Can Police FORCE You to Land Your Drone WITHOUT explaining?

[@kalpat5753]

As we all know is that many police constables believe they have the power to insist on anything they wish on a member of the public and this explanation merely adds to that feeling. The officer may insist on the drone landing merely because they can. There are many instances where someone is handcuffed for no good reason then released without explanation merely because officers think they can handcuff someone whether there is a risk to them or not. So not to give an explanation as to why a drone should land only adds to the perceived power of a constable.

[@Geeksvana]

It seems a shock, doesn't it. Why parliament would not include that within the legislation is unhelpful, to say the least. Although the officer in the video was being honest and confirming no requirement to explain, I doubt such disconnected communication would happen in most cases.

[@BAWBAGaming]

​@@Geeksvana Unfortunately my lived experience would argue that, despite complying with the constable's instructions, explaining exactly what I was doing, showing my flightplan on Drone Assist and explaining the law clearly, all whilst remaining calm and friendly is no protection against a Constable with a lack of knowledge, a massive ego and trainee in tow.

[@WeeBurnip-lz3fr]

@@Geeksvana it DOES HAPPEN, FREQUENTLY.

[@streamsofconsciousness8651]

@@Geeksvana one has to assume that Parliament didn’t include it in the legislation because they didn’t want police to have that power

[@tazzy3469]

So basically, do as you're told and be nice to the officer..... sorry, not happy with my take of his explanation 😬 . Normally, i like legal compliances

[@Geeksvana]

It is a brutally precise answer based on the legislation. It gives an entire area for me to do follows up via the IAG and future Q&As as well.

[@tazzy3469]

@@Geeksvana it's weird..... i wanted tighter regulation..... but i suppose only in areas that suit me

[@Nkkdxn45j]

It's a question of dealing with the power dynamic in the situation.

[@jons9721]

@@Nkkdxn45j On the streets the police should have a lot of power over you. Once you are arrested you actually gain more power. But all this ends after 24 hours. Then all the real power moves to the courts. The reality is the police can seriously restrict your freedoms for up to 24 hours with the very low bar of suspicion. That is the only way the police and civilisation in general could ever work

[@grahamherbert3612]

Three Humberside 'police' officers have openly admitted to me, that they have no idea whatsoever regarding the legalities of flying drones anywhere. They've had zero training on the subject, and if ever called to attend a drone related, (or any other RC matter), simply turn up, have a quick vague chat with the operator, and then get as far away as possible, as quickly as they can.

[@Geeksvana]

The same could be said of so many areas of legislation. An average police officer could not possibly know everything. Now that drones are becoming more commonplace, new recruits will receive training, and I have seen first-hand evidence of drone information campaigns within police forces. It will take time, but eventually, it will be a perfectly standard interaction. Sadly, with drone rules constantly changing that education is made tougher. What we do in the meantime is a real challenge, of course. It should also be worth mentioning that in terms of proactive policing, recreational drone use is not a priority.

[@brechany]

Another example of the Police Farce doing whatever the hell they want.

[@FirstNameLastName-ev3jk]

Always ask, “Under what power?”

[@streamsofconsciousness8651]

They need to have reasonable grounds of an offence. They too often ask people to comply without reasonable grounds, but to investigate to see if they can find grounds. That's not the same thing. And no, we shouldn't compare with the RTA which is entirely irrelevant.

[@johaquila]

In practice there seem to be three types of cases: Professional: "Oh, is that a ...? I once had one like that, too. I know what you are doing here is legal, but we have a specific situation that doesn't involve you / a specific investigation that involves you. Please take down the drone, and then I will give you the details. / Please take down the drone and don't fly it again in the area; unfortunately I don't have time to give you the details, but you will find out from the news." Confrontational: "Take down the drone now or else. I have a reason but I need not tell you what it is." Incompetent: "You are not allowed to fly a drone near a police station! You have not shown me your drone permit for this area. Ie don't know who you are and cannot verify where you want to fly with this thing! We had a complaint from the janitor! In this day and age! Think of the children! Take it down now or else!" The confrontational behaviour is arguably worse than the incompetent one. No officer can be expected to be competent about all aspects of the law, and it's natural to get something wrong occasionally. But senseless fishing for an escalation by hiding _whether_ there is a legitimate reason or not can only be explained with bad faith or a really bad temper, which should both be inconsistent with working for the police.

