This month, we reported that the “no drone zone” sign in Jerome improperly cites a federal law that does not apply and attempts to impose restrictions on people who fly drones within five miles of the Cottonwood Airport.
In fact, there is no such “zone” and under federal law, pilots can fly their drone aircraft almost anywhere in Jerome or Cottonwood, regardless of how close they are to the airport.
Drones are still prohibited from flying in the flight path of aircraft or over the helipad at Verde Valley Medical Center in Cottonwood and prohibited from taking off, landing or crashing in either the Red Rock Secret Mountain Wilderness Area and the Munds Mountain Wilderness Areas north and east of Sedona, respectively, but not from flying over them.
Other than that, according to the Federal Aviation Administration, drones can fly unrestricted in the Verde Valley’s Class G airspace, which extends from the ground up to 700 feet above. Under federal law, recreational drones can fly up to 400 feet.
In our story on May 8, Jerome Police Chief Allen Muma said that the town was aware that local officials are unable to ban drones under federal law, but said the signs were intended to get drone users to follow FAA regulations and avoid looking into people’s houses, not to stop their use altogether.
Muma’s argument would be more reasonable if — and this is a big “if” — the signs read “Follow FAA regulations and please don’t look in people’s houses.”
“Please” because there is no privacy law banning drones from glimpsing inside a home, just as there is no law saying you can’t look into someone’s window when you walk by their house. Voyeurism by any means — camera, binoculars, photography or plain old eyeball — is prohibited by Arizona Revised Statute §13-1424, but the law makes no distinction whether the camera is on a drone or in a voyeur’s hands.
But the signs don’t state any of that. Instead they simply read “No Drone Zone,” which is not a thing.
The signs state that drones are banned within five miles of the Cottonwood Airport, citing 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 107. But that also is untrue.
The Cottonwood Airport did not ban drones and did not ask the town of Jerome to do so. In fact, airport authorities seemed surprised that the signs existed considering they don’t apply.
Similar signs placed on U.S. Forest Service around Sedona at the direction of the Sedona Airport were promptly removed by USFS officials when our news stories revealed that no such ban existed.
While Muma said that the town of Jerome had not ticketed anyone or confiscated anyone’s drones due to those signs, they mislead the public.
When we interviewed Jerome Town Manager Candace Gallagher for this issue, she instead cited Arizona Revised Statute §13-3729, which bans drones near critical facilities, but she misreads the statute.
Per §13-3729, drones cannot be used “… to intentionally photograph or loiter over or near a critical facility in the furtherance of any criminal offense.”
This means that drone pilots can fly right above a critical facility and fly as long as they please, including taking photographs or video of those critical structures if they have no nefarious intent to commit any crime.
So if a pilot is only taking video or photos of the views from Jerome, the statute Gallagher cites does not apply and Jerome has zero authority to prevent such legal flights.
But again, the signs in Jerome don’t cite ARS §13-3729, so Gallagher’s argument is moot. The signs cites 14 CFR Part 107, which does not give the town any authority to ban drones whatsoever.
If Gallagher wanted the town of Jerome to make the claim that §13-3729 allows it to ban drones — even though it doesn’t — then put that on the sign. Yes, it would be just as misleading as claiming 14 CFR Part 107 prohibits drones, which it also doesn’t, but at least gives Gallagher and Jerome the argument, which would be defeated in court should any drone pilot be cited and decide to sue the town.
Just as the USFS recently did, Jerome must also remove the signs. They mislead the public about their rights to fly drones, which are protected by federal law. The continued existence of the misleading signs will only raise questions about other signs, laws and ordinances in Jerome. What other signs are misleading the public in Jerome? Is the speed limit really 25 mph or did town officials just put up a meaningless sign? Is parking really prohibited here or there hoping people don’t park there? Is the red curb really a fire lane or are Jerome officials just painting curbs willy-nilly?
The signs are erroneous and must be removed or correct to reflect what the law actually states.
