NC · jury_instructions

N.C.P.I.—Civil 800.80

INVASION OF PRIVACY—USE OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM— SURVEILLANCE

activein force · 2024-03-01 – presentas-observed

The (state number) issue reads:

“Did the defendant use an unmanned aircraft system to conduct

surveillance of the [plaintiff] [a dwelling occupied by the plaintiff and the

dwelling’s curtilage] [the private real property of the plaintiff] without the

plaintiff’s consent?”

On this issue the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. This mean that the

plaintiff must prove, by the greater weight of the evidence, three things:

First, that the defendant used an unmanned aircraft system. [An

unmanned aircraft system is an aircraft that is operated without the possibility

of human intervention from within or on the aircraft as well as its associated

elements. These elements include communication links and components that

control the unmanned aircraft that are required for the pilot in command to

operate safely and efficiently in the national airspace system.]1 [A drone is an

unmanned aircraft system].

Second, that the defendant used an unmanned aircraft system to

conduct surveillance2 of [the plaintiff] [a dwelling occupied by the plaintiff and

the dwelling’s curtilage] [the private real property of the plaintiff].

Third, that the surveillance by the defendant was without the consent of

[the plaintiff] [the owner of the real property] [the easement holder of the

real property] [the lessee of the real property].

Finally, as to this (state number) issue on which the plaintiff has the

burden of proof, if you find, by the greater weight of the evidence, that the

defendant used an unmanned aircraft system to conduct surveillance of the

[plaintiff] [a dwelling occupied by the plaintiff and the dwelling’s curtilage]

[the private real property of the plaintiff] without the consent of [the plaintiff]

[the owner of the real property] [the easement holder of the real property]

[the lessee of the real property], then it would be your duty to answer this

issue “Yes” in favor of the plaintiff.

If, on the other hand, you fail to so find, then it would be your duty to

answer this issue “No” in favor of the defendant.

History

N.C.P.I.—Civil 800.80 (March 2024). N.C.G.S. § 15A-300.1. Prepared by the North Carolina Conference of Superior Court Judges' Committee on Pattern Jury Instructions, assisted by the UNC School of Government; published by the School of Government.

Provenance

Source: sog.unc.edu
Retrieved: 2026-09-24
Edition: 2026-09-24
Content hash: 92af1ccd52117ac26f0d90dfda47f24842d99542ea7be65f7ce575ed7f49e70c

View the official source →

The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.

Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.

Coverage · API docs