[@glennclayton9900]

If the police had as much passion about people flying drones than they did about stopping knife crime, we’d live in a safer country.

[@BelfastBodger]

"Interpret the law"! Didnt realize it was open to interpretation for each individual officer.

[@madman1027]

I get the need for some regulation but i have zero trust in the bobbies enforcing it. There does not seem to be near enough focus on having officers get up to speed on topics in the field. Picking uo a mobile & looking into the specific area theyre looking to enforce would be a great shout. More needs to be done to create robust process rather than relying fixing it after it goes wrong (appreciating mistakes will always happen). I cant say appreciate the tone if just shut up & do as you're told. People are human too & will also react to what they are presented with 😉

[@Geeksvana]

100% agree it must be a two way attitude relationship. We are in a very strange position in terms of our relationship with the police as public. I don't expect officers to know every area of law but I am relieved that they are now training basics of drone law to new recruits. They are going to come across drones more and more. Thanks for your comment.

[@conorstewart2214]

This is partially reasonable but it will all depend on how it is put into practice and what is decided counts as suspicion. If suspicion is a very loose term and is pretty much left up to the officers discretion then that could be pretty bad for us as any officer could stop us for practically any reason they think of, but if they have to explain themselves and their reasoning or provide evidence and are held to a decent standard then it wouldn’t be too bad. I do agree that they should have to explain why though. It would be good to get clarification on the procedure for them asking for your ID vs telling you to land. They don’t need any reason to ask for your ID and inspect your drone but they need suspicion to tell you to land. What happens if you are flying at the time and they ask for your ID, do you need to land immediately and give it to them?

[@trevortrader66]

Great information, thanks.

[@Feverstockphoto]

Let me get this right. A police officer can come up to a drone pilot and force them to land the drone immediately without any kind of explanation beforehand and you are required to obey!? Rodney King is not a great example but imagine a drone pilot catching on camera police breaking the law or about to break the law on the drone and police wanting to cover this up by forcing the pilot to land their drone so they won't be caught on camera doing something questionable. Or any other situation where they just want you to land the drone because they don't want a particular event from being recorded.... The list of scenario's are endless. They are good at making stuff up and cover-ups. What about our rights, of freedom of expression are they completely thrown out the window with three little words - Land that drone!!?

[@Feverstockphoto]

What about a once in a lifetime event happening that you are about to capture with your drone, like a building collapse, natural disaster, a rare animal moment happening. Police officer - land the drone immediately! You try to explain but before you can you are tasered, thrown to the ground and jumped on by several officers. Complaining after the once in a lifetime event isn't isn't going to change the fact that it wasn't caught on camera because you were forced to land the drone.

[@roadsweeper1]

Yeah, but look at their analogy they used. You are claiming they don't have a right to ask us to land immediately. What if your driving a car, they have the right to ask us to pull over as soon as it's safe to do so without explanation, they don't have to wait until we get to our destination and choose to stop driving ourselves. It's actually a crime not to pull over... Drone flying is no different. They have been given powers that enable them to ask us to land ASAP so they can converse with us. I really don't see where the issue is. You want them to hang about for 20 min until you choose to land yourself? Why should they? In all other activities we do, they have the right to ask us to stop what we are doing, so they can ask us questions etc. Why should flying a drone be any different? Your making a mountain out of a molehill dude.

[@Geeksvana]

It is the same as being told to pull over when driving a car etc. What is happening on the drone flight is unfortunate and a shame but remember if they require you to land it is because they have suspicion of an offence. The tazer comment is just not real world practical. No drone pilot has ever been tazed in the UK.

