Local and State Resolutions

Charlottesville, Va.

WHEREAS, the rapid implementation of drone technology throughout the United States poses a serious threat to the privacy and constitutional rights of the American people, including the residents of Charlottesville; and

WHEREAS, the federal government and the Commonwealth of Virginia have thus far failed to provide reasonable legal restrictions on the use of drones within the United States; and

WHEREAS, police departments throughout the country have begun implementing drone technology absent any guidance or guidelines from law makers;

NOW, THEREFORE, LET IT BE RESOLVED, that the City Council of Charlottesville, Virginia, endorses the proposal for a two year moratorium on drones in the state of Virginia; and calls on the United States Congress and the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia to adopt legislation prohibiting information obtained from the domestic use of drones from being introduced into a Federal or State court, and precluding the domestic use of drones equipped with anti-personnel devices, meaning any projectile, chemical, electrical, directed-energy (visible or invisible), or other device designed to harm, incapacitate, or otherwise negatively impact a human being; and pledges to abstain from similar uses with city-owned, leased, or borrowed drones.

St. Bonifacius, Minn.

PDF

Amherst, Mass.

ARTICLE  36:  I  move  that  Town  Meeting  endorse  Article  36  as  two  separate  resolutions  as  they  appear  on  the  screen.
Part  A:
1. WHEREAS, the use of drones, often referred to as Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), raises far -reaching concerns about targeted governmental killings, the loss of constitutional protections, privacy, democracy, and the rule of law,
2. WHEREAS, drones now being marketed to domestic law enforcement agencies, potentially could be armed with weapons, including tear gas, rubber bullets and firearms,
3. WHEREAS, drone technology as a means of data collection has the potential for misuse affecting individual privacy and civil liberties, freedom of association and assembly, equal protection, and due process,
4. NOW, THEREFORE; BE IT RESOLVED, that this Resolution declares that no agency of the town of Amherst, nor any agents under contract with the town, will operate drones in the immediate airspace over Amherst in a manner that violates the constitutional rights of its residents,
5. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town of Amherst affirms that within the town limits, landowners and tenants, subject to state laws and local ordinances, have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the airspace and that no drone, unmanned aircraft, or other airborne object shall have the “public right of transit” through this private property.
Part B:
1. WHEREAS, drones have been used intentionally to kill people in foreign lands including at least two American citizens, without a
public judicial process,
2. WHEREAS, such a use of lethal force without due process is a misuse of governmental powers specifically prohibited in the United States Constitution,
3. WHEREAS, drones have killed many non-targeted people including children,
NOW THEREFORE,
4. BE IT RESOLVED, that the town of Amherst request its representatives, Congressman Jim McGovern and Senators Elizabeth
Warren and Edward Markey, to introduce a resolution in the United States Congress to end the practice of extrajudicial killing by armed drones, to specifically withhold money for that purpose, and make restitution to those who have been killed or injured through the actions of the United States government, the Department of Defense, the Central Intelligence Agency, and their private contractors.

Evanston, Ill.

A RESOLUTION

Authorizing the City of Evanston to Establish a Moratorium on the Use of Unregulated Drone Technology

WHEREAS, the implementation of drone (unmanned aerial system) technology in the United States implicates the privacy and constitutional rights of United States residents, including the residents of Evanston, Illinois; and

WHEREAS, the federal government and the State of Illinois have yet to enact reasonable regulation on the use of drones within the United States; and

WHEREAS, police departments in the United States have begun to deploy drone technology absent any regulation on the appropriate use of such technology, although the Evanston Police Department has not.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EVANSTON, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, THAT:

SECTION 1: That the foregoing recitals are hereby found as fact and incorporated herein by reference.

SECTION 2: The City of Evanston establishes a moratorium on the use of drones in the City of Evanston in the absence of reasonable state and federal regulation of the use of drone technology which will expire without further action by the City Council two years from the date of this resolution; with the following exemptions:

1) for Hobby and Model Aircraft, defined as an unmanned aircraft that is— a) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere;

b) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and

c) flown for hobby or recreational purposes; and
2) the Research and Development of "Experimental Aircraft" for non-Department of Defense contracts.

