RaceDayQuads v. FAA

Last updated

RaceDayQuads v. FAA
Seal of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.png
Court United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Full case nameTyler Brennan and Racedayquads LLC, v. Stephen Dickson, Administrator and Federal Aviation Administration
DecidedJuly 29, 2022
Citation(s)No. 21-1087 (D.C. Cir. Jul. 29, 2022)
Court membership
Judge sitting Cornelia Pillard

RaceDayQuads, LLC v. FAA, also known as Brennan v. Dickson, was a 2022 United States court case heard in the DC Federal Court of Appeals in which the online store RaceDayQuads attempted to challenge the constitutionality and legality of the Federal Aviation Administration's recent remote ID ruling and decision to require that all unmanned aerial vehicles (drones) in US airspace to continuously transmit the location of both the drone and its operator during all operations. [1] The suit, filed by RaceDayQuads owner and CEO Tyler Brennan, was intended to "save the drone industry", including drone racing by using "FPV drones". [2] [3]

Contents

The suit ultimately failed at the DC Appeals Court, which in an opinion written by federal judge Cornelia Pillard sided with the FAA's arguments. RaceDayQuads has yet to announce if it's appealing the motion to the Supreme Court. [4]

Background

On December 31, 2019, the FAA filed a notice of proposed rulemaking regarding remote ID and its new provisions and later published remote ID as a federal ruling in January 2021, with the ruling becoming effective in April 2021. The FAA's website claims it reviewed all comments regarding remote ID. [5] The rule states that 30 months after the rule becomes effective, all drone operators, including consumer drone operators, in US airspace must comply with the new ruling via either built in remote ID or retrofitting older drones with remote ID modules at the expense of the consumer; businesses and drone manufacturers must comply within 18 months of the rule becoming effective. The FAA additionally states that a drone, when not in an FAA-cleared community drone fly zone where remote ID is not required, must transmit its location from takeoff to shutdown. The FAA's reasoning for remote ID procedures is to assist law enforcement in prosecuting reckless and unlawful operations of drones. [5]

RaceDayQuads CEO Tyler Brennan formally announced his intention to sue the FAA via a blogpost on RaceDayQuads' website, which states a lawsuit will be filed should the FAA include "unconstitutional provisions" in the final ruling of remote ID. [6] On March 17, 2021, RaceDayQuads announced the lawsuit was officially filed, and he soon posted a link to a GoFundMe campaign supporting the lawsuit. In preceding posts on the same site as the official announcement, Brennan stated that drone hobbyists under a remote ID law would be more vulnerable to harassment, which would only be bolstered by Brennan's prediction that companies like ADT Inc would profit off of remote ID by selling drone alerts, an additional risk of harassment for pilots. Furthermore, in the March 17th post, Brennan claims that remote ID deadlines were postponed not to respect the drone community nor allow time to comply but rather that remote ID infrastructure would not be ready until the compliance deadline. [2]

The FAA released an official reply to the suit on October 15, primarily stating its belief in its remote ID rule not being a violation of privacy nor inconsiderate of the drone community. The FAA cited how its original remote ID rule was modified because of a vast amount of negative comments regarding the original rule's requirement for transmitting drone identification information over the internet. The FAA defended its requirement of control station location stating its use of the data does not violate Fourth Amendment-related constitutional data protections or that remote ID data is an unreasonable "search" without warrant, and that even if remote ID was a violation of the fourth amendment, that special needs associated with public safety and national security would allow for such search. [7]

RaceDayQuads subsequently released a reply brief disputing nearly all of the points made in the FAA's official reply, stating it strongly believes that no special need exemption applies in note of the Fourth Amendment, and that the mandatory installation of GPS technology in unmanned aerial vehicles is an unconstitutional search. Brennan and his legal team subsequently stated that comments from the general public were not considered into implementation, despite the FAA initially backing off of broadcast remote ID. [8]

Public opinions

The drone community has been generally against the provisions Brennan and RaceDayQuads are fighting. YouTube drone commentator 51 Drones heavily criticized the transmission of a drone pilot's location to "anyone with a cell phone", stating that educating law enforcement on drone regulations would be a major challenge, and that the usage of "community outreach" to combat members of the population against the operation of drones would be severely ineffective against those wishing to track down, harass, and rob drone operators. [9]

Additional articles and research institutions also provided stark opposition to remote ID's requirement for drone operators to transmit control station location; the Consumer Technology Association, through Digital Privacy News, released surveys which revealed 90% of those surveyed were uncomfortable with control station location transmission, and that 40% of respondents would be less inclined to buy a drone per these requirements. Ryan Latourette, a director at Great Lakes Drone Co in Michigan, additionally blasted Remote ID's disregard for privacy and prioritization for complete transparency and how "anyone at all with a cell phone" could determine where a drone operator is and what drone they are flying. Jeramie Scott from the Electronic Privacy Information Center commented while businesses might still attempt to collect information about actively-flying drones, the FAA has barely cared about the privacy implications of drones in the national airspace. [10]