[@Feverstockphoto]

@@roadsweeper1 Drones are not cars. To drive you need a lot more, Driving licence, Tax, Insurance, MOT.... If a car goes out of control usually there are many other cars in front and behind so greater danger on the roads if say your tires are balding... Cars and people driving cars cause thousands of deaths every year on the roads. Also usually the drone pilot is stationary not in a moving car travelling at speed with a bunch of other drones, cars around, easy generally safe to to approach. The drone can hover in the air without much movement while hands are off the controller so a lot less risk of any accidents while the officer at least explains that they want you to land the drone immediately, because of X, Y or Z i.e., We have grounds to believe you are breaking this particular law so land the drone. Edited: Not just 'Land that drone immediately!' Without any explanation whatsoever as to why!

[@Geeksvana]

@Feverstockphoto your assertion of the process and interaction of 'land that drone immediately' is not a real world example. Police should allow anyone to safely interact. If not, a complaint should be raised. It doesn't matter what reference you feel driving is or is not in terms of requirements. The police powers granted for drones give very similar powers to traffic cops.

[@kensteele3363]

The difference is the traffic stop and everything that comes after it is invalid if the stop is not legal in the first place. We are falling into the same trap as if we haven't learned. Of all the drones flying that are ordered to land, the police will actually suspect about 5% of drone flyers are breaking the law. The other 95% will be told to land for one of two reason: 1) Police got a phone call (or they see you themselves) that you are flying (legally) but they still want to talk to you and 2) Police don't know if you have broken the law or not and they won't know until you land and have a discussion with them. Unless the police at some point during the interaction have to tell you why they ordered you to land, the flyer will never stand a chance. Imagine if the motorist is never told and the cop can detain you and look for something and if they don't find anything, just let you go. Only if you complain does the officer have to provide a reason? There's a difference between "reasonable suspicion" and "reasonable suspicion of a crime" and if you see someone flying a drone and it just don't look right and you get suspicious because no one flies from "this alley at 8am sunday morning"....where are the rights? In America, reasonable suspicion of a crime is called RAS where the A = articulable because at some point, the officer will have to "tell it" and holding back on explaining until your first day in court isn't going to "fly." ALL police officers believe the power to "investigate" includes detention and if you are unable to land your drone and walk away, you are under detention if ordered to land your drone by a law enforcement officer.

[@Geeksvana]

Hey Ken! I agree with a lot of what you have stated above. The fact that it is not within legislation for the officer to explain their suspicion at some point is a hard miss by parliament in my opinion.

[@android4219]

Unfortunately it seems like this is way things are going in lots of different areas. Not just drones. It is something to be concerned about. 🫤

[@josephfredbill]

Im not (yet) a drone pilot but I just want to say what an excellent job you are doing educating drone pilots, the police and the public on the intricacies of how the law applies here having these discussions with an obviously senior police person who knows and understands the field. This would be a great way to do it in other fields too, such as motoring law and cycling law to get senior police people talking on video.

[@Geeksvana]

Thank you! We are hopefully bringing police and drone user a little closer together. I started these particular videos because I was shocked at the powers police have if a drone is even suspected of being flown.

[@attilathehun181]

@@Geeksvana drone pilots were suspects all the time for the police even if they haven't done nothing wrong .

[@Geeksvana]

@attilathehun181 where is the data to support that? Beyond the usual social media posts of people wanting confrontation with police, we get a handful of contacts from viewers each year experiencing policing issues as opposed to the many thousands of flights happening all the time without issue. There are significant issues and challenges in terms of policing in the UK and the relationship with public. However, police do not see your drone as a priority and are not wandering the streets looking for pilots.

[@protectorbobby]

Interacting with the pilot should only be after the pilot has landed surly , the officer and who other should make themselves known but after a warning from pilot that I am in flight plz allow me to land and I would be happy to talk 🤷‍♂️.great channel 👍from me

[@Geeksvana]

Hey Bobby! Thank you! Yes, there are several areas like that which surprise me with the legislation on police powers. I think most officers will give you the time to come in safely but I suppose if they have made the requirement they suspect a crime etc. Some of the lines drawn by this might need addressing by parliament.

