Missouri House Bill 46 is no longer a threat to us
I am happy to report I received a email from my house rep saying
Rep. Parkinson and filed an amendment to exclude RC in the Drone Bill. I talked with Rep. Guernsey and he didn’t have a problem with the amendment.
Here is the bill.
Section A. Chapter 305, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto four new sections, to be 2 known as sections 305.635, 305.637, 305.639, and 305.641, to read as follows:
305.635. 1. Sections 305.635 to 305.641 shall be known and may be cited as the
2 “Preserving Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act”.
3 2. As used in sections 305.635 to 305.641, the following terms shall mean:
4 (1) “Drone”, any powered, aerial vehicle that:
5 (a) Does not carry a human operator;
6 (b) Uses aerodynamic forces to provide vehicle lift;
7 (c) Can fly autonomously or be piloted remotely;
8 (d) Can be expendable or recoverable; and
9 (e) Can carry a lethal or non-lethal payload.
10 (2) “Unmanned aircraft”, an aircraft that is operated without the possibility of
11 direct human intervention from within or on the aircraft.
12 (3) “Law enforcement agency”, any state, county, or municipal law enforcement
13 agency in the state. The term law enforcement agency shall not include the Missouri
14 department of corrections, or any state, county, or municipal fire department.
305.637. 1. No person, entity, or state agency shall use a drone or other unmanned
2 aircraft to gather evidence or other information pertaining to criminal conduct or conduct
3 in violation of a statute or regulation except to the extent authorized in a warrant.
HB 46 2
4
5 to conduct surveillance of any individual, property owned by an individual, farm, or
6 agricultural industry without the consent of that individual, property owner, farm or
7 agricultural industry.
305.639. This act does not prohibit the use of a drone by a law enforcement agency
2 when exigent circumstances exist. For the purposes of this section, exigent circumstances
3 exist if a law enforcement agency possesses reasonable suspicion that, under particular
4 circumstances, swift action to prevent imminent danger to life is necessary.
305.641. 1. Any aggrieved party may in a civil action obtain all appropriate relief
2 to prevent or remedy a violation of this act.
3 2. No information obtained or collected in violation of this act may be admissible
4 as evidence in a criminal proceeding in any court of law in the state or in an administrative
5 hearing.
2. No person, entity, or state agency shall use a drone or other unmanned aircraft
305.637. 1. No person, entity, or state agency shall use a drone or other unmanned aircraft to gather evidence or other information pertaining to criminal conduct or conduct in violation of a statute or regulation except to the extent authorized in a warrant to conduct surveillance of any individual, property owned by an individual, farm, or agricultural industry without the consent of that individual, property owner, farm or agricultural industry.
Good news Crash.
Whenever you see the word, ''except'' made in a legal statement....get out your ''Doublespeak'' dictionary..
I still don't see anything here that limits their ability to interfere with RC models. And this bill seems not yet to have been passed, so even if there is something there that protects us it could change. Doesn't seem like it's celebration time yet.
If anyone steps outside the boundary, well tough nougats on them.
I still don't see anything here that limits their ability to interfere with RC models. And this bill seems not yet to have been passed, so even if there is something there that protects us it could change. Doesn't seem like it's celebration time yet.
If anyone steps outside the boundary, well tough nougats on them.
If you took pictures, at least of something beyond your field, you'd violate this law as written. The OP's point, I think, was that there had been a more recent change, not presented here, which would exempt RC. And the law certainly bans things other than evidence gathering by law enforcement; claiming otherwise is just bizarre.
Please note not everyone flys at a RC airfield. They fly in back yards, parks, ball fields and so on. If you fly an aircraft in an area where you capture a person and place it up on the web for others to view. That person that stated they were at a different location. If this was ever used is a court this is unwarranted Surveillance.
Police look at traffic cams, building cams and park cams. If they think a person might have video they need from a aircam they might search that out. Now the person flying their model aircraft is protected if this bill becomes law.
I think this is very important issue to the AMA.
Crash99
Here is the important part of the added Lang. 2. This act does not prohibit the use of model aircraft.
Please note not everyone flys at a RC airfield. They fly in back yards, parks, ball fields and so on. If you fly an aircraft in an area where you capture a person and place it up on the web for others to view. That person that stated they were at a different location. If this was ever used is a court this is unwarranted Surveillance.
Police look at traffic cams, building cams and park cams. If they think a person might have video they need from a aircam they might search that out. Now the person flying their model aircraft is protected if this bill becomes law.
I think this is very important issue to the AMA.
Crash99
I'm not quite sure where you get that from this proposed legislation. Nowhere in this pending bill does it say that you are protected from the police seizing video or pictures you may have taken. But rather, this bill prohibits using RC model and/or drones to take pictures of video unless you have specific permission from the people that you are taking pictures/video of.
This bill is aimed to LIMIT what can be done with an RC plane or a drone, not to protect us.
