law , you can't do any stunt flying at any altitude over a public park OR fly under 1000ft over a public park.

Two different things.

These laws were in place long before anyone dreamed of quads.

suqsid.bobmail Posted at 2015-6-17 00:21
BS. I know all about the law. It is a great law.

The law requires the plaintiff to prove the the  ...

I agree with part of your opinion.  However, the "surveillance" definition is vague and will need judicial review to determine what does and doesn't comport with the code.  Also, your view of fee shifting is somewhat naive.  The average hobbyist may find it difficult to pony up $10,000 to retain counsel to defend the litigation even if they ultimately prevail.  There's an old law enforcement saying:  You might beat the charge but you won't beat the ride.

Damages may be hard to prove but trial courts and juries are notorious for absurd awards to minimal injury.   Of course, appeals are always a low cost remedy.  This law sets the stage for widespread litigation irrespective of the final outcome in each case.

BobbyB Posted at 2015-6-17 00:47
I agree with part of your opinion.  However, the "surveillance" definition is vague and will need  ...

The fee shifting is what prevent the "floodgates" from opening. There are plenty of lawyers who would take the operators case with no retainer if they know there was no intent to commit surveillance.

They know they can rack up fees that the plaintiff will be responsible for paying.

That is the best part of the law. It is 100% civil, not criminal. You get wrongfully sued and you have recourse. You have no recourse when accused of a crime. That is why your old law enforcement saying has absolutely no merit.

suqsid.bobmail Posted at 2015-6-17 00:58
The fee shifting is what prevent the "floodgates" from opening. There are plenty of lawyers who wo ...

The "old saying"  line wasn't a reference to a criminal act.  It was intended to illustrate the litigation experience.  

Clearly, you're emboldened by surety of court knowledge, you should pursue a path of challenging the law in a formal manner.  I urge you to fly over as many houses in Florida as you can until you succeed in invoking the ire of of a yet unknown plaintiff.

BobbyB Posted at 2015-6-17 01:10
The "old saying"  line wasn't a reference to a criminal act.  It was intended to illustrate the li ...

Let me know where you live and I'll be right over.

You can sue me, and we'll see what happens.

suqsid.bobmail Posted at 2015-6-17 01:12
Let me know where you live and I'll be right over.

You can sue me, and we'll see what happens.

More internet muscle than brains, Jacob.  You make discovery a plaintiff's dream come true.

BobbyB Posted at 2015-6-17 01:23
More internet muscle than brains, Jacob.  You make discovery a plaintiff's dream come true.

Think of the millions you are going to make!

Not likely, most HS students aren't rolling in cash, unless you're working overtime at Taco Bell.  I suspect Mommy and Daddy wouldn't be happy if the process server knocked on the door though.  I'm sure you could defend yourself without legal counsel anyway, you being an internet attorney and all.  Of course it might intrude on your WOW time.