Drone Laws in the States
Like a bloodhound, new laws always track
just behind new advances in technology and the drone sector is the
latest object of pursuit for federal and state regulatory.
States have especially been busy players
in the high-stakes game that is the rise of commercial drones. The
emerging industry has an immensely widespread reach; new job sectors, privacy issues, protection of hunters, law-enforcement limits and safety concerns are all points of contention.
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures:
“In 2013, 43 states introduced 130 bills and resolutions addressing UAS
issues. At the end of the year, 13 states had enacted 16 new laws and
11 states had adopted 16 resolutions.” In 2014, 35 states debated UAV
regulations, with 10 states enacting or changing their drone laws.
State Drone Laws
The following states have either passed
UAV-related bills, have established commission or tasks forces to study
the issue or have bills currently under consideration.
Alabama (Hunting): In February 2014 , the Alabama state legislature proposed a bill that would outlaw intentional drone use in order to harass a hunter or fisherman. The bill passed in the state Senate but remains open in the House.
Alaska (Task Force): Alaska
has a state-appointed Legislative Task Force on Unmanned Aircraft
Systems. As of 2014, Alaska had enacted into law protocols for the use
of UAVs by law enforcement. Under HB 255, police
must provide training certification for its pilots; obtain proper FAA
authorization for each flight and maintain a log of all flights. The law
also includes protocols on record retention for data obtained by
drones. Alaska is also home to the second of six official FAA UAS test sites.
Arizona (Law Enforcement): As of February, an Arizona bill that would curtail police use of drones
was languishing in committee. The bill would make it “unlawful for a
law enforcement agency or a state, county or municipal agency to use a
drone to gather, store or collect evidence of any type, including audio
or video recordings [and prohibit] surveillance of citizens unless the
citizen is specifically named on a valid search warrant.” A similar bill
passed in Florida in 2013.
Arkansas (Law Enforcement/Privacy): Two bills in “The Natural State” died of natural causes
in mid-2013. A house bill would have regulated how much drone-recorded
imagery police could retain of areas that had not been targeted. The
bill also prohibited UAV weaponization. A senate bill would have
prohibited shooting video via drone of a person or their property.
California (Law Enforcement): A bill zipping through committee hoops in California
also deals with data retention obtained by drones as well as law
enforcement issues. Assembly Bill 1327 (Unmanned Aircraft Systems)
states that: “All data which is collected by public drones would need to
be destroyed within six month. The ‘weaponization’ of drones would be
illegal. Law enforcement would generally be required to obtain a warrant
to use a drone. A warrant would not be necessary in certain emergency
situations such as search and rescue.”
In September 2014, California governor Ed Brown signed into law AB 2306
which amends existing privacy laws to prohibit anybody from using a
drone to take pictures of a person “under circumstances in which [they]
had a reasonable expectation of privacy,” and where said picture could
not have been taken without trespassing if the drone hadn’t been used.
Colorado (Hunting): You won’t (or shouldn’t) see any drones used to aid hunters in Colorado after the state’s Parks and Wildlife Commission passed a measure in January
that bans the use of drones to help hunters in any way (including
scouting). Hunters will have to rely on good, old-fashioned tracking
and shooting skills to bag that “wascally wabbit.” The National
Association of Drone Sportsmen opposed the regulation calling it
“regulatory overreach in an attempt to demean, malign and demonize
hunters (a.k.a. gun owners) for something they are not even doing.” NADS
chief Steve Gill told the Denver Post: “I believe you ought to hunt
fairly. But we’ve got enough regulation in business and in life to not
spend our time trying to regulate things people aren’t actually doing
yet.”
Connecticut (Law Enforcement):
A Connecticut House bill referred to the judiciary committee
“criminalizes the weaponization of drones and prevents government from
using them unless a proper warrant is issued, except for certain
emergency situations,” according to the Tenth Amendment Center. Like the Arkansas bill, the measure regulates what and how recorded data by drones may be collected, stored and retained.
Hawaii (Research): In 2013, the state legislature granted $100,000 to advance new training programs in unmanned aviation.
Idaho (Law Enforcement): With the passage of a bill in April, 2013, Idaho became the second state to pass a bill aimed specifically at law enforcement use of drones (and the first to be signed into law). The Idaho Statesman
points out that the bill allows for many exceptions since it “exempts
emergency responses for safety, search and rescue operations, and
controlled substance investigations.”
