BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 2320 Hearing Date: June 21, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Calderon |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |May 4, 2016 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|MK |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Unmanned Aircraft Systems
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation:SB 167 (Gaines) not heard 2015
SB 170 (Gaines) Vetoed 2015
SB 262 (Galgiani) Failed Senate Judiciary 2015
SB 263 (Gaines) not heard 2015
SB 271 (Gaines) Vetoed 2015
AB 56 (Quirk) inactive Senate Floor
SB 15 (Padilla) failed Assembly Public Safety
2014
AB 1327 (Gorell) Vetoed 2014
Support: Unknown
Opposition:City of Thousand Oaks
Assembly Floor Vote: 76 - 0
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to include using an Unmanned
AB 2320 (Calderon ) Page
2 of ?
Aircraft System (UAS) in a number of statutes prohibiting
behavior by an individual.
Existing federal regulations require all drone owners to
register their drones with the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA). Commercial drone operators, but not recreational drone
operators, must also obtain FAA authorization, which is granted
on a case-by-case basis.
Existing law establishes a Division of Aeronautics within the
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). (Public
Utilities Code §§ 21001 et seq)
Existing federal law, the Aviation Administration Modernization
and Reform Act of 2012, requires the Secretary of Transportation
to develop a comprehensive plan to safely accelerate the
integration of civil unmanned aircraft systems into the national
airspace system. The plan is required to provide for safe
integration of civil UAS into national airspace as soon as
practicable, not later than September 30, 2015. (112 P.L. 95,
332.)
Existing law makes it a misdemeanor to violate a protective
order that prohibits a person from coming within a specified
distance of another person. If the violation results in physical
injury, or is second violation in a year then the penalty is a
fine of up to $2,000 and/or not less than and 30 days to one
year in county jail. (Penal Code § 237.6)
This bill provides that a person who is subject to a protective
order and prohibited by that order to stay a specified distance
from another person shall not: operate a UAS in a way that
causes it to fly within the prohibited distance of the other
person or capture images of the other person by using an UAS.
Doing either of these things will be considered a violation of
the protective order.
Existing law requires specified offenders to register as a sex
offender. (Penal Code §290 et seq.)
This bill provides that a judge may order a person required to
register as a sex offender for an offense committed on or after
January 1, 2017 to not operate an UAS if the judge finds that
the restriction is in the public interests.
AB 2320 (Calderon ) Page
3 of ?
Existing law states that every person who goes to the scene of
an emergency, or stops at the scene of an emergency, for the
purpose of viewing the scene or the activities of police
officers, firefighters, emergency medical, or other emergency
personnel, or military personnel coping with the emergency in
the course of their duties during the time it is necessary for
emergency vehicles or those personnel to be at the scene of the
emergency or to be moving to or from the scene of the emergency
for the purpose of protecting lives or property, unless it is
part of the duties of that person's employment to view that
scene or activities, and thereby impedes police officers,
firefighters, emergency medical, or other emergency personnel or
military personnel, in the performance of their duties in coping
with the emergency, is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Penal Code §
402 (a).)
Existing law provides that every person who knowingly resists or
interferes with the lawful efforts of a lifeguard in the
discharge or attempted discharge of an official duty in an
emergency situation, when the person knows or reasonably should
know that the lifeguard is engaged in the performance of his or
her official duty, is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Penal Code § 402
(b).)
Existing law specifies that "emergency" includes a condition or
situation involving injury to persons, damage to property, or
peril to the safety of persons or property, which results from a
fire, an explosion, an airplane crash, flooding, windstorm
damage, a railroad accident, a traffic accident, a power plant
accident, a toxic chemical or biological spill, or any other
natural or human-caused event. (Penal Code § 402(c).)
This bill provides that for the purposes of Penal Code Section
402, a person includes a person who operates or uses an UAS.
Existing law provides that a person who willfully, maliciously
and repeatedly follows or willfully and maliciously harasses
another person and who makes a credible threat with the intent
to place that person in reasonable fear for his or her safety,
or the safety of his or her immediate family is guilty of
stalking which is punishable as a wobbler. (Penal Code § 646.9)
This bill provides that for purposes of Penal Code Section 646.9
AB 2320 (Calderon ) Page
4 of ?
a person includes a person who operates or uses a UAS.
Existing law provides that a person who knowingly brings into
any Correctional institution or jail any alcoholic beverage, any
drugs other than controlled substances or any container or
device intended to be used for unlawfully injecting or consuming
any drug is guilty of a felony. (Penal Code § 4573.5)
This bill provides that for purposes of Penal Code Section
4573.6a person includes a person who operates or uses a UAS.
This bill defines unmanned aircraft as an aircraft that is
operated without the possibility of direct human intervention
from within or on the aircraft.
This bill defines unmanned aircraft system as an unmanned
aircraft and associated elements, including, but not limited to,
communication links and components that control the unmanned
aircraft that ware required of the pilot in command to operate
safely and efficiently in the national airspace system.
This bill makes uncodified Legislative findings and
declarations.
This bill has uncodified intent language stating that it is the
intent of the Legislature that a person be prohibited from,
without the owner or business operator's written consent,
operating or using an unmanned system to knowingly and
intentionally fly within 250 feet of the perimeter of any
critical infrastructure facility for the purpose of conducting
surveillance of the facility, gathering evidence or collecting
information about the facility, or photographically or
electronically recording critical infrastructure data.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the past several years this Committee has scrutinized
legislation referred to its jurisdiction for any potential
impact on prison overcrowding. Mindful of the United States
Supreme Court ruling and federal court orders relating to the
state's ability to provide a constitutional level of health care
to its inmate population and the related issue of prison
overcrowding, this Committee has applied its "ROCA" policy as a
content-neutral, provisional measure necessary to ensure that
AB 2320 (Calderon ) Page
5 of ?
the Legislature does not erode progress in reducing prison
overcrowding.