Ken
Here is the important part of the added Lang. 2. This act does not prohibit the use of model aircraft.
Please note not everyone flys at a RC airfield. They fly in back yards, parks, ball fields and so on. If you fly an aircraft in an area where you capture a person and place it up on the web for others to view. That person that stated they were at a different location. If this was ever used is a court this is unwarranted Surveillance.
Police look at traffic cams, building cams and park cams. If they think a person might have video they need from a aircam they might search that out. Now the person flying their model aircraft is protected if this bill becomes law.
I think this is very important issue to the AMA.
Crash99
Here is the important part of the added Lang. 2. This act does not prohibit the use of model aircraft.
Please note not everyone flys at a RC airfield. They fly in back yards, parks, ball fields and so on. If you fly an aircraft in an area where you capture a person and place it up on the web for others to view. That person that stated they were at a different location. If this was ever used is a court this is unwarranted Surveillance.
Police look at traffic cams, building cams and park cams. If they think a person might have video they need from a aircam they might search that out. Now the person flying their model aircraft is protected if this bill becomes law.
I think this is very important issue to the AMA.
Crash99
What Crash posted is in the bill, HOWEVER what he posted isn't complete and has no context as to what it is part of.
This bill has nothing at all to do with protecting the rights of RC pilots. Like I said in my earlier post, this bill is proposed to protect people from unauthorized video/camera surveillance from any unmanned aircraft of drone.
In addition, this Bill hasn't even been enacted yet. But rather is still in a proposed state, so it's not even law yet. Hard to get excited about a something that hasn't even made it out of the State House.
You can view the complete text here:http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking...rf/HB0046P.htm
Here is the COMPLETE text of the proposed Missouri House Bill 46.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:
Section A. Chapter 305, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto four new sections, to be known as sections 305.635, 305.637, 305.639, and 305.641, to read as follows:
305.635. 1. Sections 305.635 to 305.641 shall be known and may be cited as the “Preserving Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act”.
2. As used in sections 305.635 to 305.641, the following terms shall mean:
(1) “Drone”, any powered, aerial vehicle that:
(a) Does not carry a human operator;
(b) Uses aerodynamic forces to provide vehicle lift;
(c) Can fly autonomously or be piloted remotely;
(d) Can be expendable or recoverable; and
(e) Can carry a lethal or non-lethal payload.
(2) “Unmanned aircraft”, an aircraft that is operated without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the aircraft.
(3) “Manned Aircraft”, an aircraft that is operated by a human on board the aircraft.
(4) “Model aircraft”, an unmanned aircraft that is:
(a) Capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere;
(b) Flown within visual line of sight of the person remotely operating the aircraft; and
(c) Flown for hobby or recreational purposes.
(5) “Law enforcement agency”, any state, county, or municipal law enforcement agency in the state. The term law enforcement agency shall not include the Missouri department of corrections, or any state, county, or municipal fire department.
305.637. 1. No person, entity, or state agency shall use a manned aircraft, drone, or unmanned aircraft to gather evidence or other information pertaining to criminal conduct or conduct in violation of a statute or regulation except to the extent authorized in a warrant.
2. No person, entity, or state agency shall use a manned aircraft, drone, or unmanned aircraft to conduct surveillance or observation under the doctrine of open fields of any individual, property owned by an individual, farm, or agricultural industry without the consent of that individual, property owner, farm or agricultural industry.
3. No person, group of persons, entity, or organization, including, but not limited to, journalists, reporters, or news organizations, shall use a drone or other unmanned aircraft to conduct surveillance of any individual or property owned by an individual or business without the consent of that individual or property owner.
305.639. 1. This act does not prohibit the use of a manned aircraft, drone, or unmanned aircraft by:
(1) A law enforcement agency when exigent circumstances exist. For the purposes of this section, exigent circumstances exist if a law enforcement agency possesses reasonable suspicion that, under particular circumstances, swift action to prevent imminent danger to life is necessary; or
(2) A Missouri-based higher education institution conducting educational, research, or training programs within the scope of its mission, grant requirements, curriculum or collaboration with the United States Department of Defense.
2. This act does not prohibit the use of a model aircraft.
305.641. 1. Any aggrieved party may in a civil action obtain all appropriate relief to prevent or remedy a violation of this act.
2. No information obtained or collected in violation of this act may be admissible as evidence in a criminal proceeding in any court of law in the state or in an administrative hearing.
3. Sovereign immunity for the state of Missouri is waived for any civil action resulting from a violation of sections 305.635 to 305.641.
Section B. Because of the need to protect Missourians from invasions of privacy in the state, section A of this act is deemed necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health, welfare, peace and safety, and is hereby declared to be an emergency act within the meaning of the constitution, and section A of this act shall be in full force and effect July 1, 2013, or upon its passage and approval, whichever later occurs.