Illinois (Law Enforcement):
In 2014, Illinois passed SB 2937,
which requires police to adhere to search-warrant regulations already
in place when using drones. However, the use of drones by law
enforcement during a natural disaster or health emergency will be
loosened.
The Prairie State passed laws in 2013
banning harassment of hunters by drones as well as requiring warrants
for most police use of UAVs. The law takes an added step by requiring
the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority
(CJIA) to “publish on its publicly available website a concise report
that lists every law enforcement agency that owns a drone, and for each
of those agencies, the number of drones that it owns.”
Iowa (Law Enforcement): As reported in DRONELIFE
in April 2014, an Iowa Senate bill prohibits “state or local law
enforcement authorities from using unmanned aerial vehicles for traffic
enforcement [and] states that evidence obtained by law enforcement using
an unmanned aerial vehicle is not admissible in a criminal or civil
trial unless it was obtained legally pursuant to a search warrant or in a
manner that is consistent with state and federal law.” The bill was signed into law in May, 2014.
Louisiana (Law Enforcement): The Louisiana State Senate failed to pass legislation
in April, 2014 that would have implemented extensive drone regulation
in the Bayou State. In June 2014, the state of Louisiana did enact HB 1029,
establishing the “crime of unlawful use of [a UAV].” Unlawful use is
defined as conducting “surveillance of a targeted facility without the
owner’s prior written consent and is punishable by a fine of up to $500
dollars and six months of jail time.
Maryland (Research/Privacy): The Maryland General Assembly appropriated $500,000 in 2013 to launch one of six federally sanctioned UAS test sites. Although the state lost its bid to Virginia, the Baltimore Sun reports:
“Maryland, Virginia and New Jersey signed an agreement this year to
collaborate on drone research.” In 2013, the Assembly’s Judiciary
Committee killed a bill
that would have prohibited “any agent of the state or a political
subdivision of the state from operating a drone for the purpose of
receiving or disclosing information acquired through the operation of
the drone except under specific circumstances.”
Massachusetts (Law Enforcement): As earlier reported in DRONELIFE,
a bill that would “ban the use of weaponized drones in Massachusetts’
and … limit the government’s use of drones to special circumstances,” is
being debated in committee.
Circumstances include: “the execution of a warrant; observation, as
long as the information cannot be used as evidence in a criminal
proceeding or investigation or used for any intelligence purpose; and
emergencies, such as when a threat to human life or safety is imminent.”
Michigan (Law Enforcement/General Regulation): State Rep. Tom McMillin has introduced two House bills
that take regulation a step further, requiring state officials to get
legislative approval before acquiring a UAV. The bills make provisions
for the authorization and regulation of the use of unmanned vehicles and
make it illegal to arm a drone aircraft with legal force within state
boundaries. Under the measure, an individual must also give consent
before they can be recorded by drone aircraft.
Montana (Law Enforcement/Privacy): According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, a Montana State Senate bill
“limits when information gained from the use of unmanned aerial
vehicles may be admitted as evidence in any prosecution or proceeding
within the state.” The bill was signed into law in 2013.
Nevada (Research): In 2013, Nevada appropriated $4 million in expectation of being chosen as one of six FAA drone test sites – a designation it received in June.
North Carolina (General Regulation/Safety): In June, the Tar Heel State passed a sweeping measure that will allow and regulate drone use, paving the way for specific state regulation of UAVs. House Bill 1099,
which passed without discussion, permits commercial use of drones in
North Carolina with some caveats. The measure prohibits using a drone to
damage or disrupt any manned aircraft operation; deploying any drone
armed with any weapons; photographing or recording any persons with a
drone or publishing drone-recorded photos without consent (unless the
photos are recorded at “newsworthy events or events to which the public
is invited”). The bill also provides protections to citizens in the case
of law-enforcement searches, surveillance and investigation. The bill
may have been sparked by a report of the Association for Unmanned
Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI) indicating that drone-based
industries “could create roughly 7,500 jobs in North Carolina by 2017.”
One key provision of the law recently went into effect in December, 2014 and bars animal-rights activists such as PETA from using drones to monitor hunters.
