Washington Officials seek interference charges against media helicopter

[helicopper 1,050]

http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/lakewood/story/974290.html

The Pierce County Sheriff’s Department intends to forward reports to prosecutors after officials said a Seattle television station’s helicopter interfered with the investigation of the slain police officers.

<snip>

Officials called the television station and told it to back off. KING reportedly said they didn’t have to. The helicopter eventually left but returned awhile later. Investigators again told the station it was interfering.

[dadbo46 50]

A couple of Hellfighter missles in the police heilo should take care of the problem.

Idiots.

[abaduck 123]

I'm not defending the news crew but... Chris, you should be able to answer this: airspace is emphatically NOT in the jurisdiction of the Sheriff, correct? If I recall correctly the FAA are likely to slap down anyone infringing on their jurisdiction. The correct approach, if you have a problem, is to ask the FAA to restrict the airspace - issue a TFR, NOTAM it?

[SageVigiles 1,194]

Thats a good question, Chris, what authority to PD Aviation units have to close airspace, if any? How is it done if they don't?

[helicopper 1,050]

Thats a good question, Chris, what authority to PD Aviation units have to close airspace, if any? How is it done if they don't?

No police agency (aviation or otherwise) has the authority to close or restrict airspace. The Federal government retains exclusive control over all airspace; this is to prevent a complicated maze of different rules in different places (you know, like things are here on the ground in NY).

All the Sheriff's Office had to do was request a Temporary Flight Restriction (TFR) be issued by the FAA for the airspace over the area in question. Apparently, they did not do that initially or it wasn't issued during the timeframe that this all transpired. Abaduck is absolutely correct, a NOTAM could have been issued in just a couple of minutes announcing the TFR.

That notwithstanding, a reasonable person would probably have heeded the first request to move out of the area and not have to be told three different times to move off.

What I don't understand is, given the sophistication of the ENG equipment on most media helicopters, they could have gotten the footage they needed from a substantial distance away. I don't get the "we don't have to" nonsense; they have to work with the SO on a regular basis and this is not going to endear them to area law enforcement.

[abaduck 123]

Thanks Chris, I thought I was correct. The other aspect of this, to which I alluded, is that the FAA are unlikely to PERMIT the Sheriff to investigate this, or press interference charges - for precisely the reason you stated; if the FAA allowed such, it would allow local LE to use local laws to implement de facto unofficial no-fly zones, going right up against FAA jurisdiction and procedures.

(Still doesn't make the news station any less dumb; no shot is worth jeopardizing your relationship with your local LEOs!)

[Guest Flyboy92]

While I agree with abaduck, those are the more proper procedures, I think that news helo's are getting a bit too close to the action these days, just to get that "perfect" shot and clearly from the Emergency Services side, they think its an interference and it quite probably is.

[helicopper 1,050]

Thanks Chris, I thought I was correct. The other aspect of this, to which I alluded, is that the FAA are unlikely to PERMIT the Sheriff to investigate this, or press interference charges - for precisely the reason you stated; if the FAA allowed such, it would allow local LE to use local laws to implement de facto unofficial no-fly zones, going right up against FAA jurisdiction and procedures.

(Still doesn't make the news station any less dumb; no shot is worth jeopardizing your relationship with your local LEOs!)

The Sheriff's Office may be able to pursue state charges of interference (assuming that is a state charge in WA) because they communicated directly with the news station and the station ignored their request to move off, and actually told them they "didn't have to". Had this been a camera crew on the ground who was ordered to move out of a crime scene to protect the integrity of the operations and they refused, they could be arrested. Just because the crew was in the air may not negate the validity of such a charge.

The fact that there wasn't a TFR may be a defense for the crew but they were told three times that they were interfering. I think they'll find a lot of people who will agree that they should have just backed off. In my experience, and from what I've learned from many others, most ENG aircraft are extremely cooperative and work closely with their law enforcement counterparts. I don't understand why this went the way it did.

It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.

[ny10570 745]

To play devils advocate, what if the news helicopter was flying what is traditionally far enough away but PD was being more aggressive than usual due to the sensitive nature of this case. TFRs are simple enough to obtain and the news copters were within their right to be there.

[gamewell45 258]

It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.

If charges are preferred, the station will no doubt hire high-powered attorney's and they'll deal with it in a court of law. In the meantime, they got the story material they wanted at the time they wanted it and in the news business thats all that counts.

I agree that it will be interesting nonetheless to see how it does play out.

[ajsbear 11]

It will also be interesting to see what if any future cooperation that news station gets from local law enforcement in the future.

[gamewell45 258]

It will also be interesting to see what if any future cooperation that news station gets from local law enforcement in the future.

I'm sure the rift will heal in a short amount of time as its in the best interests of the police & media to work together.