SECTION 3: The City of Evanston establishes a moratorium on the use of drones in the City of Evanston in the absence of reasonable state and federal regulation of the use of drone technology; and

SECTION 4: The City of Evanston supports efforts in the Illinois General Assembly, the Illinois Senate, and the United States Congress to enact legislation (1) prohibiting information obtained from the domestic use of drones from being introduced into a federal or state court, and (2) precluding the domestic use of drones equipped with anti-personnel devices (meaning any projectile, chemical, electrical, directed- energy), or other device designed to harm, incapacitate, or otherwise negatively impact a human being.

SECTION 5: The City of Evanston jointly resolves, with the Associated Student Government (“ASG”) of Northwestern University, as evidenced by the attached resolution of the ASG (Exhibit 1), to provide that the moratorium on drone use extends to all areas of Northwestern University.

SECTION 6: Copies of this Resolution will be sent to Illinois Governor Pat Quinn, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, U.S. Senators Dick Durbin and Mark Kirk, U.S. Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, Illinois State Senators Daniel Biss and Heather Steans, and Illinois State Representatives Robyn Gabel, Kelly Cassidy and Laura Fine.

SECTION 7: This resolution 27-R-13 shall be in full force and effect from and after the date of its passage and approval in the manner provided by law.

Northampton, Mass.

RESOLUTION  ON DRONE AIRCRAFT I. NAVIGABLE  AIRSPACE AND DRONE AIRCRAFT WHEREAS, the former City Councilor and Mayor of Northampton, Calvin Coolidge, as President of the  United States, signed into law the Air Commerce Act of 1926 1

WHEREAS, this act declared that the airspace above the m inimum safe altitudes of flight, generally  understood to be  about  500 feet or more above the surface , establishing the national airspac e system  in the United States; and 2

WHEREAS,  aircraf t, includ ing drone aircraft ,  is “navigable airspace” ; and 3 , have the “ public  right of transit” through navigable  airspace 4

WHEREAS, navigable airspac e i s preempted by federal laws ; and 5

WHEREAS, Congress and the FAA  now  appear to be  expanding navigable airspace down to the ground  in order to accommodate low - flying  drone aircraft and therefore not  generally  subject to state and local control; and 6

WHEREAS,  such  an expansion of navigable a irspace  threatens long - standing property rights,  expectations of privacy, and state and  local sovereignty; and ; and 7

WHEREAS,  such  an  expansion of navigable airspace  could  give the FAA  unprecedented authority to  restrict any landowner activit y that could potentially  interfere with low - flying drone aircraft 8

WHEREAS,  such  an expansion of naviga ble airspace is contrary to the findings of the landmark 1946  Supreme Court case,  United States v. Causby , which affirmed that  the landowner “must have exclusive  control over the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere”  and that “the  landowner owns  at least  as mu ch of the airspace as they can occupy or use in connection with the land” ; and 9

WHEREAS,  such  an expansion of navigable airspace is contrary to the aviation statutes in Title 49 of  the United States Code ; and 10 II.  SURVEILLANCE AND WEAPONIZED DRONE AIRCRAFT , which have been in force, largely un changed, since President Coolidge first  signed them into law in 1926; and

WHEREAS, drone aircraft are poised to gain unprecedented access to private property at any altitude  and for any purpose, including but not limited to purposes of advertising, news reporting, environmental  monitoring, package delivery, recreation, and private investigations; and

WHEREAS, police departments  in the United States  have begun  using drone  aircraft in the  absen ce of  clear guidance from lawmakers; and

WHEREAS,  some  drone aircraf t being marketed  to law enforcement agencies  are designed to carry  weapons  including  tear gas,  rubber buckshot , and firearms 11

WHEREAS, the rapid  development  of drone  aircraft  technology, driven largely by manufacturers  producing drone aircraft for military  u se, poses a serious threat to the privacy and constitutional rights of  the American people, including the residents of Northampton; and and  the introduction of such technology send s a chilling message  to the  American people ; and

