In The Villages, Florida, a legal dispute has emerged between local drone operators and the community’s developer over the use of drones to document construction projects. Don Wiley, a Sumter County Commissioner and licensed commercial drone pilot, has been at the center of this controversy. A law firm says Wiley’s use of his drone runs afoul of Florida’s drone law. Wiley vehemently disagrees, citing both legal precedent and his First Amendment rights.
For over six years, Wiley has operated Gold Wingnut Productions, providing aerial footage and analyses of ongoing developments within The Villages. His work, often shared on YouTube, offers residents insights into the community’s expansion and construction progress.
Recently, Wiley and other drone pilots received cease and desist letters from Carlton Fields, the legal representatives of The Villages Holding Company. The letters demanded that drone operators halt flights over construction sites and remove existing videos within 14 days.
The letters cite Florida Statutes Section 934.50, which prohibits drone surveillance of private property without the owner’s written consent when a reasonable expectation of privacy exists. The statute allows legal actions against violators and potentially recover attorney’s fees and other damages, but it has generally been used to prosecute criminal violations involving crimes such as voyeurism, stalking. or harassment.
A 2015 amendment to the Florida Drone Law explicitly gave aggrieved property owners (or tenants, etc.) the right to sue anyone who surveils them by drone in violation of §934.50. In theory, this allows victims to recover damages or get an injunction to stop the drone intrusion. In practice, however, few (if any) civil suits have been filed under this statute in the years since. By late 2022, legal commentators noted that “in the seven years since its enactment, we have been unable to identify a single civil suit brought under it.”
Wiley contends that his aerial documentation serves the public interest by informing residents about developments that impact their community. He asserts that his work should be protected under the First Amendment as a form of news gathering. Several court rulings appear to support Wiley’s contention, although some specifically addressed law enforcement surveillance.
Further complicating the situation, The Villages Daily Sun, the community’s official newspaper, recently began featuring construction updates accompanied by drone imagery. This development has led critics to speculate that the cease-and-desist letters are an attempt to control the narrative and monopolize visual access to construction projects. Wiley expressed his concerns, suggesting that the timing of the legal action coinciding with the newspaper’s new feature indicates an effort to suppress independent documentation.
In an interview with WFTV, Wiley stated, “I live here in The Villages… They’ve built a beautiful community. People want to know what’s happening, what’s coming, and I’m just trying to fill that void.”
Regarding flying drones over private property, Federal Aviation Administration regulations treat drones like any other aircraft, except that they restrict them to a maximum altitude of 400 feet and add additional requirements for their operation in controlled airspace. There is no minimum altitude regulation. Private property owners may choose not to allow drone takeoffs and landings on their property. Still, from an FAA standpoint, property owners have no control over the airspace above their property. It is a federal offense to fire upon a drone or take any other action to obstruct the drone’s flight, just as if it were an airplane or a helicopter.
The legal dispute raises complex questions about the intersection of federal and state regulations. While the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) maintains authority over navigable airspace, Florida’s drone surveillance law provides at least some privacy protections to property owners. This creates a legal gray area where federal and state laws converge, particularly concerning activities conducted for journalistic or public information purposes.
Despite the legal threats, Wiley remains resolute in continuing his work. He has publicly stated his intention to persist in documenting construction projects, emphasizing the importance of transparency and information dissemination within the community. Wiley plans to address the issue further on his YouTube channel, indicating that this legal battle over aerial documentation and information rights is far from over.
The outcome of this dispute could set a precedent for drone operators nationwide, particularly those involved in documenting construction and development in residential areas. It may also prompt courts to more clearly define the boundaries between federal airspace authority and state property protections in the context of evolving drone technology. As this case unfolds, it may well attract attention from legal experts, drone enthusiasts, and advocates for press freedom, all of whom are keen to understand the implications for privacy, property rights, and the public’s right to information.
