Florida Crime Report

Florida Couple Accused Of Burning Neighbor’s $1,200 Drone After It Landed In Their Backyard

Summary

A Port St. Lucie drone flight allegedly ended in a backyard fire pit, a police report, and two felony arrests after a married Florida couple reportedly admitted they burned a neighbor’s drone that had mistakenly landed on their property. According to The Smoking Gun, Christopher Paula, 40, was flying a DJI Mini 3 Pro drone around 11:30 p.m. last Saturday when the device lost communication during flight over his Port St. Lucie neighborhood. Paula told police the drone was programmed to automatically return to its home point when its connection failed, but instead of returning to him, it landed in the backyard of a home owned by Sandra Marcelus, 43.

Marcelus lives at the property with her husband, Alquidiven Daniels, 49, according to the same report. Paula reportedly used a GPS tracking feature to locate the drone’s last known position. When he went to the house and knocked on the front door, he said a woman’s voice came through the Ring doorbell and told him, “You don’t have a fucking drone anymore, sir.” Paula then contacted police, shifting the situation from a neighborhood dispute over an unwanted flying camera into a criminal property-damage investigation.

Police later spoke with Marcelus about the drone landing, and she allegedly admitted that she and Daniels burned the device. Marcelus reportedly told investigators that the couple had ongoing concerns about drones flying over their property and that she had recently posted about those concerns on the Ring Neighborhood app. According to the arrest-report summary published by The Smoking Gun, Marcelus said drones would pause when she noticed them, and she also claimed that on one recent occasion she was outside undressed when a drone flew over her property.

The allegation against Marcelus and Daniels is not that they were pleased about the drone, nor that they invited it into their yard. The allegation is that once the drone landed there, the couple destroyed it rather than contacting police, returning it, or preserving it as found property. Police said Daniels confirmed the account that the drone had been burned. Because the drone was valued at about $1,200, the charge was treated as a felony. Under Florida Statute 806.13, damaging property valued at $1,000 or more can be charged as a third-degree felony.

Marcelus and Daniels were arrested on criminal mischief charges and later released from the county jail after each posted $2,500 bond, according to The Smoking Gun. The final court outcome was not reported in the reviewed sources. No conviction, sentence, plea, dismissal, or trial result was available in the reporting reviewed for this article.

The case sits at the strange intersection of modern technology, neighborhood privacy concerns, and old-fashioned property destruction. A drone with a camera landed where it apparently was not wanted. The homeowners allegedly saw the camera-equipped object as part of an ongoing problem. The owner saw a lost $1,200 device with a GPS trail. Police saw a burned item of personal property and a damage amount high enough to push the case into felony territory. In other words, the drone may have lost its signal, but the legal consequences found full reception.

Section 1: The Crime

The alleged crime is felony criminal mischief, or felony property damage, involving the destruction of a DJI Mini 3 Pro drone valued at approximately $1,200. According to The Smoking Gun, Paula’s drone lost communication during flight and mistakenly landed in the backyard of Marcelus and Daniels. Rather than the drone being returned, preserved, or turned over to police, investigators said the couple admitted that it was burned in a fire pit.

The case does not involve a reported physical assault or injury. The central allegation is damage to another person’s property. The drone belonged to Christopher Paula, and police reportedly treated its destruction as a criminal offense because the item’s value exceeded the $1,000 felony threshold under Florida law. The charge became more serious because of the dollar amount, not because the item was unusual or because the dispute involved a drone.

The reported sequence is straightforward: Paula flew the drone, the drone lost its connection, it landed in a nearby backyard, Paula used GPS to track it, he went to the home, he received a hostile Ring doorbell response, and police were called. Investigators then spoke with Marcelus and Daniels, who allegedly acknowledged the drone had been burned.

Section 2: Crime Location

The incident occurred in a Port St. Lucie, Florida neighborhood. The drone was reportedly flying over the neighborhood around 11:30 p.m. before it lost communication and came down in the backyard of Marcelus’s home. Port St. Lucie is located in St. Lucie County on Florida’s Treasure Coast.

The exact street address was not included in the reviewed public reporting. For privacy and accuracy, this article identifies the location as a Port St. Lucie residential neighborhood and does not publish a private home address. The important reported location detail is that the drone landed in the suspects’ backyard after it failed to return to its owner’s home point.

Section 3: Date And Time Of Crime

The drone flight occurred around 11:30 p.m. on Saturday night, May 2, 2026, based on The Smoking Gun’s May 3 report describing the flight as occurring “last Saturday.” The police contact and investigation followed after Paula attempted to recover the drone and then contacted law enforcement.

Section 4: Police Department

The case was handled by police in Port St. Lucie. The Port St. Lucie Police Department lists its headquarters at 121 SW Port St. Lucie Boulevard, Building C, Port St. Lucie, Florida 34984. The department’s non-emergency number is 772-871-5000, according to its official contact page.

Police reportedly spoke with Paula, reviewed his account of the lost drone, and then spoke with Marcelus and Daniels about what happened after the drone landed in their backyard. The reported admissions became a central part of the case.

Section 5: Suspect Names

The suspects were identified as Sandra Marcelus and Alquidiven Daniels. Marcelus was reported to be 43 years old, and Daniels was reported to be 49 years old. The Smoking Gun described the two as a married couple living at the Port St. Lucie property where the drone landed.