WHEREAS, the federal use of weaponized drone aircraft overseas is a poor precedent for  their domestic  use, in that  the e xtrajudicial use of drones has turned public opinion against the U.S.  g overnment in  Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Afghanistan; and

WHERE AS drone aircraft strikes have killed more non - targeted people than those targeted, including  men, women, and children,  some known by name and others unidentified; 12

BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Northampton call s on the U.S. government to immediately end its  practice of extrajudicial killing by armed drone aircraft ; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of  Northampton affirms that , within the city limits,  the  navigable airspace  for drone aircraft s hall not be expanded below the long - established airspace  for  manned aircraft; and

BE IT  FURTHER  RESOLVED ,  that  th e City of Nor thampton  affirms that within the city limits,  landowners  subject to state  laws and local ordinances have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of  the airspace and that no drone aircraft  shall have the “public right of transit” through this  private  property ; and

BE IT FURTH ER RESOLVED, that the City of Northampton calls on the United States Congress, the  Federal Aviation Administration,  and the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to  respect legal precedent and constitutional guarantees of privacy, property  rights, and local sovereignty in  all matters pertaining to drone aircraft and navigable airspace.

1 Air Commerce Act of 1926 (44 Stat. 568), May 20, 1926 2 Griggs v. Allegheny  County, 369 U.S. 84 (1962) ;  California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986) ;  Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445  (1989) ;  Argent v. United States, 124 F. 3d 1277 (1997) 3 The term “drone aircraft” in this resolution includes the classes of aerial vehicles defined by the FAA as “unmanned  aircraft”, “small unmanned aircraft”, “model aircraft”, and “remotely piloted aircraft”. 4 United States Code, Title 49, § 40103 (a) (2).  The “public right of transit” through navigable airspace applies to aircraft  that are being ope rated by U.S. citizens in accordance with FAA safety regulations. Under reciprocal agreements with  other nations, foreign aircraft may also be navigated through U.S. airspace. 5 For example, see  MacPherson, R., “Letter to Mr. Don Marcostica, Executive Di rector Colorado Office of Economic  Development and International Trade,” Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations at the Federal Aviation Administration,  July 9, 2010. 6 The  FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 20 12, Public Law 112 - 95, Sec. 332 , allows gove rnment public safety agencies  to operate small unmanned aircraft at altitudes of “ less than 400 feet above the ground ” without any mention of privacy  or property. This language implies that the minimum safe altitude for these new “aircraft” is at ground l evel and  therefore all airspace is navigable and subject to the “public right of transit”. Under the provisions of PL 112 - 95,  commercial unmanned aircraft could soon be allowed to operate with similar autonomy. 7 Les Dorr, Media Specialist, Federal Aviat ion Administration, “...any altitudes mandated in the [Federal Aviation  Regulations] are conside red navigable airspace”, email communication with Paul Voss , July 11 , 2012. 8 United States Code, Title 49, § 40103 (b) (2) (A - D) 9 United States v. Causby , 328 U.S. 256 (1946) 10 United States Code, Title 49, § 4010 2 (a) (32) 11 "VANGUARD SHADOWHAWK." Tactical Life . N.p., 1 Feb. 2012. Web. 18 June 2013. 12 Kilcullen, David, and Andrew McDonald Exum. "Death From Above, Outrage Down Below." New York Times. New Yor k  Times, 16 May 2009. Web. 

Woodstock, NY:

Desire Town of Woodstock to be a “No Drone Zone”

Offered by Councilman Wenk, seconded by Councilman McKenna:

Whereas, the use of drones by the United States military provides a dangerous precedent for their domestic use; and

Whereas, the rapid development of drone technology throughout the United States poses a threat to the privacy and Constitutional rights of the American people, including the residents of Woodstock; and

Whereas, the Federal Government and the State of New York have failed to provide reasonable legal restrictions on the use of drones within the United States; and

Whereas, drones can be used to film individuals or groups around the clock, in public spaces or through the windows of private homes, and to continuously monitor cell-phone and text messaging; and

Whereas, Police departments throughout the country have begun implementing Drone technology absent any guidance from law-makers; and

