Michigan Police Create New Laws to Inhibit Fun

[XLFD]

When a person assumes a position with any sort of authority over a particular place, persons, and/or things they have a duty/responsibility to understand the laws and rules that may apply with that authority.  They need to be not only familiar with those powers and their limitations, but also be cognizant of the rights of the people they interact with, absent any legal authority restricting those rights. 

The following incident happens between park authorities/police and a person out flying his remote controlled plane, taking videos of his friend on a bicycle in one of Michigan's Metro Parks, surrounding the Detroit area, as seen on the map below. 

The authorities consistently tell the man that what he is doing is illegal and against the rules, but the man to his credit asks for the rules or laws that he is supposedly breaking.  Trying to enforce non-existing laws by threatening to arrest a person or confiscating their property is in itself against the law.  Whenever incidences like what is described below happens, the bogus "law enforcers" should be severely disciplined for violating their oath of office, and the laws they are there supposedly to enforce.

“We don’t allow these in the park. It’s a public safety issue.”

MetroParks Police interrupted a beautiful day at Kensington Metro Park in order to threaten Jonathan Hair.

Hair was about to launch his remote-controlled helicopter (also known as an RC Copter, or an unmanned aerial vehicle, UAV, and often referred to derisively as a drone) and film his friend riding a bicycle when two officers approached Hair and said his toy was not allowed in the park.

“If it takes off, hits someone in the head, we’re liable,” said one of the officers. Of course, that argument makes about as much sense as claiming that cars aren’t allowed at the park because the park could be held liable for a car accident.

When asked for a regulation, the second office admitted that the regulation being cited was related to aircraft, of which a model helicopter-sized UAV does not qualify.

When asked again for the law being cited, the officer threw his hands up. Instead of providing lawful authority for his actions, the officer instead called his lieutenant, and demanded that Hair show some ID. Calm as a Zen Master, Jonathan Hair refused to provide ID, as he was not being accused of a crime, and also refused to stop filming when asked, as he was in a public area. After Hair’s casual refusal to bend to routine police intimidation the officer asked where his vehicle was parked, likely in an attempt to ID him and levy some sort of fine. The officer then asked if Hair had paid to get into the park.

Enter MetroParks Lieutenant Jeff Brown, who told Hair that the officers would confiscate his toy RC copter if Hair tried to fly it. Lieutenant Brown also compared the miniscule danger of model aircraft to unleashed dogs, which Brown’s department regulates, albeit with leash laws that are actually on the books.

“You can’t control that all the time, and you can’t tell me that you do,” said the lieutenant, who admitted that there was no rule or regulation preventing people from flying UAVs in the park.

                          (a typical remote controlled airplane with video capability, not a "drone")

Several other government agencies have tried enforcing no-fly laws that don’t really exist, including National Parks Service rangers at the Grand Canyon. In court however, agencies like the MetroParks police are likely to get handed a ruling similar to what the FAA received recently. The FAA tried to shut down UAVs without an actual law to rely on, but without a law, law enforcement agencies have no right to police UAVs. While some cities and states have recently passed laws that prohibit the flying of UAVs, these laws will still run into strong challenges in court, especially when the UAVs are gathering news.

For anyone interested in MetroParks’s policy, Lieutenant Brown suggested calling MetroParks Deputy Director George Phifer at 1-800-477-2757. MetroParks operates several parks in Michigan, and is governed by the Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority [Editor:  see those areas here ].

Finally, hats off to Jonathan Hair, for keeping a calm manner, treating the aggressive officers with kindness, and knowing and protecting his rights.

http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2014/06/13/metroparks-police-thre...

[AQUAMAN]

I don't know how large this park is, but it would seem that they could easily designate a specific area for such RC flyers. Either way, you can bet your sweet bippie that this entire scenario wouldn't have happened in Ludington at all. LPD doesn't debate with citizens on any issues for 10 minutes, nor 5,3, or even 1. I hope this kid doesn't ever come here with the same expectations of a repeat show, cause he's got another thing coming in that case. And it aint gonna be pretty like this one was. I suspect strongly the first two officers were simply park police, not city or county? 

[XLFD]

The problem, of course, was that the flyer was familiar with the rules for the metro park regions (which you can gauge their size in that second to the last link in the thread head), and the park officers weren't.  The first (park) officer tried to push what was an arbitrary restriction, which made it difficult for any subsequent officer to deny them that and allow the first officer to save face. 

Likely the metro park board will someday restrict remote control vehicles in their airspace (official drone vehicles notwithstanding), but until that day, the officers should just allow the folks their fun.  And if they don't like that, they can get in front of the board and tell them why it should be discontinued.

I agree that LPD would forgo any debate on it; they show over and over again that their own rules apply to the public, but not to them, and often are not backed up by written laws or rules.

[wildfire]

Well Metro Parks  are way, way bigger then ludington beach is, n   they always could fly them in their before, like even kites in their  n on the beach , even then big like box kites, n the RC planes all the time before n never had any issues? Wildfire

[XLFD]

 I'd agree, because in Ludington the Director of Recreation (who is the City Manager or his designee) can make up rules on the spot and make them effective for at least 30 days without city council approval (as seen here ).  There is no rule on the books restricting flying kites or 'drones', but some unelected official who hasn't sworn an oath of office can give you a thumbs down whenever he deems.

So if the beach patrol came up to this guy and told him it was against the rules, he could point out there were no rules, but if they sped dial John Shay, he can authorize it at his whim.  This would be one aspect of our city code I would revise promptly.  The rule of law should not be vested in one individual's opinion.

[AQUAMAN]

Section 38-63 reserves the right to make rules on the spot in one individual's opinion? This sounds more like a dictatorship way of governing to me. Quite the find X, thanks. 

[Willy]

That's very interesting that a non elected official can make rules without the consent of the people, Mayor or Council

[AQUAMAN]

I guess we all have to get used to it nowadays Willy. Gestapo-type governing is not only local and statewide, it's a national problem that Obama sets a good example for, and still getting away with it daily. 

[XLFD]

The intention of the section is likely to increase the flexibility of action by the City to protect the park by covering bases that are not adequately addressed in the city charter or the numerous amounts of ordinances and state laws that are in force.  We give that tyrannical authority to a person who has cost the City of Ludington tens of thousands because he decided to bar a citizen from the city hall and police station absent any kind of rational reasoning. 

[Willy]

That section of the code should be ammended. City Manager should be replaced by Mayor. At least then, an elected officials could and should be responsible for these decisions.

[XLFD]

That's an improvement, but I think you should have it also refer only to emergency situations, where a one month delay may negatively affect the health, safety, etc. of the public if you are to keep it on the books. 

BTW, this was part of the city code since before 1984, so we cannot blame the current crowd for this, except that they choose not to amend or repeal it.