The Kentucky man whose drone was shot down by his neighbor last year has now filed a federal lawsuit , asking the court to make a legal determination as to whether his drone’s July 2015 flight constituted trespass. In the case, plaintiff David Boggs also wants the court to rule that he is entitled to damages of $1,500 for his destroyed drone.

"The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty over airspace of the United States pursuant to 49 U.S.C.A. § 40103," Boggs' lawyer, James Mackler, wrote in the civil complaint. "The airspace, therefore, is not subject to private ownership nor can the flight of an aircraft within the navigable airspace of the United States constitute a trespass."

The shooter, William Merideth, who has dubbed himself the "Drone Slayer," was cleared on state criminal charges in October 2015. Merideth claimed that the drone had flown over his property in July 2015 and he shot it down, saying that he had previously spotted similar drones above or very close to his home in Hillview, Ky. In text messages exchanged with Ars, Merideth said he had yet to be formally served with the lawsuit, which was filed in federal court in Louisville on Monday. "I will say that a lot of lawyers from DC have been begging me to sue everyone involved in this, and I was happy to let it go away," he wrote. "If and when I'm served we will move forward and let the courts decide who is telling the truth or covering up."

For his part, Boggs previously gave Ars footage showing that the drone was well over 200 feet in the air before it was shot down. Currently, American law is not clear as to what would in fact constitute aerial trespass or even if such a concept is legally recognized.

Boggs’ lawyer, James Mackler—himself a veteran military helicopter pilot—told Ars he hopes that the court rules broadly and not just in the narrow circumstances in this case. Ideally, he wants the court to find that Boggs’ flight of his DJI Phantom 3 did not constitute a trespass and that his client is indeed owed money for the destruction of the drone. "Property owners deserve to be free from harassment and invasion of their privacy," he said in a statement sent to Ars. "Likewise, aircraft operators need to know the boundaries in which they can legally operate without risk of being shot down. This lawsuit will give clarity to everyone."

Ad coelum et ad inferos

As the consumer drone age has taken flight, legal scholars have wondered about this exact situation. If a drone flies over private property, is it trespassing? The short answer is that American courts have not addressed the question adequately. The best case-law on the issue dates back to 1946, long before inexpensive consumer drones were technically feasible. That year, the Supreme Court ruled in a case known as United States v. Causby that a farmer in North Carolina could assert property rights up to 83 feet in the air.

In that case, American military aircraft were flying above his farm, disturbing his sleep and upsetting his chickens. As such, the court found he was owed compensation. However, the same decision also specifically mentioned a "minimum safe altitude of flight" at 500 feet—leaving the zone between 83 and 500 feet as a legal gray area. "The landowner owns at least as much of the space above the ground as he can occupy or use in connection with the land," the court concluded.

Meanwhile, more recently, the Federal Aviation Administration told Ars that it is in charge of all airspace, period. "The FAA is responsible for the safety and management of US airspace from the ground up," Les Dorr, an FAA spokesman told Ars in a statement last year.

Ryan Calo , a law professor at the University of Washington, has noted the original English common law concept of "ad coelum et ad inferos"—to the heavens and to hell—meaning that a property owner controls everything above and below his land. (This legal tradition is largely where oil and gas law originates in the United States, contrary to practices in much of Europe.) But ownership of the skies remains questionable. "I have a drone and I fly it up above my trees in my backyard—I feel like that’s an area above my trees that I control," Calo told Ars on Tuesday evening. He also was skeptical as to the FAA’s claim that it is responsible for all things that fly.

"If I throw a paper airplane at you and it hits you in the eye, you don’t get to say, ‘Only the FAA can do this,’" he said.

Brendan Schulman, the top lawyer for the world's largest drone manufacturer, DJI, told Ars that if drones are being treated increasingly like aircraft—particularly given recent US registration requirements—then that should extend to being shot at as well. "If that is the correct way to think about [drones], then they ought to be afforded the same legal protections as manned aircraft when they are being operated, including protection from gunfire and crew protection from interference under FAA regulations," he said in an e-mail.