Whereas, Vanguard Defense Industries has confirmed that its Shadow Hawk Drone, which is already being sold to law enforcement agencies throughout the country, will be outfitted with weapons, including a Grenade launcher, or Tear gas and rubber buckshot, thus sending a clear and chilling message to those attempting to exercise their First Amendment rights by taking to the streets to protest government policies; now therefore be it Resolved, that the Town Board of the Town of Woodstock New York,

·      Desires Woodstock to be a “No Drone Zone;”

·      Strongly warn that the unrestricted, unregulated use of drones is a serious threat to the Constitutional rights of all Americans;

·      Call upon the United States Congress and the New York State legislature to recognize the extreme danger and urgency of the issue, and to adopt legislation that would prohibit the use of drones for domestic surveillance and law enforcement purposes;

·      Call upon the United States Congress and the New York State legislature to adopt legislation that would strictly prohibit the domestic use of drones equipped with anti-personnel devices, meaning any projectile, chemical, electrical, directed-energy (visible or invisible), or other device designed to intimidate, harm, incapacitate, or otherwise negatively impact human beings;

·      Call upon the United States Congress and the New York State legislature to adopt legislation to prohibit information obtained by drones to be used as evidence in Federal or State judicial proceedings; and 

be it further Resolved, this resolution does not apply to hobbyists that fly remote controlled model aircraft, away from areas where they could harm people, as long as those devices are not equipped to monitor any person or residence; and 

be it further Resolved, that the Town Board authorize the Town Clerk to forward a certified copy of this resolution to Ulster County Executive, State and Federal representatives, to the Governor of New York State, and to the President of the United States.

Florida:

Section 1. Searches and seizure using a drone.—    17        

(1) SHORT TITLE.—This act may be cited as the “Freedom from    18  Unwarranted Surveillance Act.”    19        

(2) DEFINITIONS.—As used in this act, the term:    20        

(a) “Drone” means a powered, aerial vehicle that:    21        

1. Does not carry a human operator;    22         

2. Uses aerodynamic forces to provide vehicle lift;    23        

3. Can fly autonomously or be piloted remotely;    24        

4. Can be expendable or recoverable; and    25        

5. Can carry a lethal or nonlethal payload.    26        

(b) “Law enforcement agency” means a lawfully established    27  state or local public agency that is responsible for the    28  prevention and detection of crime, local government code    29  enforcement, and the enforcement of penal, traffic, regulatory,    30  game, or controlled substance laws.    31        

(3) PROHIBITED USE OF DRONES.—A law enforcement agency may    32  not use a drone to gather evidence or other information.    33        

(4) EXCEPTIONS.—This act does not prohibit the use of a    34  drone:    35        

(a) To counter a high risk of a terrorist attack by a    36  specific individual or organization if the United States    37  Secretary of Homeland Security determines that credible    38  intelligence indicates that there is such a risk.    39        

(b) If the law enforcement agency first obtains a search    40  warrant signed by a judge authorizing the use of a drone.    41        

(c) If the law enforcement agency possesses reasonable    42  suspicion that, under particular circumstances, swift action is    43  needed to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to    44  property, to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect or the    45  destruction of evidence, or to achieve purposes including, but    46  not limited to, facilitating the search for a missing person.    47        

(5) REMEDIES FOR VIOLATION.—An aggrieved party may initiate    48  a civil action against a law enforcement agency to obtain all    49  appropriate relief in order to prevent or remedy a violation of    50  this act.    51        

(6) PROHIBITION ON USE OF EVIDENCE.—Evidence obtained or    52  collected in violation of this act is not admissible as evidence    53  in a criminal prosecution in any court of law in this state.

