Federal Court Asked To Clarify Rights Of Property Owners And UAV Operators | Aero-News Network
Aero-News Network
RSS icon RSS feed
podcast icon MP3 podcast
Subscribe Aero-News e-mail Newsletter Subscribe

Airborne Unlimited -- Most Recent Daily Episodes

Episode Date

Airborne-Monday

Airborne-Tuesday

Airborne-Wednesday Airborne-Thursday

Airborne-Friday

Airborne On YouTube

Airborne-Unlimited-05.12.25

Airborne-NextGen-05.06.25

AirborneUnlimited-05.07.25

Airborne-AffordableFlyers-05.08.25

AirborneUnlimited-05.09.25

Thu, Jan 07, 2016

Federal Court Asked To Clarify Rights Of Property Owners And UAV Operators

First Lawsuit Filed In Kentucky By Person Whose UAV Was Shot Down By A Homeowner

The first lawsuit regarding the rights of drone operators versus property owners has been filed in federal court.

On Monday, Kentucky resident David Boggs filed a suit in The United States District Court of Western Kentucky asking the court to “define clearly the rights of aircraft operators and property owners” as they relate to unmanned aircraft. The lawsuit stems from an incident last year that gained national media attention in which a Hillview, Kentucky resident shot down an unmanned aircraft being flown by Boggs, claiming that the drone had trespassed and invaded his privacy. 

Although the shooter initially faced criminal charges, those charges were eventually dismissed by a state court judge. On October 26, 2015, Kentucky District Court Judge Rebecca Ward dismissed the criminal charges, saying that he “had a right to shoot” at the aircraft. Boggs, on the other hand, claims that he was approximately 200 feet above the property at the time it was shot down and did not view or record the defendant's property.

“The tension between private property rights and the freedom to use the national airspace is important to both the unmanned aircraft industry and the general public,” says James Mackler, Boggs’ legal counsel who leads Frost Brown Todd’s Unmanned Aircraft Systems practice. “Property owners deserve to be free from harassment and invasion of their privacy. Likewise, aircraft operators need to know the boundaries in which they can legally operate without risk of being shot down. This lawsuit will give clarity to everyone.”

”Our client is requesting clarification of the legal issues and to be compensated for the damage to his aircraft,” says co-counsel Chip Campbell, also of Frost Brown Todd. Both Campbell and Mackler are former military aviators who advise clients on a variety of issues relating to unmanned aircraft operation.

(Source: Frost Brown Todd news release. Image from file. Not captured during incident associated with the lawsuit)

FMI: www.kywd.uscourts.gov

Advertisement

More News

ANN FAQ: Submit a News Story!

Have A Story That NEEDS To Be Featured On Aero-News? Here’s How To Submit A Story To Our Team Some of the greatest new stories ANN has ever covered have been submitted by our>[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Term (05.13.25): Cleared For The Option

Cleared For The Option ATC authorization for an aircraft to make a touch-and-go, low approach, missed approach, stop and go, or full stop landing at the discretion of the pilot. It>[...]

Aero-News: Quote of the Day (05.13.25)

“...no entity, whether a division of government or a private company or corporation, may use information broadcast or collected by automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast >[...]

Aero-News: Quote of the Day (05.14.25)

“While our traditional mechanical magnetos will be around for a long time, Hartzell Engine Tech acquired E-MAG to expand its PowerUP Ignition System product portfolio into bo>[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Term (05.14.25): Flight Check

Flight Check A call-sign prefix used by FAA aircraft engaged in flight inspection/certification of navigational aids and flight procedures. The word “recorded” may be a>[...]

blog comments powered by Disqus



Advertisement

Advertisement

Podcasts

Advertisement

© 2007 - 2025 Web Development & Design by Pauli Systems, LC