Brendan Schulman, drone-specialist lawyer at Kramer Levin Natfalis & Frankel, said in a tweet after the jury gave its verdict that the prosecution's argument was 'simply anti-technology'. Dave Beesmer had also faced the possibility of being registered as a sex offender - since he had flown his drone by a part of the buliding where patients get changed before being examined. The District Attorney, Thomas Colonna, explained the case by telling the jury: 'Number one, it's about privacy. And number two, it's about technology, and number three, it's about how new-fangled technology can actually really impact and impair someone's privacy.'

Mistake

Mr Beesmer was represented by lawyer Eric Schneider who said that the filming had not been surreptitious - as the video-maker had immediately taken the drone into the building and explained how such films could be used by the organisation for marketing. Mr Beesmer admitted that he had made a mistake in not asking for permission first. 

Highly historical

Mr Schneider said outside the court on the first day of the trial: 'This is the first case in United States history for unlawful surveillance using a drone. That alone is highly historical and important.' Mr Schneiderruns a  litigation boutique operating in civil and criminal cases.

Interviews with privacy commissions

Privacy issues and the approach of national privacy offices are a major them of a new title from The Global Legal Post. Robotics Law Journal includes an interview with the New Zealand and UK privacy commissions in its first two issues. The first issue is out in early July. Sources: Daily Freeman and Robotics Law Journal