Marcelus allegedly told police that the couple had experienced ongoing issues with drones flying over their property. She reportedly said she had posted about her concerns on the Ring Neighborhood app and believed drones would pause when she noticed them. Daniels reportedly confirmed the account that the drone was burned.

Section 6: Suspect Ages

Sandra Marcelus was reported to be 43 years old. Alquidiven Daniels was reported to be 49 years old.

Section 7: Charges

Marcelus and Daniels were arrested on criminal mischief charges. The Smoking Gun reported that the charge was classified as a felony because the damaged property was valued above $1,000. Florida Statute 806.13 states that a person commits criminal mischief if he or she willfully and maliciously injures or damages real or personal property belonging to another. The statute also states that if the damage is $1,000 or greater, the offense is a third-degree felony.

In this case, the damaged property was the DJI Mini 3 Pro drone reportedly valued at $1,200. That dollar figure is what moved the allegation beyond a lower-level property damage case. The charge does not mean the suspects have been convicted. It means prosecutors and courts would handle the allegation under the felony property-damage framework unless the charge is later reduced, dismissed, resolved by plea, or decided at trial.

Section 8: Bond Amount

The reported bond amount was $2,500 for each suspect. The Smoking Gun reported that both Marcelus and Daniels were freed from the county jail after each posted a $2,500 bond.

Section 9: Conviction

No conviction was reported in the reviewed sources. The case was reported at the arrest stage. Because no final court disposition was available in the reviewed reporting, Marcelus and Daniels should be described as accused, not convicted.

Section 10: Sentence

No sentence was reported in the reviewed sources. A sentence would only occur after a conviction, plea, or other final court resolution. At the time of the reviewed reporting, the known outcome was arrest and release after bond.

Section 11: Outcome

The immediate reported outcome was that Sandra Marcelus and Alquidiven Daniels were arrested, charged with felony criminal mischief, and released after each posted $2,500 bond. The long-term court outcome was not reported.

The St. Lucie County Clerk provides an online court case search that allows the public to view many court case records, court costs, and upcoming court dates. The St. Lucie County Sheriff’s Office also provides an inmate lookup tool for current inmates and people released within the prior five days. Readers looking for the most current case status should use official records portals because criminal case information can change after initial reporting.

Section 12: Victim

The reported property victim is Christopher Paula, the 40-year-old drone owner. Paula told police he was flying his DJI Mini 3 Pro drone when it lost communication during flight. He also told police that the drone was programmed to automatically return to its home point when the connection was lost. Instead, it landed in the backyard of Marcelus and Daniels.

Paula reportedly used GPS tracking to find the drone’s last known position. When he went to the property, he said he heard a woman’s voice through the Ring doorbell tell him that he no longer had a drone. After that exchange, Paula contacted police.

The case also includes a privacy concern raised by Marcelus. According to the arrest-report summary, she told police the couple had experienced ongoing drone issues and that she had once been outside undressed when a drone flew over the property. Those statements provide context for why the couple may have been angry or alarmed, but the reviewed reporting does not say police accepted those concerns as legal justification for burning Paula’s drone.

Section 13: Victim Name

The victim’s name is Christopher Paula. He was reported to be 40 years old and was identified as the owner/operator of the DJI Mini 3 Pro drone.

Case Detail Table

Why This Case Matters

This case is unusual because it combines two increasingly common neighborhood conflicts: drones flying near homes and disputes over private property. To homeowners, a camera-equipped drone hovering or landing in a backyard can feel invasive, threatening, or suspicious. To a drone operator, a failed signal and automatic landing can look like an expensive equipment malfunction. When those two perspectives collide, the next decision matters.

The allegation against Marcelus and Daniels shows how quickly a privacy complaint can become a property-damage case. Police may consider the homeowner’s concerns, but destroying someone else’s property can create separate legal exposure. The reviewed reporting does not say Paula was charged with any offense related to the drone flight. It does say Marcelus and Daniels were charged because the drone was destroyed and because the device was valued above the felony threshold.

The case also highlights the importance of documentation. Paula used GPS tracking to locate the drone’s last known position. The Ring doorbell exchange became part of the reported account. Marcelus allegedly discussed prior drone concerns and admitted the fire pit destruction. Daniels allegedly confirmed the account. Each small piece became part of the police narrative.

Modern neighborhood disputes now come with cameras, apps, GPS breadcrumbs, doorbell audio, and digital timestamps. That makes impulse decisions easier to reconstruct. A drone landing in a backyard may be annoying, alarming, or suspicious, but burning it can leave a paper trail hotter than the fire pit.

SEO Keywords

Sandra Marcelus drone arrest, Alquidiven Daniels drone arrest, Port St. Lucie drone burning, Florida couple burned drone, Christopher Paula DJI Mini 3 Pro, drone fire pit arrest, Florida criminal mischief drone, $1200 drone destroyed Florida, Port St. Lucie felony property damage, wayward drone burned backyard.

Sources

• The Smoking Gun: Couple Burned Neighbor’s Wayward Drone
• Florida Legislature: Florida Statute 806.13
• Port St. Lucie Police Department official contact page
• St. Lucie County Clerk: Court Case Search
• St. Lucie County Sheriff’s Office: Inmate Lookup
• KZIM KSIM: Florida couple faces felony charges after destroying neighbor’s drone