3D Robotics

3689606080?profile=originalFrom the NY Daily News:

They’re private eyes in the skies.

Investigators are taking drones to new heights — using the remote-controlled aircraft to catch New Yorkers cheating on spouses, lying about disabilities and endangering their kids.

“People want you to believe there’s all this negativity associated with drones . . . but they could be a very helpful tool,” said Olwyn Triggs, a gumshoe for 23 years and president of Professional Investigators Network Inc. in Glen Cove, LI.

Triggs recently used a drone to find an upstate man suspected of insurance fraud. Signs on his rural property warned that trespassers would be shot, so she sent in her 2-pound, foot-long Phantom 2 Vision quadcopter, which costs about $1,000.

“He was supposedly fully disabled,” she said. “We knew he was active but couldn’t prove it because of the layout of the property. I couldn’t risk being shot.”

So, as a drone hovered above, snapping images of the man chopping wood, Triggs manned the controls from behind a vehicle about 1,000 feet away.

“You need to think outside the box when someone’s acutely aware,” she said, adding the fraudster pretended to walk with a cane. “That’s when you’ll consider using a drone.”

Still, the legality of piloting drones is a gray area.

The Federal Aviation Administration deems it illegal to fly them for commercial use, including film and television.

But since a federal judge dismissed a $10,000 fine against a commercial drone user in March, many businesses are going ahead and flying them anyway.

“A lot of PIs bought drones [after the ruling],” Triggs said. “But before you use a drone, you’re calling everyone you know just to be sure.”

PIs are also using drones to catch cheating spouses.

Matthew Seifer recently pretended to test-fly a drone in Central Park. He was actually recording a husband fooling around with a female coworker from 100 feet away.

“Sometimes the best thing is to be right there in plain sight,” said Seifer, president of Long Island- based Executive Investigations.

“We had to get in and get out real quick,” he added. “We deployed a drone for eight minutes and got five minutes’ worth of video. That was the closure our client was looking for.”

Seifer operates several Phantom models, including the Phantom 2 Vision, and said drones are a “selling point” for clients.


Firms like his are charging double for their use — hiking the hourly rate from $47 to $97.

In another recent case, Seifer was having trouble tailing a fast-driving Long Island doctor suspected of hanky-panky. So the PI parked behind a steakhouse where the doc had taken a lover.

“We raised the drone above the restaurant, [and] he was engaged in a sexual act in the front seat of his car,” the investigator said.

“[Drones] get us those types of money shots.”

Drones have also been used in custody battles.

This year, Seifer’s team sent a drone to Sheepshead Bay to record a dad drinking and partying on a boat with his kids.

The PI snapped the boat’s serial number and images of the kids, who were not wearing life jackets, from more than 300 yards away.

Seifer’s footage has also busted criminals.

He recently helped a homeowner in another state file an insurance claim against tenants accused of running a dogfighting ring.

“We couldn’t get access to the back of the house through regular means,” Seifer said. “We utilized the drone to get evidentiary video of doghouses, chains and certain individuals.”

He turned over footage to authorities, and four people were arrested. The tenant lost his lease.

“Clients are amazed,” Seifer said. “The drones are a game changer.”

E-mail me when people leave their comments –

You need to be a member of diydrones to add comments!

Join diydrones

Comments

  • *guaranteed

  • I absolutely agree that we should not fly in a way that antagonizes people.  I just find that people often think that they have more privacy than they are legally gauranteed, and that their love of the 4th Ammendment starts to infringe on our protections afforded under the 1st Ammendment.

  • I agree BacklashRC...but why give them the ammunition they need to restrict our sport? And I did say they where guidelines. Yes I did say rules as soon some are to come out! However AC 91-57 Dated June 9, 1981 is a guideline from the FAA that modelers have obeyed for 33 years so that more strict and possibly laws do not get forced upon our sport!

  • Rick,

    The FAA is unlikely to promulgate regulations meant to protect privacy.  Their mission is safety.  They will leave privacy concerns to the individual states.

    What you refer to as FAA rules and guidelines are actually just suggestions.  The FAA has no official regulations governing model aircraft and has been prohibited by Congress from developing any.  Of course, recently they are doing their best to work around the Congressional prohibition.

  • I guess I should add that this is an ACT in the Texas legislation that has been passed and signed into law! This is the state that I live in and must follow their rules! I foresee the FAA doing something like this as well when all said and done. So you people that are doing this type of stuff are making it harder for those of us that follow rules and guidelines! Next your going to say what rules and guidelines...The FAA guidelines for RC ircraft states that model aircraft flights should be kept below 400 feet above ground level (AGL), should be flown a sufficient distance from populated areas.

    A SUFFICIENT distance from populated areas....hmm does that mean above someone's house or am I confused as to what a populated area is?

  • *challenged ;0

  • Rick,

    The legislation that you quote is from Texas, which means that it is not applicable on the east coast.  I should also mention that a number of civil liberties attorneys have argued that the Texas law will likely be struck down as unconstitutional if challanged in court.

  • sorry I didn't copy that last word. So here is some more from that section.

    surveillance.

    (b)AAAn offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor.

    (c)AAIt is an exception to the application of this section

    that the image was captured:

    (1)AAwith the consent of the individual captured in the

    image and the individual who owns or lawfully occupies the real

    property captured in the image;

    (2)AApursuant to a valid search or arrest warrant;

    (3)AAby a law enforcement authority or a person who is

    under contract with or otherwise acting under the direction or on

    behalf of a law enforcement authority

  • You asked Pedals2paddles..

    Sec.A423.003.AAOFFENSE: ILLEGAL USE OF UNMANNED VEHICLE OR

    UNMANNED AIRCRAFT TO CAPTURE IMAGE. (a) A person commits an

    offense if the person uses an unmanned vehicle or unmanned aircraft

    to capture an image of:

    (1)AAan individual or privately owned real property in

    this state with the intent to conduct surveillance on the

    individual or property captured in the image; or

    (2)AAreal property in this state, on which a primary or

    secondary school or a licensed child-care facility is operated or

    an individual located on that property, with the intent to conduct

  • That is correct.  The area in question was obscured from sight when viewed from public property adjacent to the private property.  It does not matter if it is because the house is in the way, a tree, a fence, etc...

    There is an alternative.  The public space above the property is a legal vantage point for photography/videography.  The shot would be illegal if he was chopping wood in his closed shed, and the PI circumvented that privacy, but that is not the case.  The property owner was apparently cutting wood in the open air, plainly visible from above.

    The case that sets this precedent is Florida v. Riley.

This reply was deleted.