> Manned aircraft, even quite low-flying ones, are not trespassers — at least so long as they comply with FAA rules on overflights, which usually means 500 feet or higher. Helicopters can go even lower without trespassing so long as they are operating in a safe manner. As a result, unless the drone is quite low, there may not be an actionable trespass at all. And if there is no trespass there may be no intrusion justifying self-help.
I'm fairly certain that drones don't qualify as manned aircraft. ;)
Moreover, my understanding is that there's a big gap in case-law concerning drone use. It's really a shame that this trigger-happy hick didn't take the drone case to court, as he might have made a meaningful contribution to the U.S. justice system by doing so.
Yes, the legal status of drones is unclear. And there's not much case law. This should have been a clear case, given that the downed drone was reportedly never over the neighbor's property.
But maybe the trigger-happy family appreciated this fact, and just wanted to make a statement. I certainly don't like the idea of being surveilled. And it's not just cameras. Drones can easily carry compact equipment for LAN hacking[0] or exfiltrating key material.[1] But for those applications, one would need to land the drone in a suitable location.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014...
Edit: Nolo has a page about the issue: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-do-when-your-nei...