California cops cuff suspect in deadly drone-assisted drug deal A California man has been charged with using a DJI drone to distribute drugs, which resulted in a fatal overdose. According to the Central District of California DA’s office, on January 17, 2023, Christopher Patrick Laney, 34, also known as "Crany," allegedly used an unregistered DJI FPV drone to transport a packet of fentanyl …
I don't believe FAA radar picked up and traced this drone. The drone probably flew at ~2x rooftop height. For that to happen, their radar beam must have been sweeping peoples' houses, which is a multiple-reason Bad Thing (air search radars are multi-megawatt things).
More likely, the cops had been surveilling a suspected scumbag ["other sensors"], the cops having been clued-in by informant(s)), saw the flight, recorded the details, and when JK died, rolled up both the drug wholesaler and the drug retailer.
But still well-done.
Distribution of drugs resulting in death and possession with intent to distribute would seem sufficient even if you don't have more specific evidence of dealing drugs, I guess you don't have to prove ownership or payment until the sentencing/confiscation of proceeds of crime stage.
But possession of a gun and drone seem like strangely specific laws, even if they were used to facilitate the crime. Is it because those items need to be registered, whereas the shoes the perp wore to facilitate the crime are not regulated items? How about if they were registered? How about phones/cars/houses, all of which should be "registered" in some way?
A virtual pint for anyone who can enlighten me ---->
You ask "How about if they were registered?" - from the short article: a .223 caliber AR-15 semiautomatic rifle, and two 9mm Polymer 80 pistols, ... all three were so-called ghost guns, meaning that they were assembled from unmarked and unregistered parts ... willfully operating an unregistered aircraft in furtherance of a felony narcotics crime, ... possession of firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime
I'll pass on whatever it is you are drinking.
"Is it because those items need to be registered..."
In essence, yes, at least under California law. The same would apply to, for instance, driving an unregistered car in the course of committing a crime. If the driver was also unlicensed, that could be an additional and separate charge.
(Expansion follows, please don't feel obligated.)
The U.S. system of criminal law is explicitly competitive and adversarial. In the broadest sense, the prosecution's goal is to demonstrate that the defendant is guilty of *something*, and the goal of the defense is to demonstrate the defendant's innocence of *everything*. The greater the number of individual accusations, the more opportunities the prosecution has to convince the court of the defendant's guilt on at least one charge, with the bonus of implying gross criminality and humanity by sheer volume of accusations.
(Richelieu's law applies, as do variants of world + dog, drinking from a fire house, and dazzle them with bullshit.)
It's worth noting that in the pretrial phase, the attorneys involved often negotiate which charges will be argued, and the judge will often disqualify spurious accusations or encourage the attorneys to focus exclusively on the substantive components of the case (e g. "Let's leave out discussion of whether the defendant loves their mother or wears unusual shoes").
It's equally worth noting that each successfully argued individual charge can bring a separate penalty, and multiple penalties can be applied either simultaneously (e.g., five years in prison for charge A and two years for change B served simultaneously result in a total of five years served) or consecutively (e.g., five years in prison for charge A and two years for charge B result in seven years). The latter sometimes results in the bizarre notion of e.g., "four consecutive life sentences".
And also, some rare people have a tendency to die multiple times ... like Bill Morgan who just about died 3 times, and won the lottery twice ... and Keith Rosser who died 12 times ... or Leslie Hackwell (in the same 2007 newspiece) who managed to die 32 times!
If they'd been hardened criminals serving multiple consecutive life sentences, those lucky sods could have been out of prison in, literally, a heartbeat! (or a "few" missing heartbeats really ...).
If they'd been hardened criminals serving multiple consecutive life sentences, those lucky sods could have been out of prison in, literally, a heartbeat
Pretty sure the life sentence doesn't end until you've stayed dead for a few hours, not just a few seconds.
You spoilsport killjoy party pooper you! Dashing our yet so diminutive hopes for eluding the inexorable march of the justice system when faced with the most indomitable of condemnations ... Yes, Roberto did it for 8h42m (a world record), but doing so 4 times in a row would be a lot to ask ...
The laws are not really made for folks who only die for a short amount of time, each time, IMHO, it seems. (ahem!)
Guard - All inmates who die while incarcerated must be nailed into a pine box and buried in the prison cemetary.
Inmate - Yes, but I came back to life, that means my time was served and I should be released!
Guard - I don't make the rules, I just enforce them.
"unregistered [x] in commission of a crime"
So if a cop sees you have an "unregistered [x]" then you'll get a squinty eyed look, probably a fine, and a demand to go get it registered. You're given the benefit of the doubt usually, that it wasn't intentional.
However having e.g. an unregistered gun and robbing a bank with it shows the intent of making it easier to commit a crime with it. You didn't just rob that bank with a gun, you bought that gun specifically to rob that bank.
