For decades, in dystopian fictions, readers and watchers alike are very familiar with the idea of state-run drones spying on the entrapped population. Luckily, however, the scenes of drones chasing down or spying on those who dare dissent against authority have been restricted to fantasy — until now.

When Texas resident Bobbie Sanchez walked out in her backyard last week, the last thing she thought she’d see was a drone — hovering — watching her kids.

“Mommy there’s a drone over our roof,” said her children.

According to Sanchez, the drone hovered there long enough for her to take multiple photos and to call the police for help.

However, when Sanchez called the Hurst police department to inform them a drone was spying on her children, the Hurst police department said it was them.

“They’re watching my children play in the backyard,” said Sanchez. “I called the Hurst Police Department and was pretty surprised to hear that it was them.”

According to NBC DFW, Hurst police and fire started using drones earlier this year. They said the day they were over Sanchez’s yard was a training exercise.
Training, in the land of the free, now involves police officers stripping citizens of their privacy and creepily watching their kids.

Dystopian, indeed.

After being caught spying on children, the department now promises that they will tighten down on when and where the drones will be deployed.

“We will not be doing any type of training exercises over houses and things like that,” said Hurst Police Assistant Chief Steve Niekamp.

According to Niekamp, the department’s drones will now only launch of crime scenes, accident scenes, to find a suspect, an active shooter, or a missing person. The fire department may also use them to strategize on fighting fires.

“We’re working for our citizens, if they have concerns then we definitely need to address it,” said Niekamp in an obvious understatement.

When Sanchez’ neighbors got news of the drone they were outraged, naturally.

“It might be legal but it’s still creepy to think that police can be saying that they’re training or looking for a criminal and still be looking at you in your backyard,” said neighbor Casey Byrnes.

Others told NBC DFW that they feel betrayed and that their trust in police is damaged.

In a truly liberty-loving tone, Sanchez stated, “I am not a person who will give up privacy for safety.”

The use of drones in policing is a slippery slope. While fears of active shooters and missing children will be used to justify them, if history is any indicator, these drones will ultimately be used to further deteriorate what little semblance of privacy left in America.

Also, guns.

As the Free Thought Project reported last week, Connecticut may be the first state in the country to allow police officers to put deadly weapons on drones. Some states have discussed equipping drones with tasers but this is the first proposal to arm them with deadly weapons. What could possibly go wrong?

The good news is, in a recent ruling, a Kentucky man has prevailed in a lawsuit he faced over shooting down a drone that entered his property.

William Meredith became known as the “drone slayer” in 2015, after he used a shotgun to dismantle a drone operated by David Boggs, that he says was flying over his property in front of himself and his daughter. Meredith initially faced felony charges of endangerment and criminal mischief for shooting down the drone. The criminal charges were dismissed by Judge Rebecca Ward in Bullitt County District Court, citing recollections from witnesses who said that the drone was flying under the tree line. Ward also said that Meredith was within his rights to shoot down the drone.

According to Meredith, that drone, like the police drone in Hurst — was also watching his children.

However, we shouldn’t rely on this case to hold up against the blue privilege associated with shooting down ‘official police property’ — even if it is watching your kids in your own backyard. (For more from the author of “Mom Horrified After Finding Police Drone Watching Her Children — in Their Backyard” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Last December, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) rushed an arbitrary and ineffectual recreational drone-owners’ registry into effect, mere days before Christmas and just in time to criminalize the flying of toys by thousands of children and hobbyists. The agency has potentially roped those toys under its definition of “aircraft” for purposes of all aircraft regulation as well. Following this bureaucratic overreach, a hobby drone operator who happens to be a lawyer, John Taylor, filed suit in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, challenging the registry.

Here are some of the highlights from Taylor’s brief in the case:

“For the first century of American aviation and beyond, the federal government made no attempt whatsoever to regulate recreational model aircraft.”

The FAA first wrote on the matter in 1981 in Advisory Circular 91-57, a guidance document calling for “voluntary compliance” with certain safety standards. In 2001, the FAA concluded that model aircraft fliers ought to comply with AC91-57, but that the FAA had no ability to enforce compliance because “Federal Aviation regulations do not apply to [model aircraft].” Model aircraft have historically and sensibly been considered categorically different from traditional manned aircraft. As Taylor put it, you might “use the word ‘train’ in defining a ‘model train,’ [but] it does not turn a model train into a train.”