Idaho:

LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Sixty-second Legislature First Regular Session - 2013 IN THE SENATE SENATE BILL NO. 1134 BY STATE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE AN ACT 1 RELATING TO AERONAUTICS; TO DEFINE A TERM, TO ESTABLISH PROVISIONS RELATING 2 TO RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS, TO PROVIDE EX - 3 CEPTIONS, TO PROVIDE FOR A CIVIL CAUSE OF ACTION, TO PROVIDE FOR CERTAIN 4 DAMAGES AND TO PROVIDE THAT AN OWNER OF CERTAIN FACILITIES SHALL NOT BE 5 PROHIBITED FROM USING AN UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM TO INSPECT SUCH FA - 6 CILITIES. 7 Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Idaho: 8 SECTION 1. That Chapter 2, Title 21, Idaho Code, be, and the same is 9 hereby amended by the addition thereto of a NEW SECTION , to be known and des - 10 ignated as Section 21 - 213, Idaho Code, and to read as follows: 1 1 21 - 213. RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS - - DEFINI - 12 TION - - VIOLATION - - CAUSE OF ACTION AND DAMAGES. 13 (1)(a) For the purposes of this section, the term "unmanned aircraft 14 system" (UAS) means an unmanned aircraft vehicle, drone, remotely pi - 15 loted vehicle, remotely piloted aircraft or remotely operated aircraft 16 that is a powered aerial vehicle that does not carry a human operator, 17 can fly autonomously or remotely and can be expendable or recoverable. 18 (b) Unmanned aircraft system does not include: 19 (i) Model flying airplanes or rockets including, but not neces - 20 sarily limited to, those that are radio controlled or otherwise 21 remotely controlled and that are used purely for sport or recre - 22 ational purposes; and 23 (ii) An unmanned aircraft system used in the taking of commercial 24 photography. 25 (2)(a) Absent reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal conduct, 26 no person, entity or state agency shall use an unmanned aircraft system 27 to conduct unwarranted surveillance or observation of: 28 (i) An individual or a dwelling owned by an individual and such 29 dwelling's curtilage, without such individual's written consent; 30 (ii) A farm, dairy, ranch or other agricultural industry with - 31 out the written consent of the owner of such farm, dairy, ranch or 32 other agricultural industry. Provided however, that the restric - 33 tions on the use of unmanned aircraft systems provided for in this 34 subsection shall not apply to state or local law enforcement agen - 35 cies engaged in marijuana eradication efforts on any property de - 36 scribed in this subparagraph. 37 (b) Absent reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal conduct, no 38 person, entity or state agency shall use an unmanned aircraft system to 39 photograph an individual, without such individual's written consent, 40 for the purpose of publishing or otherwise publicly disseminating such 41 photograph. 42  

Illinois:

Virginia:

1.  § 1. No state or local government department, agency, or instrumentality having jurisdiction over criminal law enforcement or regulatory violations, including but not limited to the Department of State Police, and no department of law enforcement as defined in § 15.2-836 of the Code of Virginia of any county, city, or town shall utilize an unmanned aircraft system before July 1, 2015.

Notwithstanding the prohibition in this section, an unmanned aircraft system may be deployed before July 1, 2015, (i) when an Amber Alert is activated pursuant to § 52-34.3 of the Code of Virginia, (ii) when a Senior Alert is activated pursuant to § 52-34.6 of the Code of Virginia, (iii) when a Blue Alert is activated pursuant to § 52-34.9 of the Code of Virginia, (iv) for the purpose of a search or rescue operation where use of an unmanned aircraft system is determined to be necessary to alleviate an immediate danger to any person, or (v) for training exercises related to such uses. In no case may a weaponized unmanned aircraft system be deployed or its use facilitated by a state or local agency in Virginia.

The prohibitions in this section shall not apply to the Virginia National Guard while utilizing unmanned aircraft systems during training required to maintain readiness for its federal mission, when facilitating training for other United States Department of Defense units, or when such systems are utilized to support the Commonwealth for purposes other than law enforcement, including damage assessment, traffic assessment, flood stages, and wildfire assessment. Nothing herein shall prohibit use of unmanned aircraft systems solely for research and development purposes by institutions of higher education and other research organizations or institutions.

2. That the Department of Criminal Justice Services, in consultation with the Office of the Attorney General and other state agencies, shall develop model protocols for use of unmanned aircraft systems by law-enforcement agencies and shall report such findings to the Governor and the General Assembly on or before November 1, 2013.