In contrast to many hobbyists, WhiteFox, a California-based company specializing in airspace security, praised the remote ID rule in January 2021. WhiteFox claims that remote ID will open up drone operations beyond visual line of sight and will assist authorities in regulating drone activity. [11] Chinese drone manufacturer DJI also supported the final rule, stating it has long supported rules that would serve the whole drone industry. [12]

Constitutional arguments

Brennan and RaceDayQuads believes that tracking GPS location violates the Fourth Amendment. Their argument alleges that FRIAs create a forced association with a private, dues-collecting organization to exercise privilege in the public airspace. This, the suit argues, is a violation of the First Amendment. RaceDayQuads additionally disputes that a private entity being able to deny access to public services violates Fifth Amendment protections. [13]

Decision

On July 29, 2022, the RaceDayQuads appeal was denied by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Judge Cornelia Pillard ruled that the constitutional arguments made against remote ID's implementation were frivolous and/or dependent on applications of the rule and not the rule itself. Brennan's concerns that the rule was made with ex party influence was also found to be not firmly supported with evidence either, and that the FAA followed Congress's instructions in consulting with the independent RTCA and NIST.

With regard to the remote ID rule's finalization on "community designated areas" where remote ID would not be required, the court agreed that the FAA's response was reasonable. The court ruled that the FAA did adequately respond to comments questioning the safety rationale for its remote ID rule, and that RaceDayQuads' "dissatisfaction with the substance of the response" was not a legitimate ground to invalidate the rule. [14] [4]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Unmanned aerial vehicle</span> Aircraft without any human pilot or passengers on board

An unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), commonly known as a drone, is an aircraft without any human pilot, crew, or passengers on board. UAVs were originally developed through the twentieth century for military missions too "dull, dirty or dangerous" for humans, and by the twenty-first, they had become essential assets to most militaries. As control technologies improved and costs fell, their use expanded to many non-military applications. These include aerial photography, precision agriculture, forest fire monitoring, river monitoring, environmental monitoring, policing and surveillance, infrastructure inspections, smuggling, product deliveries, entertainment, and drone racing.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Aerial photography</span> Taking images of the ground from the air

Aerial photography is the taking of photographs from an aircraft or other airborne platforms. When taking motion pictures, it is also known as aerial videography.

Bethel School District v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court upheld the suspension of a high school student who delivered a sexually suggestive speech at a school assembly. The case involved free speech in public schools.

Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989), was a United States Supreme Court decision which held that police officials do not need a warrant to observe an individual's property from public airspace.

California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35 (1988), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless search and seizure of garbage left for collection outside the curtilage of a home.

In US law, false light is a tort concerning privacy that is similar to the tort of defamation. The privacy laws in the United States include a non-public person's right to protection from publicity that creates an untrue or misleading impression about them. That right is balanced against the First Amendment right of free speech.

In United States constitutional law, expectation of privacy is a legal test which is crucial in defining the scope of the applicability of the privacy protections of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It is related to, but is not the same as, a right to privacy, a much broader concept which is found in many legal systems. Overall, expectations of privacy can be subjective or objective.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">First-person view (radio control)</span> Controlling a radio-controlled vehicle from the driver or pilots view point

First-person view (FPV), also known as remote-person view (RPV), or video piloting, is a method used to control a radio-controlled vehicle from the driver or pilot's view point. Most commonly it is used to pilot a radio-controlled aircraft or other type of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) such as a military drone. The vehicle is either driven or piloted remotely from a first-person perspective via an onboard camera, fed wirelessly to video FPV goggles or a video monitor. More sophisticated setups include a pan-and-tilt gimbaled camera controlled by a gyroscope sensor in the pilot's goggles and with dual onboard cameras, enabling a true stereoscopic view.

The Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) is an ongoing United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) project to modernize the National Airspace System (NAS). The FAA began work on NextGen improvements in 2007 and plans to finish the final implementation segment by 2030. The goals of the modernization include using new technologies and procedures to increase the safety, efficiency, capacity, access, flexibility, predictability, and resilience of the NAS while reducing the environmental impact of aviation.

Federal Aviation Administration v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 284 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that "actual damages" under the Privacy Act of 1974 is not clear enough to allow damages for suits for mental and emotional distress. The reasoning behind this is that the United States Congress, when authorizing suit against the government, must be clear in waiving the government's sovereign immunity.

Drone journalism is the use of drones, or unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), for journalistic purposes. According to the Federal Aviation Administration, "an unmanned aircraft is a device that is used, or is intended to be used, for flight in the air with no onboard pilot".

<i>American Civil Liberties Union v. Clapper</i> American federal court case

American Civil Liberties Union v. Clapper, 785 F.3d 787, was a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and its affiliate, the New York Civil Liberties Union, against the United States federal government as represented by then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. The ACLU challenged the legality and constitutionality of the National Security Agency's (NSA) bulk phone metadata collection program.