[@protectorbobby]

Just I would imagine being on final into Heathrow with cross wind and someone entering the cockpit telling you a story about how to fly and why are you doing this 😂👍 people are funny

[@martinriley106]

I think this approach to police powers will be interpreted by the public as beyond reasonable if an officer does not explain their reasons for interfering with a drone pilot. The police are appearing to immune from any kind of challenge? What an officer believes and what they can prove are two very different things, even a court would say that. I think these new laws and powers are becoming excessive and I’m not a drone operator?

[@davefoton7738]

With a car the licence plate tells them all they need to know about u id. With a below 250g (no camera) drone no op id is needed, so can police demand u id if no offence commited?

[@mrngreenthumb]

its entirely reasonable for a person not to feel safe around police! and tell em to go away unless they can prove reasonably that a crime is or has been committed! dont just take his word as fact for god sake!

[@Geeksvana]

You absolutely should not take an officer's word for it. That is why the legislation and specific police powers, granted by parliament are linked in the description. All of this has been checked and counter checked.

[@richardharvey1732]

Hi Geeksvana I must say t6hat the assertion made by this man early on is not one of adequate foundation. Many of the encounters I have seen with members of the public flying a drone it is very clear that the foundation of the officer's claim is woefully inadequate, in terms of having legitimate reason the simple suspicion of possible legal infringement is not enough, this type of 'evidential' basis is clearly explained in PACE and anyway the drone flying regulations specifically forbid the interference with the pilot while the drone is flying for clear and simple safety reasons. this clearly leaves the officers with a situation in which they can only be allowed to interfere when they have clear material evidence if criminal activity, since flying a drone is mostly entirely legal this can only happen in specifically restricted air space and that information is always available on any drone flying App. Without that evidence all they can properly do is wait until the pilot lands the drone without any demand and then ask the questions that they wish to have answers. Any other interference is an offence under the flying regulations. Please do feel free to correct me if any of this is actually wrong. Cheers, Richard.

[@Geeksvana]

I feel you might be taking these experiences from KZbin and social media videos. Which are heavily edited and entertainment, so I can't really comment on those. However, one point I would make is that drones are not protected as aircraft. Although Article 240 of the ANO seems to give protection, drones are amongst the type of aircraft specifically excluded from protection as an aircraft under section 34.

[@RS474]

The law to not interfere with a pilot doesn’t cover drone pilots.

[@richardharvey1732]

@@Geeksvana Hi Geeksvana, thank you very much for this response, I do appreciate your efforts. Sadly as you say the plethora of assertions and opinions mixed with a sprinkling of actual facts is one notable feature of the interweb channels, I do my limited best to filter out the worst of the rubbish but in truth I have no real skin in the game anyway so it matters vewry little what I say or think!. There is no reliable way to separate entertainment from education so I try to get some of both. Cheers, Richard.

[@FlymyPhantom]

It doesn't say he has to explain but it also doesn't say that he isn't required to explain his reasons, that's the grey area and something that the police and CAA need to get sorted

[@dsd5586]

But in sch 8. The legislation says and.... So unless both parts are justified by the officer the power is non enforceable!

[@cloudobserver00900]

Its not about the police requirements, its about safety so the drone pilots requirements, space to fly the drone back abd land it safely are paramount. We dont want to get into "we have had a complaint, you MUST land the drone immediately scenario" Plod simply needs to shout out the request to land and keep a reasonable distance, 50 metres should be ample.

[@Geeksvana]

Police are not considered uninvolved people and can stand much closer. Also, the order to land, if made, is a requirement under law. Therefore, the pilot needs to take swift action. These things are only pointed out in our videos because we believed people didn't realise the full extent of the powers granted to police.

[@cloudobserver00900]

I fear this is a power that could be abused by uninformed plod, could possibly lead to accidents. They can be as involved as they wish but from a safe distance please. When the drone is on the deck with the battery out is the time for talk, not before.

[@conorstewart2214]

⁠@@cloudobserver00900 you don’t get to decide that, just like you can’t prevent people from coming near you when flying or from coming into your landing area, especially if you are in a public place. As already mentioned police don’t count as uninvolved people so there is no safe distance requirement and quite frankly they can stand and go where they want, you cannot stop them. You don’t make the rules.