Oregon:

DEFINITIONS SECTION 1. As used in sections 1 to 17 of this 2013 Act: (1) “Drone” means an unmanned flying machine. “Drone” does not include a model air- craft as defined in section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-95) as in effect on the effective date of this 2013 Act. (2) “Law enforcement agency” means an agency that employs police officers, as defined in ORS 133.525, or that prosecutes offenses. (3) “Public body” has the meaning given that term in ORS 174.109. (4) “Warrant” means a warrant issued under ORS 133.525 to 133.703. USE OF DRONES BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES SECTION 2. (1) Except as otherwise provided in sections 2 to 7 of this 2013 Act, a law enforcement agency may not operate a drone, acquire information through the operation of a drone or disclose information acquired through the operation of a drone. (2) Any image or other information that is acquired through the use of a drone by a law enforcement agency in violation of sections 2 to 7 of this 2013 Act, and any evidence derived from that image or information: (a) Is not admissible in, and may not be disclosed in, a judicial proceeding, administrative proceeding, arbitration proceeding or other adjudicatory proceeding; and (b) May not be used to establish reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed. SECTION 3. (1) A law enforcement agency may operate a drone, acquire information through the operation of a drone, or disclose information acquired through the operation of a drone, if: (a) A warrant is issued authorizing use of a drone; or (b) The law enforcement agency has probable cause to believe that a person has com- mitted a crime, is committing a crime or is about to commit a crime, and exigent circum- stances exist that make it unreasonable for the law enforcement agency to obtain a warrant authorizing use of a drone.

(2) A warrant authorizing the use of a drone must specify the period for which operation of the drone is authorized. In no event may a warrant provide for the operation of a drone for a period of more than 30 days. Upon motion and good cause shown, a court may renew a warrant after the expiration of the 30-day period. SECTION 4. A law enforcement agency may operate a drone for the purpose of acquiring information about an individual, or about the individual’s property, if the individual has given written consent to the use of a drone for those purposes. SECTION 5. (1) A law enforcement agency may operate a drone, acquire information through the operation of a drone, or disclose information acquired through the operation of a drone, for the purpose of search and rescue activities, as defined in ORS 404.200. (2) A law enforcement agency may operate a drone, acquire information through the operation of a drone, or disclose information acquired through the operation of a drone, for the purpose of assisting an individual in an emergency if: (a) The law enforcement agency reasonably believes that there is an imminent threat to the life or safety of the individual, and documents the factual basis for that belief; and (b) Not more than 48 hours after the emergency operation begins, an official of the law enforcement agency files a sworn statement with the circuit court that describes the nature of the emergency and the need for use of a drone. (3) A law enforcement agency may operate a drone, acquire information through the operation of a drone, or disclose information acquired through the operation of a drone, during a state of emergency that is declared by the Governor under ORS chapter 401 if: (a) The drone is used only for the purposes of preserving public safety, protecting prop- erty or conducting surveillance for the assessment and evaluation of environmental or weather related damage, erosion or contamination; and (b) The drone is operated only in the geographical area specified in a proclamation pur- suant to ORS 401.165 (5). SECTION 6. (1) A law enforcement agency may operate a drone, acquire information through the operation of a drone, or disclose information acquired through the operation of a drone, for the purpose of reconstruction of a specific crime scene, or similar physical as- sessment, related to a specific criminal investigation. (2) The period that a law enforcement agency may operate a drone under this section may not exceed five days for the purpose of reconstruction of a specific crime scene, or similar physical assessment, related to a specific criminal investigation. SECTION 7. (1) A law enforcement agency may operate a drone for the purpose of training in: (a) The use of drones; and (b) The acquisition of information through the operation of a drone. (2) Any image or other information that is acquired through the use of a drone by a law enforcement agency under this section, and any evidence derived from that image or infor- mation: (a) Is not admissible in, and may not be disclosed in, a judicial proceeding, administrative proceeding, arbitration proceeding or other adjudicatory proceeding; and (b) May not be used to establish reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed.

