IANAL but mens rea is a serious consideration here. A prosecutor would have to prove that you have knowingly and wilfully committed the crime in order to be convicted, so unmarked cars are in practice out of scope.

I think the main implication is that you won't be able to use any drone recordings for legal action against ICE unless you can prove that you recorded from further than 3,000 feet (one hell of a camera) or that you did it "accidentally", e.g. I was just filming my friends and ICE agents suddenly busted out of an unmarked car that happened to be within the frame. Even then, you'd have to stop recording pretty soon because at that point they could argue that it becomes wilful recording.

▲

smallmancontrov 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

No, the point isn't just to stop legal action against ICE, it's also to go after anyone who posts drone footage that goes viral.

Party of free speech, btw.

	▲	gzread 21 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		We should make a website outside the US for posting drone footage of ICE anonymously.
	▲	youknownothing 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		yeah, that too, good point.

▲

light_hue_1 17 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Not how rules work.

First they can shoot down your drone. Second they can ban you from ever flying one again. All without any criminal prosection.

To prosecute you, it is not willfully and knowingly. It is willfully or knowingly.

If you expect there to be ice and put your drone in a spot where it will film them, well you didn't know. But it was willful.

	▲	fc417fc802 11 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> First they can shoot down your drone. So treat them as disposable. > Second they can ban you from ever flying one again. Thankfully I can purchase them at Costco last I checked. Good luck with that. The correct answer here is to relentlessly use drones to film them in such a way that it isn't obvious who is doing it. Anyway the idea that the FAA can have any jurisdiction so near ground level outside of regional airports is a blatant overreach that tramples state's rights and is almost certainly unconstitutional. The problem is that as with so many other areas (such as for example drug laws) the states seem entirely unwilling to take the federal government to task. Texas famously backed down regarding the TSA and we're all worse off for it IMO.

▲

Braxton1980 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

> A prosecutor would have to prove that you have knowingly and wilfully committed the crime in order to be convicted

Why can't I just say "I didn't know I was speeding, prove I did it wilfully"

	▲	ocdtrekkie 33 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Strict liability is only permitted for minor violations, like a citation or fine. If you make it up to misdemeanor speeding, it's no longer reasonable to claim you weren't aware you were speeding.