[@cloudobserver00900]

@@conorstewart2214 You don't make the rules - So it's no longer about safety. These rules and recently others are made by the CAA under the instructions of the police.

[@catch22again]

What is not reasonable is when private businesses dial 999 for someone flying a drone then multiple cars and officers turn up. I have always been led to believe that 999 calls are for life threatening incidents only. When this happens and the drone pilot is found not to be doing anything wrong the police should then pursue a case if " wasting police time ". Why don't they do this ?

[@matthewdray83]

What is "reasonable" is always dependant on your point of view. The officer should be applying the law to the situation, and not that Karen from number 37 thinks you have broken the law. Personally I think we should hold the officer accountable, make complaints you can argue its not reasonable. This will actually drive behaviour change and the officer will be less likely in the first place to use their authority when they cannot justify it.

[@SEPK09]

No because you could be working until they have viable reason to do so. esp: with the way police state is in at ATM

[@mickyredeyes6220]

It isnt the same as a car because if the drone is in flight and the operator let's go of the controls then the drone will hover in place! Whereas a car would lose control and crash. So I think police should explain the legal reasons to bring the drone down first,

[@Geeksvana]

I agree. However, they are not required to do so. Shocked me but glad I know before I argue the point.

[@josephfredbill]

Off-Topic. Not yet a drone owner/pilot but planning to become one. Should I buy a DJI drone now, before the UK decides to ban purchasing chinese drones ?

[@Geeksvana]

UK will not be banning any drones from China or elsewhere. There could be restrictions in terms of gov use in the future but even that is unlikely. Buy in the UK with confidence. DJI make an excellent drone.

[@josephfredbill]

@@Geeksvana thank you :-)

[@6r4metroman]

I've never had one of these interactions, that is probably because I fly whether there is no need for one…

[@FirstNameLastName-ev3jk]

The Road Traffic Act is an irrelevance.

[@colinharrison6608]

The problem is that ordinary police are not being trained to administer the law regarding drone flying. At least they should have access to the laws they try to enforce. With modern Communications devices it is relatively easy to gain access to an appropriate database. Officers should not be allowed to enforce laws which they are not familiar with. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse for the public so the same conditions should apply to the officers . I think it is very important for people to be informed of what the officer is thinking so they don't get the wrong idea of what is happening. Informing the possible perpetrator should be mandatory. Often drone pilots know the law better than the officer and should be able to challenge his opinion.

[@Garry-oi7cg]

Okay. I am not anti police. However. I think police generally feel entitled that you have to comply with anything they ask you. Often they will approach with the attitude you have done something wrong rather than not. My view is they don’t like being challenged over what they want from you. Don’t like being filmed and expect you to do as they say. However you do need to land your drone if approached for safety concerns. Also I would expect to provide operator ID if asked. I do think what is expected of a drone pilot should be made clear. Thanks for this info.

[@Geeksvana]

Thanks Garry! I agree with that and I would argue that police training reinforces this in terms of asserting themselves and taking control of the situation. I have personally experienced officers deploying this training poorly and approaching with the attitude you describe.

[@Normanskie]

Sorry but this really annoys me. (2) The constable may require a person to ground the aircraft IF - (a) the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the person is controlling the unmanned aircraft, AND AND (b) the constable HAS REASONABLE GROUNDS FOR SUSPECTING THAT THE UNMANNED AIRCRAFT HAS BEEN, IS, OR IS LIKELY TO BE, INVOLVED IN THE COMMISSION OF AN OFFENCE (including an offence under this Act).

[@OhSoddit]

The fuzz can GAGF.

[@xxx-kt7dl]

What happens when faced with ego driven tyrants?

[@Geeksvana]

My opinion? Live to survive another day and submit a formal complaint. Gain as much evidence of the issue as possible. I have tried both routes before and confronting a officer who you feel is acting inappropriately has rarely worked.

[@conorstewart2214]

@@Geeksvana out of interest how far did you get with the complaint process? I would imagine not much further than you did arguing with an officer.