REGISTRATION OF DRONES USED BY PUBLIC BODIES SECTION 8. (1) A public body may not operate a drone in the airspace over this state without registering the drone with the Oregon Department of Aviation. (2) The Oregon Department of Aviation may impose a civil penalty of up to $10,000 against a public body that violates subsection (1) of this section. Enrolled House Bill 2710 (HB 2710-ACCA) Page 2

(3) Evidence obtained by a public body through the use of a drone in violation of sub- section (1) of this section is not admissible in any judicial or administrative proceeding and may not be used to establish reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that an of- fense has been committed. (4) The Oregon Department of Aviation shall establish a registry of drones operated by public bodies and may charge a fee sufficient to reimburse the department for the mainte- nance of the registry. (5) The Oregon Department of Aviation shall require the following information for reg- istration of a drone: (a) The name of the public body that owns or operates the drone. (b) The name and contact information of the individuals who operate the drone. (c) Identifying information for the drone as required by the department by rule. (6) A public body that registers one or more drones under this section shall provide an annual report to the Oregon Department of Aviation that summarizes: (a) The frequency of use of the drones by the public body during the preceding calendar year; and (b) The purposes for which the drones have been used by the public body during the preceding calendar year. (7) The State Aviation Board may adopt all rules necessary for the registration of drones in Oregon that are consistent with federal laws and regulations. SECTION 9. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, section 8 of this 2013 Act becomes operative January 2, 2016. (2) The Oregon Department of Aviation and the State Aviation Board may take any action before January 2, 2016, including the adoption of rules, that is necessary to allow im- plementation of section 8 of this 2013 Act on January 2, 2016. PROHIBITION ON USE OF WEAPONIZED DRONES BY PUBLIC BODIES SECTION 10. A public body may not operate a drone that is capable of firing a bullet or other projectile, directing a laser or otherwise being used as a weapon. USE OF INFORMATION ACQUIRED BY PUBLIC BODY DRONES SECTION 11. Any image or other information that is acquired by a public body through the use of a drone that has not been approved by the Federal Aviation Administration, and any evidence derived from that image or information: (1) Is not admissible in, and may not be disclosed in, a judicial proceeding, administrative proceeding, arbitration proceeding or other adjudicatory proceeding; and (2) May not be used to establish reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed. SECTION 12. Section 11 of this 2013 Act is repealed January 2, 2016.

CRIMES INVOLVING DRONES SECTION 13. (1) A person commits a Class A felony if the person possesses or controls a drone and intentionally causes, or attempts to cause, the drone to: (a) Fire a bullet or other projectile at an aircraft while the aircraft is in the air; (b) Direct a laser at an aircraft while the aircraft is in the air; or (c) Crash into an aircraft while the aircraft is in the air. (2) A person who intentionally interferes with, or gains unauthorized control over, a drone licensed by the Federal Aviation Administration, or operated by the Armed Forces of Enrolled House Bill 2710 (HB 2710-ACCA) Page 3

the United States as defined in ORS 351.642, an agency of the United States or a federal, state or local law enforcement agency, commits a Class C felony. CIVIL REMEDIES SECTION 14. In addition to any other remedies allowed by law, a person who inten- tionally interferes with, or gains unauthorized control over, a drone licensed by the Federal Aviation Administration, or operated by the Armed Forces of the United States as defined in ORS 351.642, an agency of the United States or a federal, state or local law enforcement agency, is liable to the owner of the drone in an amount of not less than $5,000. The court shall award reasonable attorney fees to a prevailing plaintiff in an action under this section. SECTION 15. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, a person who owns or lawfully occupies real property in this state may bring an action against any person or public body that operates a drone that is flown at a height of less than 400 feet over the property if: (a) The operator of the drone has flown the drone over the property at a height of less than 400 feet on at least one previous occasion; and (b) The person notified the owner or operator of the drone that the person did not want the drone flown over the property at a height of less than 400 feet. (2) A person may not bring an action under this section if: (a) The drone is lawfully in the flight path for landing at an airport, airfield or runway; and (b) The drone is in the process of taking off or landing. (3) A prevailing plaintiff may recover treble damages for any injury to the person or the property by reason of a trespass by a drone as described in this section, and may be awarded injunctive relief in the action. (4) A prevailing plaintiff may recover attorney fees under ORS 20.080 if the amount pleaded in an action under this section is $10,000 or less. (5) The Attorney General, on behalf of the State of Oregon, may bring an action or claim for relief alleging nuisance or trespass arising from the operation of a drone in the airspace over this state. A court shall award reasonable attorney fees to the Attorney General if the Attorney General prevails in an action under this section. APPLICABILITY TO ARMED FORCES SECTION 16. Sections 1 to 17 of this 2013 Act do not apply to the Armed Forces of the United States as defined in ORS 351.642. PREEMPTION OF LOCAL LAWS REGULATING DRONES SECTION 17. Except as expressly authorized by state statute, the authority to regulate the ownership or operation of drones is vested solely in the Legislative Assembly. Except as expressly authorized by state statute, a local government, as defined ORS 174.116, may not enact an ordinance or resolution that regulates the ownership or operation of drones or otherwise engage in the regulation of the ownership or operation of drones.