North Dakota (Research/Law Enforcement):
In 2013, the North Dakota legislature approved $1 million from the
state’s general fund in its bid for FAA approval as a UAS test site. The
appropriation proved to be money well spent as the “Peace Garden State” became the first test site
to garner federal approval. A provision in the law also triggered an
additional $4 million in state funds should the test site get off the
ground. North Dakota’s innovative approach has led to some pundits dubbing the state the “Silicon Valley for drones.” In 2013, the state passed a bill limiting law-enforcement use of drones similar to that passed by other legislatures.
Ohio: In 2014, Ohio enacted HB 292 which
creates the state’s first aerospace and aviation technology committee
which will research and develop aviation technology including UAVs.
Oklahoma (Strategy/Emergency Services): In 2012, the Oklahoma Governor’s Office commissioned A Strategic Plan for the Development of an Unmanned Aerial Systems Enterprise. At the local level, Oklahoma City fire officials are “studying the use of drones to battle wild fires, providing real-time video of the fire area and changing wind directions.”
Oregon: UAV laws in Oregon allow law enforcement agencies to use UAVs to
track an individual fleeing a crime scene, to survey natural disasters,
reconstruct crime scenes, and help with search and rescue. The
July, 2013 statute dictates that the state will govern use of drones,
not local municipalities. Public bodies, such as universities, must
register their drones before takeoff.
Pennsylvania (Hunting): The Keystone State is leading the way in hunter safety and poaching enforcement. Responding to a PETA campaign to deploy drones to watch poachers, state legislators have introduced bills
that would prohibit “using an unmanned aircraft in a manner that
interferes with another person’s lawful taking of game or wildlife” and
apply the same ban to anyone interfering with anglers as well.
Tennessee (Law Enforcement): In 2013, the Tennessee General Assembly passed SB796
(PDF), which allows law enforcement to use drones only with a proper
search warrant with the exception of countering “high-risk terrorist
attacks” or if “swift action is needed to prevent imminent danger to
life.”
In 2014, Tennessee passed SB 1777,
a law that makes it a class C misdemeanor to use drone-captured video
footage of a hunter or angler being without their consent, and SB 1892 which
also brands as a class C misdemeanor the use a drone to “intentionally
conduct surveillance of an individual or their property” and the
possession or distribution of images captured in such a manner.
Texas (General Regulation): They say everything’s bigger in Texas and that seems to apply to UAV regulation. In 2013, the state enacted HB 912, an omnibus bill that identifies 19 lawful uses for drones. According to Texas Monthly,
the bill contains provisions that fly in the opposite direction of most
other state laws in that it opens a wide gap for possible
law-enforcement abuse – identifying a “laughably long ‘nonapplicability’
section (38 exceptions!)” for policing agencies. The report adds:
“None of those are quite as
depressingly hilarious as a Texas law that’s designed to protect oil
pipelines from being photographed by environmentalists while allowing
for law enforcement agencies to surveil citizens based on a legal
standard that’s only one step up from a hunch, but our law at least also
allows for drones to be used by ‘a Texas licensed real estate broker in
connection with the marketing, sale, or financing of real property.’”
Utah: Legislation passed in April, 2014
prevents law enforcement from using UAVs for spying on civilians, unless
a search warrant has been granted by a judge. However, drones can not
be deployed in situations where a warrant is unnecessary
(search-and-rescue, speed-enforcement operations, etc). All state
government agencies are required make all information about drone use
accessible to the public.
Virginia (Law Enforcement): In 2013, Virginia became the first state to pass a law regulating drone use. According to US News and World Report,
“the measures require that no state or local law enforcement agency
‘shall utilize an unmanned aircraft system before July 1, 2015.’” The
law provides exceptions allowing state officials to launch UAVs
including, National Guard deployment, Amber Alerts, search and rescue,
as well as use by colleges and universities.
Washington (General Regulation): Legislators
in the “Evergreen State” face a forest of complications as the
legislature struggles to construct new drone policy. Gov. Jay Inslee
vetoed lawmakers’ first effort to regulate UAVs in April. In late June,
the Legislature (as reported in the LA Times) took “another stab at creating controls … and focused on privacy issues.” The report added:
“And after three hours of polite but
often circular discussion about the gadgets — which can fight fires,
film movies, bomb enemies and, perhaps, someday deliver goods to your
door — only one thing was abundantly clear: Something has to be done.”
Wisconsin: Weaponizing a drone is
considered a felony and law enforcement must obtain a warrant before
using a drone to collect evidence in a criminal investigation. No
warrant is required in the case of an emergency situation such as search
and rescue or prevention of imminent danger.
No comments:
Post a Comment