Intent counts for a lot in US law, if they can show it. Intent is the difference between homicide (murder) and manslaughter (oops, I accidentally killed someone) and there are very different penalties for each.
"The latter sometimes results in the bizarre notion of e.g., "four consecutive life sentences"."
I find it more bizarre when sentences are to run concurrently.
It comes down to parole provisions. Each sentence would have to be reviewed for parole qualification and even in 3 of 4 they were granted release on parole, the last one would still be in effect. There's also a matter of one or more charges being reversed or de-criminalized. It won't matter if it turns out that the car was registered, the person remains incarcerated on the other charges. This is why I'm not a fan of charges being dropped where there's solid evidence, body cam footage, etc. If the only charges left are piddly infractions and the fact that the perp led police on a high speed chase and brawled with them at the end isn't on the list.
For the obvious impaired:
Because in California certain people are not supposed to have firearms. That would be convicted felons and people who have been taken recently take into custody under the welfare and institutions code 5150 (threat to themselves and/or others) for 72 psychiatric hold.
Obviously, it’s an attempt to keep the weapons out of the hands of those who should not have it. It’s not 100% effective, but neither are condoms but you don’t not use one on that basis either.
The part where you compare firearms to phones and houses is just dumb. I’m not even going to respond to it.
With respect to firearms and possessing/using them while committing a (felony) crime, it would not matter if they had serial numbers or not, or were registered or not. I believe that in most (all?) US jurisdictions, the mere possession of firearms in connection with felony-level criminal behavior is its own criminal act. In some cases possession of edged weapons in similar circumstances are also counted as a separate criminal act. These may be "strangely specific" but there you go.
For example from one state, Oklahoma laws related to firearms are listed here: <https://www.oklahoma-criminal-defense.com/crimes/gun-laws>, and one of those listed is TITLE 21 § 1287 Use of a Firearm While Committing a Felony which reads in part:
"Possession of a firearm or offensive weapon while committing a felony is a separate felony from the underlying offense, and the penalties associated are additional to any sentence for conviction of the initial felony. A person may be charged with possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony even if the gun is unloaded or if it is an imitation weapon designed to look like a real firearm.
A person can be charged for simply having possession of the weapon during the crime, even if it was not used or displayed to perpetrate the offense. Conviction of possession of a firearm while committing a felony carries a sentence of 2 to 10 years in prison in addition to the sentence levied for the primary offense."
Criminals engaged in certain criminal occupations where they can ply their trade without firearms will often do so in order to avoid the additional charges.
Dinanziame:
knowingly and willfully operating an unregistered aircraft in furtherance of a felony narcotics crimeWeird combination.
Not really.
The implication is that if the aircraft were registered, it would be easier to track the owner's criminal activities.
The reason criminals typically do not obey such laws - including gun registration laws - is because it makes them hard to catch and prosecute them for their crimes. It is literally the primary reason why such items must be registered to begin with.
Both guns and aircraft can come in very handy if your intention is to commit crimes.
"The reason criminals typically do not obey such laws - including gun registration laws - is because it makes them hard to catch and prosecute them for their crimes."
Sort of. Unlike an automobile, with number plates, registering a gun creates no opportunity for police or witnesses to observe a crime and report a serial number for the purpose of tracking. It does create an opportunity to add extra charges once the perpetrator has been apprehended. Or charge additional people as suspects in some (but not all) gun transfer violations.
For a gun serial number to be of any use, one would have to have a suspect in custody already.
"The drone being registered does not make it easier for law enforcement to follow it."
Neither does engraving a number on a firearm. Good firearms are expensive so criminals often steal them or buy them from somebody else that stole them. It's hard to make your own that are worth a damn in the same way that somebody can make a car but there's little chance it's going to drive a couple of hundred thousand miles with only minor issues. It's not RFID. If police recover firearms they often don't get much information from a serial number other than who it was stolen from since it's mainly law abiding citizens that will do things properly. There are the whack jobs that have gone off their meds, but they don't seem to worry that much about being caught or "committing suicide by cop".
Once police recover firearms that are part of a crime, they should be destroyed once that's been established so the tale of that serial number comes to an end. Only the ones that have been swept up and found not to be involved (belong to somebody else living in the home that aren't involved) should be returned. Of course, those serial numbers will have been recorded with details so if later it turns out that other person is a bad guy, they might catch charges for prior crimes.
"The implication is that if the aircraft were registered, it would be easier to track the owner's criminal activities.
The reason criminals typically do not obey such laws - including gun registration laws - is because it makes them hard to catch and prosecute them for their crimes. It is literally the primary reason why such items must be registered to begin with."
