A Youtuber calling himself Philly Drone Life – but actually called Michael DiCiurcio – posted numerous videos and live streams which seem to show him breaking FAA rules, and after continuing to break rules the court has finally issued not only an enforcement injunction but a ban on his flying of any and all drones.
The fine is so high because he has committed (and documented) so many separate violations, each incurring a fine, yet only a few weeks ago it seemed he was planning to cooperate with the FAA and court, planning even to get a Part 107 license (which is required in the US for commercial drone operation), and having taken meetings with the FAA – according to his YouTube channel, at least.
That, however, is not how things played out when the civil case (United States of America v. Michael DiCiurcio, Case No. 24-cv-00612) went before a judge on April 24, and the drone community has been taking a few days to digest the meaning of the ruling against Mr DiCiurcio which orders the seizure of drones but states that he, the defendant, is "PROHIBITED from operation of any and all drones".
This, however, is after a lot of legal steps at which DiCiurcio had the opportunity to act differently. Regular drone buyers need not worry about this kind of enforcement action hitting them – if you choose the best beginner drone or something like it and fly, even if something goes a bit wrong and you encounter enforcement, you'll likely be able to cooperate.
That was not how "Mikey" approached the situation – indeed the same video he posted also revealed that he had at some point felt he was part of a kind of rebellion against the rules: "Not to mention what I thought was a big rebel, we were going to change the rules, was like 5 people, you know, it's just not going to work out."
This is the video – recorded before the 'final' court date, which gives some insights into his thinking (and lack of respect to safety worries – he seems to think that because he didn't have an accident causing an injury none was likely).
There are some legal lessons that Michael DiCiurcio's case should teach too – one is to get representation, which it appears he hasn't (or he would not have posted the video!). It is also fair to say that he clearly has a sense of grievance against the structure of the US rules about earning money on YouTube making you commercial (and thus needing a Part 107) which isn't really the same as the safety regulations about not flying beyond visual line of sight and in urban areas.
Given how many times DiCiurcio seems not to have been stopped by the legal action, the question is now – with this very clear wording from the judge – will he risk contempt of the civil court, and, ultimately jail, by flying again?
