The Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") issued administrative subpoenas to 19-year-old drone hobbyist Austin Haughwout and his father, Bret Haughwout, in connection with the agency's investigation into two YouTube videos depicting "weaponized drones" (one drone carrying a handgun and the other a flamethrower) in wooded areas hovering several feet above the ground. The subpoenas required the Haughwouts to provide deposition testimony and documents related to the use of the drones and the YouTube videos. After the Haughwouts refused to comply with the subpoenas, the FAA commenced an action to enforce the subpoenas.
Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 46101(a)(2), the FAA is authorized to conduct an investigation when a "reasonable ground appears" to believe that a person is violating an FAA regulation or regarding "any question that may arise" under the FAA's regulations. The FAA is authorized to issue subpoenas as part of its investigations. Pursuant to its authority to regulate the flight of aircraft, the FAA has promulgated a regulation that states "[n]o person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless matter so as to endanger the life or property of another."
Refusing to comply with the subpoenas, the Haughwouts asserted that the at-issue drones were not subject to the FAA's regulations. If the drones fall under the definition of "aircraft," the Haughwouts argued, the FAA's authority absurdly could extend to any "flying" airborne object including "baseballs, pizza dough, and children's propeller-driven toys."
The court granted the FAA's petition to enforce the subpoenas, noting that the FAA did not have to resolve issues regarding its regulatory authority before issuing the subpoenas because the FAA has a legitimate purpose in investigating the operation of the drones. The court, however, opined that if this was a penalty enforcement action against the Haughwouts, they may have raised "substantial questions about the scope of the FAA's regulatory enforcement authority" with regard to an individual's operation of an airborne object on his/her property. Huerta v. Haughwout, 2016 WL 3919799 (D. Conn. July 18, 2016).
Federal Court Grants FAA's Petition to Enforce an Administrative Subpoena to Investigate
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.