[@Geeksvana]

@conorstewart2214 It was dealt with by an apology. I had no reason to push it further. It still runs through my mind now.

[@BelfastBodger]

"Road traffic act" !

[@attilathehun181]

Again , all drone pilots are at the coppers discretion and will be harrassed every time one or another Karen think to call them upon a pilot . Listening this video the "cops made a law for themselves to have all the power to harrass drone pilots " came in my mind . Ambiguous description of the "reasonably suspicion " gives unlimited powers to the police to harass pilots as they please .

[@Geeksvana]

I can understand where your point is coming from, and I was genuinely shocked when these powers were passed. However, although the police are of course involved, legislation is passed via the parliamentary process and very few people responded to the public consultation. I can't blame police for using the powers they have been provided by parliament. However, the scenario you describe should not be an outcome under these powers. I say should...

[@BelfastBodger]

​@Geeksvana And yet, apparently each individual officer can interpret these laws according to him.

[@japitts2010]

Police far too often try to enforce the feelings of ignorant landowners, without checking the law first. When a drone pilot refuses to comply with requests (not backed by legislation) they are accused of being obstructive & difficult. Are the Police enforcing feelings or the law? Serious question.

[@Geeksvana]

We literally use that line 'legislation not feelings' in our landowner video within this police Q&A series when discussing council policy. Interestingly, outside of a few content creators making videos, this isn't a problem in terms of public complaint etc. People are simply not having these kind of conversations with police in the wild.

[@krzysztofik79]

Isn't interrupting drone operator braking the the law anyway ?

[@Geeksvana]

Hey! Although Article 240 of the ANO would suggest that, drones and a few other types of aircraft are explicitly excluded from protection as an aircraft. Sadly, we need to follow the legislation without getting that protection back.

[@conorstewart2214]

@@Geeksvana that is a protection that we should have, interrupting or distracting someone when they are flying a drone is a safety risk, especially given the requirement to keep the drone in line of sight at all times. It is even worse if it isn’t a DJI style stabilised drone and is instead an FPV drone or similar that requires concentration all the time.

[@Geeksvana]

@conorstewart2214 I agree. Although even in the USA where they do have that protection, it is almost impossible to get authorities to act when some even shoots a drone down.

[@stehume]

So I guess that this is really a nail in the coffin for the likes of DJ edits and other audits channels ?

[@markgc65]

One issue I have with this officer and his comparisson to the road trafic act. Drone batterys last 26 mins you could be half way through a 100% legal flight and you are ordered to land just because the officer can!! Then your flight would be ruined. If you stopped someone going to work and that stop meant they could not then go to work! that would also be an issue! If they "dont need" reasoable grounds to demand you land the drone ! then the law is wrong! and it could be deemed that we are being abused. If you are forced to land and you prove you are legal and there was no real grounds then in my opinion you should be able to claim compensation! Rant over !

[@adcraziness1501]

Yes, I think in the course of their duty they should be able to compel me to land immediately. There may be a situation I am unaware of. I am only flying for recreation.

[@Geeksvana]

Hey! I would pull over if driving a car etc. Although, I have to admit I would have liked to have seen wording in the legislation for the officer to explain.

[@conorstewart2214]

As you partially mention it all depends on circumstance. If there is a valid reason then sure but tell me why. The whole “suspicion” and not having to explain thing is wrong in my opinion or really needs clarified. As for situations you are unaware of, there shouldn’t be many, you should be checking the airspace before you fly on apps or websites, you should be keeping a look and ear out for any other aircraft and you should be aware of what is going on around you and around the drone.

[@adcraziness1501]

@@conorstewart2214 Don't come up to me with a bunch of "should" and "should not" I don't want to heard your self-professed expert opinion on what I should be doing. I know I should "keep an ear out for aircraft" do you think I've never done this before? If a police tells you to land immediately, I don't recommend you stand firm on your assurance you are ok to be there because "you checked B4UFLY" first. You go ahead. Tell them oh no you are informed, you checked a website. There couldn't possibly be a situation that unfolded that your stupid apps and websites didn't update you on. YOU'RE in the LOOP.

