View Single Post
Old 09-15-2015, 11:50 AM   #68
kalimus

 
kalimus's Avatar
 
Drives: '14 Z51 3LT Stingray and '13 Cruze
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: US of A
Posts: 1,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTSummit View Post
You don't own the air above your house.
I've been putting cameras on RC planes for years- but NOW people are losing their minds.
That's not exactly true...

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed.../256/case.html

This case was from 1946, and someone already mentioned it briefly. It doesn't really cover civilian aircraft (and it's more of a 5th Amendment issue than a "privacy" issue), but you can be fairly confident that precedent is long established.

A couple of notable snippets:

Quote:
(a) The common law doctrine that ownership of land extends to the periphery of the universe has no place in the modern world. Pp. 328 U. S. 260-261.
Meaning that yes, you do not own the air above your property all the way to the next galaxy. However

Quote:
d) Flights of aircraft over private land which are so low and frequent as to be a direct and immediate interference with the enjoyment and use of the land are as much an appropriation of the use of the land as a more conventional entry upon it. Pp. 328 U. S. 261-262, 328 U. S. 264-267.
Again, this has to do with military aircraft flying too low over the land, but that would be the precedent set.

Since the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff (the owner of the property), it does imply that the airspace above the property WAS owned by the property holder. If not, there would have been no ground for a taking of property lawsuit, and the case would not been ruled in the plaintiff's favor.
__________________
"We have a mental health problem disguised as a gun problem, and a tyranny problem disguised as a security problem."

"What is a moderate interpretation of the text? Halfway between what it really means and what you'd like it to mean?" -Antonin Scalia
kalimus is offline   Reply With Quote