On February 10, 2014, the federal court ordered California to
reduce its in-state adult institution population to 137.5% of
design capacity by February 28, 2016, as follows:
143% of design bed capacity by June 30, 2014;
141.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2015; and,
137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2016.
In December of 2015 the administration reported that as "of
December 9, 2015, 112,510 inmates were housed in the State's 34
adult institutions, which amounts to 136.0% of design bed
capacity, and 5,264 inmates were housed in out-of-state
facilities. The current population is 1,212 inmates below the
final court-ordered population benchmark of 137.5% of design bed
capacity, and has been under that benchmark since February
2015." (Defendants' December 2015 Status Report in Response to
February 10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC, 3-Judge
Court, Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn. omitted).) One
year ago, 115,826 inmates were housed in the State's 34 adult
institutions, which amounted to 140.0% of design bed capacity,
and 8,864 inmates were housed in out-of-state facilities.
(Defendants' December 2014 Status Report in Response to February
10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC, 3-Judge Court, Coleman
v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn. omitted).)
While significant gains have been made in reducing the prison
population, the state must stabilize these advances and
demonstrate to the federal court that California has in place
the "durable solution" to prison overcrowding "consistently
demanded" by the court. (Opinion Re: Order Granting in Part and
Denying in Part Defendants' Request For Extension of December
31, 2013 Deadline, NO. 2:90-cv-0520 LKK DAD (PC), 3-Judge Court,
Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (2-10-14). The Committee's
consideration of bills that may impact the prison population
therefore will be informed by the following questions:
Whether a proposal erodes a measure which has contributed
to reducing the prison population;
Whether a proposal addresses a major area of public safety
or criminal activity for which there is no other
reasonable, appropriate remedy;
AB 2320 (Calderon ) Page
6 of ?
Whether a proposal addresses a crime which is directly
dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there
is no other reasonably appropriate sanction;
Whether a proposal corrects a constitutional problem or
legislative drafting error; and
Whether a proposal proposes penalties which are
proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other
reasonably appropriate remedy.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
Unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), commonly called
unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) or drones, are being
put to use in a growing number of applications,
including law enforcement, infrastructure inspection,
precision agriculture, wildlife tracking, search and
rescue operations, disaster response, border patrol,
photography and film.
UAS are aircraft subject to regulation by the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) to ensure safety of
flight, and safety of people and property on the
ground. The FAA is in the process of developing rules
that are intended to safely integrate small unmanned
aircraft systems into the national airspace system and
that are expected to be released in late 2016 or 2017.
In the absence of a complete federal regulatory
structure, the state has an obligation to provide
common sense legislation that will protect the public
from unsafe operations of drones. With almost 1 million
UAS sold in 2015, a jump from 430,000 in 2014, human
interactions with UAS will only increase. Without any
significant actions from the FAA, updating specific
code sections in California to clarify specific unsafe
operations of the UAS is illegal is of utmost
importance.
AB 2320 (Calderon ) Page
7 of ?
2. Using a UAS to Violate a Protective Order
This bill would make it a violation of a protective order for a
person who has a protective order that includes a stay-away
order to use a UAS to: operate an unmanned aircraft system in a
way that causes an unmanned aircraft to fly within the
prohibited distance of the other person or to capture images of
the other person by using a UAS. A violation of a protective
order is a misdemeanor.
3. As a Condition for a Registered Sex Offender
This bill provides that a judge may order a person who commits
an offense on or after January 1, 2017 and is required to
register as a sex offender to not operate a UAS if the judge
finds the restriction is in the public interest.
Since many sex offenses carry long sentences, will this
restriction even make sense by the time the person is released?
How will this restriction be enforced once the person is off
parole?
4. Obstructing, Interfering with or Impeding Emergency
Personnel
The Penal Code specifies that it is a misdemeanor to obstruct,
delay, or resist specified positions who are engaged in the
discharged of their duties. The list includes firemen, emergency
rescue personnel, emergency medical technicians, police
officers, peace officers, and public officers in positions for
which it is a crime to interfere with discharge of their duties.
In addition, a Military & Vet. Code section makes it a
misdemeanor for a person to delay or obstructs National Guard or
California State Military Reserve from performing any military
duty.
In addition, Penal Code section 402 prohibits conduct that
impedes specified personnel responding to an emergency. Arguably
a person could not be prosecuted under Penal Code Section 402
when using a drone from a remote location, because the section
only prohibits conduct that impedes specified individuals
performing their duties in coping with an emergency when the
"person goes to the scene of an emergency, or stops at the scene
of an emergency, . . ."
AB 2320 (Calderon ) Page
8 of ?
This bill clarifies that a person operating a UAS is included in
the definition of Penal Code § 402.
This section does the same thing as AB 1680 (Rodriguez) which is
also being heard at the June 21, 2016 hearing.
5. Stalking
This bill provides that a person for the purposes of violating
the stalking provision includes a person operating or using a
UAS. Stalking is a misdemeanor so using a UAS to stalk would be
a misdemeanor.
6. Uncodified Intent
In addition to uncodified Legislative findings and declarations,
this bill expresses uncodified intent that a person is
prohibited from operating a UAS within 250 of the perimeter of
any critical infrastructure facility for the purpose of
conducting surveillance. Critical infrastructure facility is
defined as an airport, electrical power generation system,
petroleum refinery, a manufacturing facility that utilizes any
combustible chemicals, a chemical or rubber manufacturing
facility or a petroleum or chemical storage facility.
This intent is uncodified and the bill does not address this
issue and uncodified intent has no legal impact so it is not
clear why it is in the bill.
-- END -