Communicating with Sugarman Rogers through this website does not create an attorney-client relationship with the firm or any of our attorneys. Our decision as to whether and on what terms we may agree to represent a client involves consideration of a variety of factors, discussion with the prospective client, and, where appropriate, a written engagement agreement.
Please do not use this form of communication to transmit any private, personally identifying, or other confidential information. We cannot guarantee the confidentiality or security of this means of communication.
June 14, 2024
![]() |
Flying a drone over land and separately entering another’s property to shoot video insufficient to support a harassment order |
Date: June 14, 2024 |
Legal Update |
Tristan P. Colangelo |
Related Services: Domestic Relations & Probate Litigation, Appellate Practice |
In one of the first appellate cases where the plaintiff claims to have been harassed by the defendant’s use of a drone, the Appeals Court has held that drone use and videotaping of property, while “nettlesome” and perhaps “disruptive,” could not justify the issuance of a harassment prevention order under G.L. c. 258E. The case, F.W.T. v. F.T., 2017-P-790, clarifies that typical drone use, such as flying it over another’s property and videotaping property is an insufficient legal basis to obtain a harassment prevention order. In vacating the Trial Court order against the defendant, the Appeals Court left open the question whether a drone could be used in a more intrusive manner that would satisfy the statutory requirements. The standard used to evaluate applications for harassment orders under c. 258E is well established under Massachusetts law. The plaintiff must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed three or more acts of “willful and malicious conduct aimed at a specific person” and that were intended to “cause fear, intimidation, abuse or damage to property.” See G.L. c. 258E, § 1. The plaintiff must only demonstrate that the acts subjectively caused the plaintiff fear, intimidation, abuse, or damage to property and the court is permitted to draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence supplied. In F.W.T. v. F.T., the plaintiff (defendant’s son) claimed that F.T. or an employee at F.T.’s direction flew a drone over plaintiff’s property on three occasions, once in the line of sight of a contractor who was operating heavy machinery, and entered the plaintiff’s land on two occasions to shoot video of the property. Even though the parties had an extensive history of litigation between them, the Appeals Court was unpersuaded that simply flying a drone over land, even if flown within the line of sight of a contractor, constituted harassment as defined by Chapter 258E. The court acknowledged that the conduct was “nettlesome” and “disruptive,” but held that the harassment standard requires more than simply demonstrating that someone’s conduct aggravated another. It requires malicious or willful intent to cause fear, intimidation, abuse, or damage to property. The Appeals Court decision clarifies three points regarding harassment prevention orders:
|
Related People |
|||
![]() Tristan P. ColangeloCounsel617.227.3030[email protected] |