This was what I found very interesting in the court decision:
In addition did anybody else notice that in the FAA document that cj posted :
I. ANY OTHER SITUATION THAT MAY INDICATE A SUSPICIOUS AIRCRAFT, INCLUDING ANY REPORTED OR OBSERVED UNAUTHORIZED UNMANNED AIRCRAFT ACTIVITY OR REMOTE CONTROLLED MODEL AIRCRAFT THAT DEVIATE FROM NORMAL PRACTICE AREAS/FLIGHT ACTIVITIES OR WOULD BE CONSIDERED SUSPICIOUS OR A SAFETY HAZARD.
REFERENCE- ADVISORY CIRCULAR 91-57 MODEL AIRCRAFT OPERATING STANDARDS.
AC 91-57 which is an ADVISORY and not their own "Interpretative Rule" ????????????????????????????