This would only be important if the gun(s) or aircraft are confiscated. By law, my drones must have their registration numbers on the outside and they do. From a couple of meters away there is no way to read them. To make the lettering large enough to read from 35m away would mean I'd have to tow a banner. I also have a Remote ID module so my drones are broadcasting information. It's bluetooth and the whole thing is very dodgy, but I'm not going to risk my pilot's license not having them. All of that stuff is easy to not have or switch off but if I were going to do some crimes, I'd spoof the info. I'd put stolen license plates on my stolen getaway car since not having plates would be highly suspicious and draw attention.
The thing with small drones is the sound they make is annoying as hell. I know, I have some and use them at work. Using them to delivery dope isn't that bright. If you keep flying the same routes, people will start to wonder about what's going on. People just messing about don't fly routes and somebody making photos for an estate agent is a not a regular thing in one place. My neighbors know I have drones and I fly around my house from time to time to test things. I also get asked to make photos of roofs and property for my neighbors which I'm happy to do for them. If I were a complete hermit/dirtbag and flying a drone FPV frequently, it would be very suspicious. To legally fly FPV in the US, you need a spotter and fly within line-of-sight so I expect this person was violating flight rules there too. One can get waivers for special circumstances, but why would I guess that wouldn't be the case here?
I suspect one way of tracking and locating this drone was the radio transmissions to and from the drone.
Always thought that was a major flaw in using drones for such covert purposes when they weren't fully autonomous.
I would use a single use drone that could "self destruct" (shades of the original TV series Mission Impossible instruction tapes :) to thwart tracing the hardware.
I would transport the drone with the contraband payload, the navigation and destination instructions preloaded to a non-urban location for the launch. The actual takeoff could be delayed until I had left the vicinity.
After flying to the destination the drone hovers, releases the payload, flies clear and self destructs.
Of course any interference or tampering with said drone would also trigger its destruction.
One alternative I had considered was a balsa, doped fabric skin model glider with a drone powerpack, battery and electric moters with lower rpm, larger plastic propellers(s) - all of which could be quite large with an extremely small radar footprint. Could be rather quiet if slow but the payload could be considerably larger.
Autonomous drone submersibles could also be used where a convenient and adequate body of water was available.
I suppose it might be easier to take up falconry and train a peregrine to deliver the goods. :)
I remember a Russian video from Ukraine in 2022. Can’t remember if the troops made it and posted it themselves, or if it was Russian journalists. Obviously I saw a translation of it. They were filming a drone team in action, near the front line. Suddenly the drone controller swears, as his drone has either been jammed or hacked, and so it’s landed right in the middle of a Ukrainian position.
He’s explaining this, and then says something like, if it’s been hacked it has the GPS coordinates it was launched from. Presumably if you’ve got physical control of it, you just plug a USB cable in and you’ve got access. It was launched from where they were standing. Suddenly everyone’s making a run for it, and not long later their old position is hit by artillery.
From things I’ve read, that wasn’t an uncommon occurrence back at the start of the war. People controlling civilian drones, they’d bought online, from their phones. It was a steep learning curve.
One alternative I had considered was a balsa, doped fabric skin model glider with a drone powerpack, battery and electric moters with lower rpm, larger plastic propellers(s) - all of which could be quite large with an extremely small radar footprint. Could be rather quiet if slow but the payload could be considerably larger.
So basically a balsa V1. Run your engine to get to height (needing only minimal battery cap for what could be quite an extended range), then glide to here. Release payload then destroy yourself (with balsa and doped fabric construction that could be as simple as "set yourself on fire") before you run out of airspace in your glide. Could be easily constructed out of innocent-seeming components but you might have to think some about how to build in its navigation capability so it has higher precision than V1-style "point it at its target and give it only enough fuel to get there". It would put the price of a single-use platform up a bit
Good news! Amazon are delivering your parcel today!
Bad news! We're delivering it by V1.
We're always striving to improve our customer experience - so you can soon look forward to much faster delivery by V2 rocket.
Amazon did consider removing the warheads - but didn't feel like it was worth risking damage to the hardware they found in the back of a warehouse. The Blue Origin delivery rockets will be built without warheads in order to improve delivery weight and to save on costs.
"Always thought that was a major flaw in using drones for such covert purposes when they weren't fully autonomous."
It's possible to do that with fairly off-the-shelf drones. The downside is not verifying that your customer is present and not being supervised by the fuzz when the drone makes a drop. Using a drone for a single use delivery is also expensive and something that's coming right off the top even if buying them used online.
At the cartel level, there can be the management and money to buy the expertise as evidenced by the make-shift subs and other craft they've built. Those people have to move tonnage to make the money they want to make. At much lower levels of the chain are dealers that are likely feeding their own addictions rather than operating as a business so they don't have the means to hire in the sorts of people it would take for fancy programming, self-destruct mechanisms, etc. The dead-drop for them will work much better.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
