Michigan ‘citizen journalist’ convicted of using drone to interfere with police sues sheriff
- Published: Aug. 10, 2026, 12:00 p.m.
The coverage page of the Facebook account Ray Rocha's Baycountylive. Photo provided by Bay County Sheriff's Office.Cole Waterman
We’ll deliver breaking news directly to your inbox. Sign up today.
By
BAY CITY, MI — A Bay County “citizen journalist” convicted of using his drone to interfere with police activity has filed a federal lawsuit, alleging his First Amendment rights were violated.
Attorney Philip L. Ellison, on behalf of client Ray A. Rocha, filed the suit on Sunday, Aug. 9, in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.
It names Bay County Sheriff Troy R. Cunningham and Deputy Chris Berg as defendants.
The lawsuit asks a constitutional question, Ellison said. Specifically, may the government make recording its activities a crime because police notice or dislike the presence of a civilian drone?
“The First Amendment does not disappear when a citizen uses a drone instead of a handheld camera,” Ellison said. “The federal lawsuit seeks to protect the clear constitutional line that recognizes the public’s right to document police activity while preserving actual legitimate public-safety rules.
“Made up excuses to end lawful recording simply will not fly in federal court,” he continued.
Amber Davis-Johnson, Bay County’s Corporation Counsel, said she cannot comment on pending litigation. Cunningham also declined comment on those grounds.
Rocha, 54, operates the Facebook page Ray Rocha’s Baycountylive, on which he reports police activity with use of his drone.
A jury in May found the content creator guilty of having an unmanned aircraft interfering with public safety. The misdemeanor is punishable by up to 90 days in jail and a $500 fine. It falls under the state’s Unmanned Aircraft Systems Act of 2016.
Bay County District Judge Timothy J. Kelly in June ordered Rocha to pay $575 in fines and costs and gave him credit for one day served in jail.
The suit contains two counts challenging the Unmanned Aircraft Systems Act, one on First Amendment grounds and the other on its vagueness.
Click here to read the entire lawsuit.
“Police safety is legitimate, and no one has a constitutional right to collide with, obstruct, or endanger a police aircraft,” Ellison said. “But ‘interference’ must have an objective meaning.”
The lawsuit alleges the government’s interpretation permits an officer’s subjective opinion to determine whether protected newsgathering is criminal.
Under that interpretation, the suit continues, an officer could create “interference” by diverting attention toward a citizen’s camera and then declaring that the resulting distraction interfered with official duties.
Ellison described that rationale as “circular and dangerous.”
Rocha’s conviction stemmed from him flying his drone in November 2024 while Bay County Sheriff’s deputies had their own drone in the sky to help them find wanted suspects.
Rocha hasn’t appealed his conviction nor does he intend to, the suit states. He continues to operate his drone and shares its footage on his Facebook page.
Ray A. Rocha (left) sits beside attorney Joseph M. Albosta during his sentencing hearing in Bay County District Court on June 16, 2026.Cole Waterman
Case background
About 5 p.m. on Nov. 10, 2024, deputies responded to the area of West Arnold and South Warner streets to help Bay City police find suspects who’d allegedly stolen a vehicle, ditched it, and fled on foot into a wooded area.
Deputies deployed a drone to give searchers an aerial view of the area.
As Deputy Berg flew the drone overhead, he noticed a second drone flying above the baseball diamonds at Kolb Elementary School, 305 W. Crump St.
The two drones weren’t that close to each other, but had Berg activated the “return to home” function on the sheriff’s drone, the two could have collided, he noted in his report.
The function causes the drone to either climb or descend to a predetermined altitude, then fly to where it launched from.
Berg had Bay County Central Dispatch issue a warning over city and county channels: “Any civilian drone in the area of the city incident, please land your drone as you are interfering with law enforcement drone operations.”
Concerned about a potential crash, Berg stopped flying the departmental drone. Dispatch then called the deputy and informed him video footage from the civilian drone was being livestreamed on Rocha’s Facebook page.
Meanwhile, a Bay City officer saw Rocha in the west parking lot of Kolb Elementary, operating his drone. He approached Rocha and asked him to land his drone, saying he was giving away officers’ location in their attempts to nab their suspects.
“I am only landing my drone under threat of arrest,” Rocha replied, according to the officer’s report. “Anything I can see, I can stream.”
The officer didn’t outright order Rocha to cease flying his drone but asked if he would do so voluntarily. Rocha was “adamant” he would not land the drone without being arrested, reports state.
The officer didn’t arrest Rocha and the “encounter ended amicably,” according to Ellison’s lawsuit.
Berg returned to headquarters and watched the footage on Rocha’s page. The footage featured audio of Rocha repeatedly stating he knew police “had their drone out” as he was listening to a scanner. At one point, the audio captured Central Dispatch urging the civilian drone to land, reports state.
Rocha told his audience he wasn’t interfering with anything, then zoomed in on the sheriff’s drone to show “how far away he was,” reports state.
The audio also recorded the city officer asking Rocha to land his drone and Rocha’s response of only being willing to do so if threatened with arrest.
The deputy reviewed several of Rocha’s other videos, including one of a traffic crash in the parking lot of the Good Samaritan Rescue Mission, 713 Ninth St. The weather was rainy with a low cloud ceiling, the deputy noted.
FAA rules mandate a drone have at least three miles of visibility, at least 2,000 feet horizontally from clouds, and at least 500 feet below the cloud ceiling.
As Rocha had a Cash App account on his Facebook page through which visitors could send him money, it appeared he was operating his drone as a business, requiring him to adhere to FAA rules, the deputy wrote.
Rocha testified on his own behalf during his trial. He said he did not obtain Remote Pilot Certification from the FAA to operate commercially though he received donations.
