First impressions are important.

But in the world of law, they set a precedent for how future cases will be decided.

One such “first impression case” brought the novel matter of using unmanned aerial drones while “hunting” to a Lancaster County magisterial district judge Thursday afternoon.

Judge Raymond Sheller decided to find Joshua Wingenroth, 35, of Downingtown, guilty of two counts of using illegal electronic devices during hunting; disturbing game or wildlife; and violating regulations on recreational spotlighting for the Dec. 6 incident.

Wingenroth openly advertised his business, which uses drones to locate and recover wounded deer for hunters, in local publications when game wardens called him and informed him such an activity was illegal.

“My lawyer has a different interpretation,” one of those wardens testified Wingenroth told him by phone.

Later, on Dec. 6, an undercover game commission officer contacted Wingenroth and asked him to meet and help him find a deer he shot.

Within an hour, the Chester County resident crossed into Lancaster County and met the undercover informant in the area of Gault Road, at the Welsh Mountain Nature Preserve.

The informant signed a waiver as Wingenroth set up the drone pad.

“I affirm I shot a deer and wish to recover its carcass,” was one line. “I/we agree if the animal is found alive, I will hunt the deer another day.”

The informant completed the waiver and signed it. Little did Wingenroth know, there was no dead deer.

Wingenroth launched the drone at around 9:50 p.m. and piloted it around remotely while using a thermal camera setting to show the scenery in black and white.

He caught view of a live deer, and turned on the camera’s infrared setting to show it on a heat map.

He later turned that setting off and activated a spotlight to view the deer normally. At around that time, a game warden — part two of the sting operation — began to approach where Wingenroth and the informant were located.

“Just my luck, the game warden,” the informant testified Wingenroth said.

“How can you tell?” the informant testified he said.

“The antlers on the vehicle,” Wingenroth said, according to the informant.

Gregory Graham, the game warden inside the vehicle, cited Wingenroth for the four offenses and confiscated his drone, Graham testified.

The crux of Thursday’s three-hour trial hinged on the fact the legal definition of hunting includes tracking, hunting, and recovery — which means Wingenroth using a drone to help recover a carcass was technically Wingenroth using a drone to “hunt” game.

Michael Siddons, Wingenroth’s attorney, described the laws concerning using devices while hunting to be “archaic” and that they have been patched over time to cover new technologies. He said the law has not yet considered the use of drones.

In his closing statements, Siddons argued that had Wingenroth used the drone to locate an animal before shooting it, Siddons conceded that would have been illegal poaching — but Wingenroth did no such thing.

Instead, Wingenroth believed there was a dead deer and that the hunting was already over. He only used a drone after hunting hours ended.

“They lured my client to Lancaster, and in the waiver, you can see the intent is clear: He was not intending to hunt,” Siddons said.

Scott Reed, a prosecutor with the Lancaster County District Attorney’s Office, argued it is not the court’s job to legislate from the bench on the issue of using a drone to recover carcasses.

Reed argued drones are often referred to as a “UAV,” or “unmanned aerial vehicle,” and that a vehicle does not have to carry any passengers for it to still be considered a vehicle.

Additionally, Reed said it is not legal to use a spotlight at all during antlered deer season — which is when the sting occurred.

Finally, Reed said the use of that spotlight disturbed the deer Wingenroth and the informant were observing. Siddons explained away the deer’s movement as a possible reaction to the game wardens arriving on the scene.

Thursday’s summary trial was a case of first impression — meaning, nobody has ever been cited and tried for using a drone to recover a dead game animal before.

“The legislature needs to address this,” Sheller said as he delivered his verdict on the case. “Everyone is playing catchup to science.”

Sheller gave Wingenroth a total fine of $1,500. Because Wingenroth intends to appeal the case to the state court level, the PA Game Commission will continue to hold his $20,000 drone as evidence.

“It is highly unlikely for a judge to rule in favor of the defense on first impression,” Siddons said after the trial. “We anticipated this verdict at this level.”