Christopher Fox Graham
Managing Editor
This month, we reported that the “no drone zone” sign in Jerome improperly cites a federal law that does not apply and attempts to impose restrictions on people who fly drones within five miles of the Cottonwood Airport.
In fact, there is no such “zone” and under federal law, pilots can fly their drone aircraft almost anywhere in Jerome or Cottonwood, regardless of how close they are to the airport.
Drones are still prohibited from flying in the flight path of aircraft or over the helipad at Verde Valley Medical Center in Cottonwood and prohibited from taking off, landing or crashing in either the Red Rock Secret Mountain Wilderness Area and the Munds Mountain Wilderness Areas north and east of Sedona, respectively, but not from flying over them.
Other than that, according to the Federal Aviation Administration, drones can fly unrestricted in the Verde Valley’s Class G airspace, which extends from the ground up to 700 feet above. Under federal law, recreational drones can fly up to 400 feet.
In our story on May 8, Jerome Police Chief Allen Muma said that the town was aware that local officials are unable to ban drones under federal law, but said the signs were intended to get drone users to follow FAA regulations and avoid looking into people’s houses, not to stop their use altogether.
Muma’s argument would be more reasonable if — and this is a big “if” — the signs read “Follow FAA regulations and please don’t look in people’s houses.”
“Please” because there is no privacy law banning drones from glimpsing inside a home, just as there is no law saying you can’t look into someone’s window when you walk by their house. Voyeurism by any means — camera, binoculars, photography or plain old eyeball — is prohibited by Arizona Revised Statute §13-1424, but the law makes no distinction whether the camera is on a drone or in a voyeur’s hands.
But the signs don’t state any of that. Instead they simply read “No Drone Zone,” which is not a thing.
The signs state that drones are banned within five miles of the Cottonwood Airport, citing 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 107. But that also is untrue.
The Cottonwood Airport did not ban drones and did not ask the town of Jerome to do so. In fact, airport authorities seemed surprised that the signs existed considering they don’t apply.
Similar signs placed on U.S. Forest Service around Sedona at the direction of the Sedona Airport were promptly removed by USFS officials when our news stories revealed that no such ban existed.
While Muma said that the town of Jerome had not ticketed anyone or confiscated anyone’s drones due to those signs, they mislead the public.
When we interviewed Jerome Town Manager Candace Gallagher for this issue, she instead cited Arizona Revised Statute §13-3729, which bans drones near critical facilities, but she misreads the statute.
Per §13-3729, drones cannot be used “… to intentionally photograph or loiter over or near a critical facility in the furtherance of any criminal offense.”
This means that drone pilots can fly right above a critical facility and fly as long as they please, including taking photographs or video of those critical structures if they have no nefarious intent to commit any crime.
So if a pilot is only taking video or photos of the views from Jerome, the statute Gallagher cites does not apply and Jerome has zero authority to prevent such legal flights.
But again, the signs in Jerome don’t cite ARS §13-3729, so Gallagher’s argument is moot. The signs cites 14 CFR Part 107, which does not give the town any authority to ban drones whatsoever.
If Gallagher wanted the town of Jerome to make the claim that §13-3729 allows it to ban drones — even though it doesn’t — then put that on the sign. Yes, it would be just as misleading as claiming 14 CFR Part 107 prohibits drones, which it also doesn’t, but at least gives Gallagher and Jerome the argument, which would be defeated in court should any drone pilot be cited and decide to sue the town.
Just as the USFS recently did, Jerome must also remove the signs. They mislead the public about their rights to fly drones, which are protected by federal law. The continued existence of the misleading signs will only raise questions about other signs, laws and ordinances in Jerome. What other signs are misleading the public in Jerome? Is the speed limit really 25 mph or did town officials just put up a meaningless sign? Is parking really prohibited here or there hoping people don’t park there? Is the red curb really a fire lane or are Jerome officials just painting curbs willy-nilly?
The signs are erroneous and must be removed or correct to reflect what the law actually states.
Christopher Fox Graham
Managing Editor
