Being members of the royal family, they will always have this celebrity status, and a sudden move from the United Kingdom to Los Angeles would not fix the issue. It could even get worse as they relocated near Hollywood, where paparazzi flock just about everywhere.
In the latest Prince Harry and Meghan Markle news, the couple reportedly informed the Los Angeles Police Department of some drone sightings around their Beverly Hills home. They believed it is being operated by photographers to get a shot of them.
A source told The Daily Beast that the ex-royal couple now fears for their security after experiencing at least five drone-related incidents.
“They see these drones coming in at them, and they guess that they are being operated by photographers, but they can’t just assume that,” the source said.
The source added that Harry and Meghan specifically caught the drones flying when they were playing outdoors with their 1-year-old son Archie. The most recent incident was during Memorial Day when the couple was playing with Archie by the pool.
The insider explained that the Sussexes are merely asking for safety and security at the comforts of their home and not demanding special treatment.
PRINCESS DIANA INTERVENTION
While Harry and Meghan are battling with privacy issues as they live their post-royal life, a law professor urged the couple to take advantage of the legacy that Harry’s mother left when she passed away.
Speaking to Newsweek, University of Miami Law School professor Michael Froomkin suggested utilizing a privacy law, which was introduced after Princess Diana’s tragic death in 1997.
Froomkin said that the 35-year-old Duke and 38-year-old former actress could invoke a Californian civil law that was made in the wake of Princess Diana’s car accident caused by a chasing paparazzi.
“If the drones are repeat actors, they might be a nuisance or caught by some local stalking law. If they are one-offs, or infrequent, and don’t trespass onto private land, they likely enjoy First Amendment protection,” Froomkin explained.
“I do believe a trespass remedy is or ought to be available, but the law on this is rather sparse. The step here would be to get the court to see the drone intrusion over the airspace of the private property as a trespass.”
The professor pointed out that they could use 1708.8 of the civil code, which imposes increased penalties for someone trespassing a property to capture photos and videos while someone is on their personal or family setting.
Meanwhile, Mark Stephens from the U.K. law firm Howard Kennedy said that photographers who repeatedly chase the royal couple could face a civil or criminal case.
“If they do it more than once, then you are in a situation of harassment. It does raise constitutional free speech issues in America, which are not a factor in Britain,” Stephens explained.