The US Federal Aviation Administration has adopted the name small unmanned aircraft system (sUAS) to describe aircraft systems without a flight crew on board weighing less than 55 pounds. More common names include UAV, drone, remotely piloted vehicle (RPV), remotely piloted aircraft (RPA), and remotely operated aircraft (ROA). These unmanned aircraft flown in the USA's National Airspace System must operate under the rules of a Community Based Organization for recreational purposes or 14 CFR Part 107 for commercial operations. All UAVs weighing more than 250 grams flown for any purpose must be registered with the FAA.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Regulation of unmanned aerial vehicles</span>

Regulation of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) involves setting safety requirements, outlining regulations for the safe flying of drones, and enforcing action against errant users.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Commercial UAS Modernization Act</span>

The Commercial UAS Modernization Act is a bill introduced in the 114th Congress by U.S. Senators Cory Booker (D-NJ) and John Hoeven (R-ND) that would create temporary guidelines for the use of unmanned aircraft systems and regulations for the commercial drone industry. Most commercial use of drones in the U.S. is currently banned by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

The Drone Federalism Act of 2017 is a bill introduced in the 115th Congress by U.S. Senators Tom Cotton (R-AR), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Mike Lee (R-UT), and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) on May 25, 2017. The bill would "affirm state regulatory authority regarding the operation of unmanned aerial systems (UAS), or drones."

Human bycatch is a term for people who are unintentionally caught on film, in photos, or acoustically recorded on equipment used to monitor wildlife or habitats for the purpose of conservation, or environmental law enforcement. It comes from the term bycatch, which is used in fishing practices to designate non-target species that are caught in a fishing net. Nearly every remote monitoring study contains human by-catch, yet there are no standardized rules or policies regarding what the researchers can or should do with their data.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) set the effective date of March 16, 2021 for Remote ID, the rule and regulation applied to operations of any unmanned aircraft (UA) required to register a unique remote identification number to the FAADroneZone registration portal for unmanned aircraft. United States Congress elected the FAA with the ability to do so as the authority of aviation safety regulation and enforcement. FAA's Remote ID along with all other federal agency rules and regulation are published first published in the Federal Register (FR) and then their respective chapters in Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) when the date the final rules enactment arrives. Two types of remote ID are available to UA operators that comply with Remote Identification of Unmanned Aircraft, standard remote identification and remote identification modules.

<i>Xizmo v. New York City</i> Unmanned aerial vehicles legal case

Xizmo Media Productions LLC v. City of New York is a pending United States federal court case where the company Xizmo Media Productions argues that the New York City's "Avigation" law, which in effect is a ban on unmanned aerial vehicles within New York City, violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Xizmo argues that New York City's drone ban renders an "inability [for Xizmo] to gather aerial imagery interfering with its directors’ artistic expression". The lawsuit, which is taking place in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, will be decided by federal judge Eric N. Vitaliano.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Aerial surveillance doctrine</span>

The aerial surveillance doctrine is the legal doctrine in the United States of America that under the Fourth Amendment, aerial surveillance of an individual’s property does not inherently constitute a search for which law enforcement must obtain a warrant. Courts have used several factors–sometimes only one or a few, other times many or all of them–to determine whether the surveillance in question is a search in violation of one’s constitutional rights: the object of the surveillance, the technology employed, the duration of the surveillance, scope of aggregated information, and the vantage point from which the surveillance is conducted.

References

  1. Rupprecht, Jonathan (March 18, 2021). "RaceDayQuads LLC v. FAA (Lawsuit Challenging Drone Remote Identification Regulations)". Drone Law and Drone Attorney Assistance. Retrieved May 26, 2021.
  2. 1 2 "FAA Legal Battle - Challenging Remote ID". RaceDayQuads. Retrieved May 26, 2021.
  3. "RaceDayQuads.com vs FAA court case in defense of all drone pilots and model aviators". sUAS News - The Business of Drones. March 19, 2021. Retrieved June 24, 2021.
  4. 1 2 United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (July 29, 2022). "USCA-DC Opinions - Released" (PDF). United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
  5. 1 2 "UAS Remote Identification Overview". www.faa.gov. Retrieved May 27, 2021.
  6. "RDQ vs. FAA". RaceDayQuads. Retrieved May 27, 2021.
  7. "27 FAA Response Brief.pdf" (PDF). Dropbox. Retrieved December 13, 2021.
  8. "Reply Brief to FAA and AUVSI.pdf" (PDF). Dropbox. Retrieved December 13, 2021.
  9. FAA Remote ID Final Ruling - Is it Truly Final? , retrieved June 24, 2021
  10. "New FAA Drone Rules Raise Fears Among Operators, Hobbyists – Digital Privacy News" . Retrieved June 24, 2021.
  11. "WhiteFox Supports FAA's New Remote ID Rule". sUAS News - The Business of Drones. January 21, 2021. Retrieved August 18, 2021.
  12. McNabb, Miriam (December 30, 2020). "DJI's Response to Remote ID: "A Rule That Will Serve the Whole Industry"". DRONELIFE. Retrieved August 18, 2021.
  13. Jones, Walter (September 2, 2021). "A legal challenge to Remote ID may change the future of UAS policy". LinkedIn. Retrieved September 2, 2021.
  14. Rupprecht, Jonathan (August 26, 2022). "RaceDayQuads LLC v. FAA (Lawsuit Challenging Drone Remote Identification Regulations)". Drone Law and Drone Attorney Assistance. Retrieved November 16, 2022.