REPORT TO LEGISLATURE SECTION 18. On or before November 1, 2014, the Oregon Department of Aviation shall report to a joint interim committee of the Legislative Assembly related to the judiciary, or other appropriate interim committees, on: (1) The status of federal regulations relating to unmanned aerial vehicles; and Enrolled House Bill 2710 (HB 2710-ACCA) Page 4

(2) Whether unmanned aerial vehicles operated by private parties should be registered in Oregon in a manner similar to that required for other aircraft. CAPTIONS SECTION 19. The unit captions used in this 2013 Act are provided only for the conven- ience of the reader and do not become part of the statutory law of this state or express any legislative intent in the enactment of this 2013 Act. EMERGENCY CLAUSE SECTION 20. This 2013 Act being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist, and this 2013 Act takes effect on its passage.

Tennessee:

Bill Summary

This bill prohibits law enforcement agencies from using drones to gather evidence or other information, except as otherwise provided below. A "drone" is a powered, aerial vehicle that:

(1) Does not carry a human operator;
(2) Uses aerodynamic forces to provide vehicle lift;
(3) Can fly autonomously or be piloted remotely;
(4) Can be expendable or recoverable; and
(5) Can carry a lethal or nonlethal payload.

This bills states that it does not prohibit the use of a drone:

(1) To counter a high risk of a terrorist attack by a specific individual or organization if the United States secretary of homeland security determines that credible intelligence indicates that there is such a risk;
(2) If the law enforcement agency first obtains a search warrant signed by a judge authorizing the use of a drone; or
(3) If the law enforcement agency possesses reasonable suspicion that, under particular circumstances, swift action is needed to prevent imminent danger to life.

A party aggrieved by a violation of this bill may initiate a civil action against a law enforcement agency to obtain all appropriate relief, as determined by the court, in order to prevent or remedy a violation of this section. Evidence obtained or collected in violation of this bill will not be admissible as evidence in a criminal prosecution in any court of law in this state.

ON APRIL 11, 2013, THE SENATE ADOPTED AMENDMENT #1 AND PASSED SENATE BILL 796, AS AMENDED.

AMENDMENT #1 redefines "drone" to include that it is operated without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the aircraft and remove the provision regarding carrying a lethal or nonlethal payload. This amendment adds that a drone may be used to provide continuous aerial coverage when law enforcement is searching for a fugitive or escapee or is monitoring a hostage situation or to provide more expansive aerial coverage when deployed for the purpose of searching for a missing person.

This amendment revises this bill's provision whereby evidence obtained or collected in violation of this bill will not be admissible as evidence in a criminal prosecution in any court of law in this state to instead provide that no data collected on an individual, home, or areas other than the target that justified deployment may be used, copied or disclosed for any purpose. Such data must be deleted as soon as possible, and in no event later than 24 hours after collection. This amendment adds that the use of a drone to gather evidence or information will constitute a search. Any law enforcement agency that uses a drone, or other substantially similar device to gather evidence or obtain information, must comply in all respects with the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States and article I, section 7, of the Constitution of Tennessee. Absent exigent circumstances or another authorized exception to the warrant requirement, evidence obtained or collected in violation of this bill as amended will not be admissible as evidence in a criminal prosecution in any court of law in this state.

Texas: