TexasCHLforum.com

You are!

Houston Police test unmanned aircraft.

Montalvo told reporters the unmanned aircraft would be used for "mobility" or traffic issues, evacuations during storms, homeland security, search and rescue, and also "tactical." She admitted that could include covert police actions and she said she was not ruling out someday using the drones for writing traffic tickets.

http://www.click2houston.com/newsarchiv ... etail.html

I enjoyed the part about it being used for "traffic tickets" Bill White is such a worthless taxman. I'm really thankful he hit term limits.

More than likely this will not happen...

The UAV companies...And this particular company is a "third tier" organization have not been able to get approval anywhere to operate domestically with the biggest hurdles being in the area of "loss of signal" protocols and other FAA safety rules...

Our pilot experts here in the forum should be able to chime in and explain a few technical details as well...

Still, it is a very telling thing that they would have a semi-secret demo performed, and when they are caught doing so, they tell their mouthpieces to come out and dig the hole even deeper...

Sigh...Will they ever learn???

High tech ghetto bird

stevie_d_64 wrote:More than likely this will not happen...

The UAV companies...And this particular company is a "third tier" organization have not been able to get approval anywhere to operate domestically with the biggest hurdles being in the area of "loss of signal" protocols and other FAA safety rules...

Our pilot experts here in the forum should be able to chime in and explain a few technical details as well...

Still, it is a very telling thing that they would have a semi-secret demo performed, and when they are caught doing so, they tell their mouthpieces to come out and dig the hole even deeper...

Sigh...Will they ever learn???

9 times out of 10 whatever the gooberment does in secret its not in the intrest of the taxpaying citizens. Most times the secrecy is outright illegal.

Sure hope they don't use one of those high powered cameras to look in my house while I am taking a shower. That would DEFINATELY kill the project and any chance for funding!!

Keith B if looking in on you during your shower will kill the funding for the program, I hope they peak in!

Sounds like time to break out the AA guns...

I think they need to go to walmart and buy abuncha them little micro helicopters to play with in their offices if they think that is gonna fly,remember that movie Blue Thunder with Roy Scheider back in the 80's

dukalmighty wrote:I think they need to go to walmart and buy abuncha them little micro helicopters to play with in their offices if they think that is gonna fly,remember that movie Blue Thunder with Roy Scheider back in the 80's

Man those things ROCK!

Some of you may have realized by now that I generally take a pretty strict view of the Constitution and favor limiting police powers. Given that, the following may surprise you but I think it will work out and be accepted. It is no different than a police helicopter, at least in legal principles. If a police officer can be someplace legally, anything he sees in plain view would be admissible in court as evidence. Most police aircraft have cameras on them, and you might be surprised at the quality of the pictures available. Many have some type of infrared or night vision system too.

If the UAV can be there legally, I do not think anything it sees would not be legally admissible. The view from above has almost always been considered public and acceptable.

The legal questions to be answered would be the quality of the camera (the news article says the cameras are significantly better than ones on police helicopters) and the lack of a person physically there. If I were the prosecutor arguing the case, I would contend that an officer could have been there legally but that this was a less expensive alternative and still never violated the person's privacy. I would also argue that the quality of the picture is not relevant. I would also argue that there is no reason police cannot keep up with technology changes to save money.

Of course, if I were the police chief, I would probably use the UAV for a preliminary view, then have a manned police helicopter fly over the area to avoid the problem.

And as I finished this up, I also realized one other point. This is not really a new area legally. Police have been using radio controlled helicopters, some with small cameras mounted on them for the last 20 years. I fly R/C as a hobby (well, used to be more active in it at least), and I know of a couple cases where this was done by other police officer hobbyists.

How can these UAVs prove that YOU were the one driving the vehicle? Obviously an officer can because you present them with a driver's license when you're stopped. Seems all these UAVs can prove is that your vehicle was photographed/recorded/identified breaking traffic laws. Could the statement "It wasn't me, it was someone borrowing my vehicle" be used as a defense?

QuackAddict wrote:How can these UAVs prove that YOU were the one driving the vehicle? Obviously an officer can because you present them with a driver's license when you're stopped. Seems all these UAVs can prove is that your vehicle was photographed/recorded/identified breaking traffic laws. Could the statement "It wasn't me, it was someone borrowing my vehicle" be used as a defense?

You think they are going to let something buzz around over town without having some massively detailed logs?

I live just inside the south loop off of South Main. The amount of helicopters that circle around looking for whatever really irritates me. Especially at night with their flood light on. Then you get all the media copters to follow.

These things have to be much cheaper to fly then a copter. And they can do so at an altitude high then a copter. To me this aint that bad of an idea. Aint any dumber then all the cameras everwhere on the roads.

I'll bet they are trying to spend federal money that if they do not they loose funding.