Michigan drone operators sue UM over campus ban on flights

Drone operators are fighting for access to the skies over the University of Michigan, where their equipment is prohibited by university officials who say it could interfere with important operations such as emergency helicopter landings.

Success against the university, which attorney Dean Greenblatt described as the "800-pound gorilla," is a strategic one. If drone operators are successful against the university in state court, it would set an important precedent for drone operators' rights, he said.

"The big bully in this story is the University of Michigan," said Greenblatt, who is representing the Michigan Coalition of Drone Operators in the case. "We chose the University of Michigan not only because their ordinance is the most pernicious and offensive, with its 10 day minimum days in jail, but also because they have the resources and the apparent attitude to defy state law as long as it takes. We fully expect that they… will appeal and then we will have our statewide precedent."

The dispute between local drone operators and UM escalated to a hearing Tuesday at the Michigan Court of Claims at the same time drone activity in East Coast cities has raised alarms for residents and state and local officials who fear the devices are being used for nefarious purposes.

Oakland County Sheriff Michael Bouchard penned a letter Monday to Congress asking for it to regulate drones and enforce federal aviation law. Federal officials are collecting reports about the drones and caution people not to be alarmed.

But the case in state court isn't about those mysterious drones. At issue is whether the behemoth university can control drones activity above its sprawling properties, regardless of where drone operators stand.

The Michigan Coalition of Drone Operators sued the Regents of the University of Michigan and Eddie Washington, Jr., UM's Department of Public Safety and Security executive director, in June. The group is arguing the university's ban on drone use over its property is an overreach and not allowed under state and federal law.

UM prohibits drones, officially known as "unmanned aerial vehicles," from operating, taking off or landing on or flying over university property. That includes buildings or land owned or controlled by the university.

The rule makes exception for law enforcement and for operating drones indoors, as long as it is approved by a university official and follows policies laid out in UM's Indoor Operation of Unmanned Aircraft Systems guideline adopted in 2017. Some indoor use also is OK, as is outdoor activity on locations designated for drone use or if drone operators get waivers from university officials.

The university states violations of its drone rules can result in a civil infraction, misdemeanor, fine and/or impoundment of the drone.

During the hearing Tuesday, UM Associate General Counsel Thomas Kent said the university consulted with the Federal Aviation Administration when developing its drone ordinance.

He contended the issue was a matter of "life and death," not simply "everyday safety and privacy" because drones had interfered with safely landing emergency helicopters at University of Michigan Medical Center in Ann Arbor.

What constitutes University of Michigan property is a central issue for the drone operators group fighting the university's policy.

Court of Appeals Judge Brock Swartzle on Tuesday asked Kent to explain the "patchwork" nature of places the university enforces its ordinance. He questioned whether it would apply to Michigan Medicine-operated hospitals in Lansing – to which Kent said no – or the UM Center for Innovation in downtown Detroit – to which Kent also said no.

"It's complicated, it certainly is," Kent said.

Many of Tuesday's arguments centered on whether the university has the authority to regulate drone use on campus, including people operating the devices physically from university property and flying them overhead.

Tom Lambert, one of the attorneys representing drone operators, argued federal and state agencies are allowed to regulate drone use in Michigan, not universities.

In contrast, Kent contended UM has significant constitutional autonomy and can operate without state oversight.

While legislators can regulate "general welfare" issues such as workers compensation, union activity and other labor issues, Kent said UM regents are empowered to set rules for things like crowd surfing, parking, noise and drone use.

Swartzle on Tuesday ordered both sides' attorneys to submit supplemental briefs by Jan. 17 explaining their positions on UM's ability to regulate drone use and what constitutes university property.

The Michigan Coalition of Drone Operators launched the legal fight in June after UM's Department of Public Safety and Security sent a letter to Kara Murphy, of Grand Rapids, threatening to enforce its ordinance if Murphy followed through with a planned drone "fly-in" event in December, 2023, in which operators would convene near UM's Ann Arbor campus and fly their drones over campus.

The event was organized after Murphy, 46, of Grand Rapids, was told by a campus police officer to stop flying her drone over campus in November, 2023. She was physically in the parking lot of a nearby high school and had a clear view of her drone the whole time it was over campus, she said Tuesday.

"The stadium was empty," she said, so there was no temporary flight restriction in place. "I was completely within my right. My feet were planted outside of University of Michigan property."

_____