[@adcraziness1501]

@@GeeksvanaI don't want to be told "land your drone now" and never find out why. And if I were flying, somehow, a critical mission where lives...were...on the line...? Not sure how I would be doing that with a mini 3 but theoretically if my flight was critical I would have a reason to decline. But seriously I am probably taking pictures of the sunset. If a police tells me to land, as an official action, then I hardly have a reason to not

[@TheBILLANDERSON]

good point at @5:44 what ever legislation codes of practice of PACE 1984 maintained by HS , now Yvette Cooper are maintained under PACE 1984 section 66 and in that a PC must have an "objective basis" @5:44 suspicion & belief , where belief is stronger than (ii)suspicion (i)suspicion can can be of nothing ,,, belief can cast doubt both are "subjective" and under :- Criminal Procedure & Investigation Act 1996 section 22 - Introduction (2) to material are to material of all kinds, and in particular include references to (a) information, and (b) objects of all descriptions. assume nothing "believe" nobody investigate every thing of all areas but when that investigation begins with the premise of "belief " that investigation is now flawed eg Operation Midland ...............(failed to find the "objective basis" required ) stick to the 2 tier system lawfully required whether under "police codes of practice" code A2.2 or code G2.1

[@Geeksvana]

I have recently attended a talk by a criminal investigator who talked in depth about how an investigation is started. He discussed old processes where investigators would follow a hunch. I feel like there are some similarities here.

[@Gkofilms]

Is this two tier drone police

[@johncarold]

Thanks Sean

[@SecretAgentBond]

Reasonable my ass, just another power grab by the police 🖕🏻

[@Danny_Roman.]

The drone world is slowly getting sqeeeeezed again and again. 😢 rules and compliance

[@Geeksvana]

It does feel that way. With evolving technology and more people using that tech, laws will need to evolve and adapt. However, I think we are getting to a more stable place and right now we are able to fly drones in more places with less certification than the previous system. It just doesn't feel that way sometimes.

[@jons9721]

These questions really shouldn't even be asked. If the police make a reasonable request it doesn't matter if its required or not required you do it. Landing a drone is a reasonable request/requirement ,flying a drone into someone is not a reasonable request. If the police have acted unlawfully you deal with it after the incident not during it. Remember the police have unlimited powers with no restrictions when it comes to protecting life and limb and you will not be a position to know if they are doing this. You need an extremely good reason not to obey the police and for most the population that reason will never occur during your life time. It's my right and I don't have to is not a good reason

[@conorstewart2214]

Even your comment all comes down to perspective, what determines whether or not it is a “reasonable request”? Yes you should cooperate where possible but that doesn’t mean just do everything you are told to do. To some people a police officer telling you to follow someone with your drone might seem reasonable, even if you go BVLOS, to others it may be unreasonable, it is all a matter of perspective.

[@jons9721]

@@conorstewart2214 For 99.9% of people in a Western Democracy you are not going to come across a policeman asking you to do something unreasonable. We have gone from only obeying orders is very bad , to only ever obey orders if its authorised in triplicate. Society simply cannot function that way

[@WeeBurnip-lz3fr]

You're not factoring in just how many bent cops abuse the powers they have.

[@SteveG4YTK]

I am a retired officer and I fly my Mini 3 pro. If a police officer approaches you, just be polite and engage in conversation. You will find if you have not done something wrong you will be able to carry on I am sure. They might have just had a phone call from Misses Miggins and they are following that up. Keep the conversation calm and just give over the information they ask for, why should you not give them the information they are asking for. Believe you me treat them how you would like to be treated, the chances are you will never encounter an office. Thanks Saun for your videos

[@Nkkdxn45j]

Bottom line is, do what you are told and follow it up later officially if you don't like it. To a fair extent such interactions are about power, and the officer - rightly or wrongly - is going to try to get control of the situation whether justified or not, and s/he has a lot more power than you to do so. So, don't argue, do what you are told however much you think it might be unjustified, note what gets said, and follow it up later. You would need a really solid reason for non-compliance ("land that drone at once" .... "it's not my drone and I'm not flying it").