Drones, Drones, Everywhere Drones Can you Shoot them Down?

Disclaimer

This blog is provided solely for informational and entertainment purposes. No legal advice is given, nor should any content be construed as establishing an attorney-client relationship. The writer, while a lawyer, does not offer legal representation or professional counsel through this blog. For specific legal matters, please consult a qualified attorney directly.

Shooting Down Drones Over Private Property: Legal Considerations

Regarding the shooting down of a drone over one’s own property, it is important to note that while the landowner has certain rights to the airspace above their property, these rights are not absolute and are subject to federal and state regulations. The use of force against a drone, such as shooting it down, could potentially result in both criminal and civil liability. Criminal charges could include reckless endangerment, unlawful discharge of a firearm, or destruction of property. Civil liability could arise from claims of property damage or personal injury.

1. Airspace Rights Over Private Property

Under Georgia law, flights over lands and waters are generally lawful unless conducted at such a low altitude as to interfere with the reasonable use of the land or water by the owner, or if they are conducted in a manner that is imminently dangerous to persons or property lawfully on the land or water beneath. Relevant case law includes:

• Chronister v. Atlanta, 99 Ga. App. 447

• Delta Air Corp. v. Kersey, 193 Ga. 862

The owner of the land is considered a "preferred claimant" to the airspace above their property and is entitled to redress for any use of that airspace which results in injury to them or their property:

• Scott v. Dudley, 214 Ga. 565

This right extends to a distance of at least 75 feet above any buildings on the property. However, these rights do not negate compliance with federal aviation regulations governed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

2. Use of Force in Defense of Property

Georgia law allows a person to use threats or force, including deadly force, in defense of self, others, or property under certain conditions:

• Willis v. State, 316 Ga. App. 258

• Reese v. State, 317 Ga. 189

Specifically, a person has no duty to retreat and may stand their ground if they reasonably believe that such force is necessary to prevent or terminate an unlawful entry or attack upon a habitation. The use of force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm is justified only if:

1. The entry is made or attempted in a violent and tumultuous manner, or

2. The person reasonably believes that the entry is made for the purpose of committing a felony:

• Patel v. State, 279 Ga. 750

• Mubarak v. State, 305 Ga. App. 419

However, shooting down a drone is unlikely to meet these criteria unless the drone poses an imminent and direct threat to the property owner or others on the property.

3. Criminal and Civil Liability for Shooting Down a Drone

Criminal Liability:

Criminal charges could include:

• Reckless endangerment: Firing a weapon in an unsafe manner, especially in a populated area.

• Unlawful discharge of a firearm: Violating local ordinances or state laws regarding the use of firearms.

• Destruction of property: Deliberately destroying someone else’s drone.

For example, firing a gun into an inhabited area or where people are likely to be present could be construed as reckless endangerment:

• In the Interest of M.D.L., 271 Ga. App. 738

Civil Liability:

Civil liability could arise from claims of property damage or personal injury. A property owner could be sued by the drone’s operator for damages. In some cases, liability insurance might not cover acts deemed reckless or intentional.

Analysis

1. Airspace Rights Over Private Property:

Property owners have a right to control the airspace above their property to a reasonable altitude necessary for the use and enjoyment of their property, typically up to at least 75 feet above any buildings:

• Scott v. Dudley, 214 Ga. 565

However, these rights must be balanced against FAA regulations and the rights of drone operators.

2. Use of Force in Defense of Property:

While Georgia law permits the use of force in defense of property, including deadly force under certain conditions, the use of such force must be reasonable and necessary. Shooting down a drone is unlikely to qualify as reasonable force unless the drone poses an imminent threat to life or property.

3. Criminal and Civil Liability:

Shooting down a drone could result in significant criminal and civil liability. Immunity from prosecution may only apply if the force used was necessary to defend against an imminent and unlawful threat, which is unlikely in most drone-related situations.

Conclusion

In summary, while a property owner in Georgia has certain rights to the airspace above their property, these rights are not absolute and are subject to federal and state regulations. The use of force, including shooting down a drone, must be reasonable and necessary to prevent an imminent threat. Given the potential for both criminal and civil liability, property owners should consider less aggressive means of addressing concerns with drones, such as contacting local authorities or seeking legal remedies through the courts.