“The FAA seeks to revise history when it argues its failure to register model aircraft, or otherwise treat them in any manner as ‘aircraft,’ in the past was the exercise of an ‘enforcement discretion.”

Since Oct. 2015, when the FAA first announced its intent to regulate recreational drones, the agency has attempted to erase from history its longstanding policy and now claims it has always considered model aircraft to be “aircraft” subject to federal aviation rules. Why? Because Congress, in 2012, barred the agency from promulgating any new rules governing recreational model aircraft activities—hence the claim that the rules now in force have always existed. Taylor sees this for what it is: an attempt to conceal “a direct and blatant violation of” federal law.

“Congress has adopted the FAA’s consistent interpretation that recreational model aircraft are neither ‘civil aircraft’ nor ‘public aircraft.’ As such they are not aircraft at all.”

This is the correct stance to take, because drones differ from manned aircraft in nearly every respect. What’s more, federal aviation laws and regulations are clearly written with manned aircraft in mind. For example, regulations require that an aircraft’s airworthiness certificate be displayed near the entrance to the cockpit and be legible to passengers and crew. The FAA has yet to clarify how it expects drone operators to comply given there are no cockpits, passengers, or crew. Meanwhile, federal aviation regulations include steep civil and criminal penalties for violations – for example, a possible 20 year prison sentence for shooting down an “aircraft” – that are clearly wildly disproportionate to drones. Nevertheless, the FAA insists these penalties apply.

“The FAA’s sudden re-characterization of any contrivance that flies as ‘aircraft,’ and thereby allowing it to shoehorn recreational model aircraft into aircraft regulations, places hobbyists in an untenable no-man’s land of compliance. The FAA has taken us down a rabbit hole of irrationality to achieve its goal of legally justifying registration.” (Emphasis added)

In addition to outrageous potential criminal and civil penalties, drone operators are now expected to comply with mutually exclusive directives from the FAA. For example, the agency demands that recreational drone owners swear an oath not to fly above 400 feet, yet by deeming drones to be “aircraft,” these operators are subject to federal regulations requiring them to fly above 500 feet at all times except during, for example, emergencies, or take-off and landing maneuvers. There is no way that drone fliers can comply with both rules simultaneously. Further, “the FAA’s broad new interpretation of the definition of ‘aircraft’ would similarly make Frisbees, paper airplanes, and other small flying toys subject to the myriad statutes and regulations applicable to ‘aircraft.’”

“People are entitled to a coherent and applicable definition of a term governed by such a massive and important body of federal regulation. It should not be subject to the FAA’s ever-changing whim.”

In its rush to regulate drones, the FAA created a regulatory scheme that is unconstitutionally vague and utterly irrational. Case in point: while the flight of any toy drone weighing more than 0.55 pounds is considered to be a threat to the safety of the national airspace requiring mandatory and criminally enforceable registration of drone operators, the pilot of an “ultralight aircraft, which can weigh up to 254lbs [and] carry a human” can fly without being registered.

“Simply put, the FAA’s rules regarding real aircraft, when applied to recreational model aircraft and other small flying devices, make no sense. The absurd and contradictory results in applying full-size aircraft regulations to these toys… show a lack of ‘consideration of the relevant factors’ and a ‘clear error of judgement.’”

The FAA has provided no rationale as to why it is reversing a century of non-regulation. Of course, a regulatory agency is not barred from changing its mind, but it must demonstrate a rational connection between the change in policy and the problem it purports to solve. Setting aside the fact that Congress has clearly spoken on the issue and curtailed the FAA’s authority in this space, there is no good reason for drones to be governed by regulations written for manned aircraft, making the policy arbitrary and capricious.

Last year, the FAA tried to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people by presenting a false narrative to justify the indefensible overcriminalization and over-regulation of drone hobbyists. John Taylor’s ongoing lawsuit will, with any luck, put the brakes on this instance of executive overreach. (For more from the author of “Inside the Legal Challenge to the FAA’s Drone Registry” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.