Common law has answered that question for hundreds of years without need for a statutory definition - but changing times can change the result - see, Causby. Statutory definitions can be helpful, but the common law fills in the gaps and is just as legally binding.
No, 6-3-303 only says "land" or 'premises", it does not say air(air above or air space)
No, 6-3-303 only says "land" or 'premises", it does not say air(air above or air space)
Interesting but not relavent to these discussions. Common crimes were a specific set of "violations". The common law still fills in the definitional gaps for all statutes, criminal or not.
Look at 10-4-302
I'm talking about wording in specific statute. I've seen Title 10. Not sure where the disconnect is here, but this will play out in Rawlins and that's good enough.
Say that again?
Well, I appreciate the answer, but that really stinks. I hate that so many publicly owned lands are not accessible to the people who (supposedly) own them.
I don't think that is true in "sparsely populated areas," where there are no altitude restrictions. You do, however, need to stay 500' from people, vehicles, and structures. I don't think private land is ever mentioned. I don't know the actual Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR), but this website is consistent with what I remember. https://pilotteacher.com/how-low-can-aircraft-legally-fly-how-the-neighbors-get-annoyed/
You may have misread what I said, but yes, UAVs are generally limited to below 400' AGL.
Only in MT. We are blessed with the Eastern intellectuals.But they ARE considered targets (unlike MAVs). No?
Yes - two separate legal regimes that collided in 1945 - SCOTUS then made airspace regulation dominant over these traditional property rights as a first diminution of the ancient "to the heavens" approach. In doing so they provided some general guidance as to how the prior unlimited property right was in fact going to be reigned in. The 500 ft rule served a particular purpose. If/when drones become economically important I have no doubts that elevation will be further lowered. And if society ever takes seriously the public property rights we all share they will end the debate altogether. Laws change when there is a reason, and not before. Airplanes were a reason, drones will be a reason, public interest in public lands could be a reason. While each is different, the prior cases are instructive as to where the future cases will be going.
I know zero about their specific situations, but in theory, defendants can agree to shared and joint representation in most courts (I don't know if WY has some special rule to the contrary)
