Man agrees to pay $5,000 federal fine for flying a drone near the Marathon finish line
The US Attorney's office last week charged a man with violating national defense airspace for allegedly sending up a drone near the Boston Marathon finish line on April 15 - but also filed an agreement to drop the charge after a year in exchange for a $5,000 fine - and for the government to keep the drone.
Allan Nip, 30, had face a potential sentence of up to a year in federal prison if convicted on the misdemeanor charge. The agreement must still be approved by a magistrate judge in US District Court in Boston.
The Marathon is now considered a national-defense event, in which the Defense Department sends in experts in everything from explosives to radiation to help guard the route, and for which private drones are banned along the route.
According to an "information" filed in US District Court last week, Nip allegedly:
[D]id knowingly and willfully, and without lawful authority, operate an unmanned aircraft system, to wit a DJI Mavic 3 with Serial Number 1581F45T7227B00SU049, within restricted National Defense Airspace, to wit within an area subject to a Temporary Flight Restriction prohibiting unmanned aircraft system operations near the finish line of the 128th Boston Marathon as set forth in Notice To Air Missions 4/8918.
According to the agreement Nip signed, the FBI seized the drone on Marathon Day. The agreement calls on him to surrender the drone's controller to the FBI.
Ad:
Comments
Depending on this guy’s wallet….
… and what he gained financially from the video, this might just be like paying off a speeding ticket for him.
Definitely worth prosecuting, in any case.
If he agreed to the $5K fine
He has the money to buy another drone.
Remember, kids: If you're rich, you get to do crime and maybe be President.
$2K in 1989 dollars
5K ain't what it used to be.
Median household income for Suffolk Country now is $80K+
So not a bankrupting fine. Seems lenient enough. Guy probably didn't know.
Didn't know?
Perhaps. Should have known - um, yeah. Dumbass move.
Why should we care about 1989? Dude wasn't even born then.
"Why should we care about 1989?"
Found the Swift hater.
Should have known, but...
Should have known, but I don't think there are any real restrictions placed on purchasing drones. I know a guy who got one recently and was all "woohoo!" until a bunch of his friends told him about some of the no-nos associated with drone operation.
If he has an FAA Remote Pilot License
it should be revoked or at least suspended for at least a year.
Why does the FBI want the
Why does the FBI want the drone and the controller: Is it going in the FBI museum?
Deterrent, maybe?
If the guy gets a small fine and gets his drone back, that's not much of a deterrent.
Because it’s not a car.
And he didn’t kill or maim anyone.
Sounds kinda bullshit
There are a lot of ways to use a drone irresponsibly (flying over crowds, etc.) but getting charged with violating "National Defense Airspace" for flying near a sporting event sounds... yeah, kinda bullshit.
That might fly...
...if there wasn't a certain history around this particular sporting event.
For that matter, I expect that major sporting events have a lot more security around them that the casual observer is aware of.
Sure, heightened security, I agree.
But that phrase, "National Defense Airspace"? Nah, doesn't fly with me.
Call your Congressman, I suppose
"national defense" is the wording from the federal law that outlines sovereign control of US airspace, 49 U.S. Code § 40103