BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular Session
SB 142 (Jackson)
Version: January 26, 2015
Hearing Date: April 7, 2015
Fiscal: No
Urgency: No
TH
SUBJECT
Civil law: Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
DESCRIPTION
Existing law renders one liable for trespass if he or she
intentionally enters the land of another, and sets criteria for
measuring damages owing due to the wrongful occupation of land.
Existing law also provides that a person is liable for physical
invasion of privacy where one knowingly enters upon the land of
another without permission in order to capture recordings of
private activity.
This bill would clarify that the operation of an unmanned aerial
vehicle below the navigable airspace overlying the property of
another without permission constitutes trespass, and that using
such a vehicle in trespass to capture images or recordings of
individuals engaged in personal or familial activities
constitutes physical invasion of privacy.
BACKGROUND
The development of small unmanned aircraft systems - known
variously as "unmanned aerial vehicles," "remote piloted
aircraft," or simply "drones" - promises to transform the way
Californians interact with each other and their environment.
Just a few decades ago, small aircraft of this type were the
exclusive domain of hobbyists. Within the last decade or so,
the public has become familiar with the military's use of
unmanned aircraft to accomplish certain mission objectives.
However, in December 2013 when Amazon.com, FedEx, and UPS
announced their plans to integrate unmanned aircraft into their
logistics and delivery services, the possibility of widespread
commercial adoption of this technology became clear.
SB 142 (Jackson)
PageB of?
At present, the use of unmanned aerial vehicles in the skies
over California is fairly restricted. Congress effectively
closed the national airspace to commercial drone flights in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Modernization and Reform
Act of 2012.<1> That Act established a framework for safely
integrating unmanned aircraft into the national airspace no
later than September 30, 2015. The Act does, however, permit
certain commercial unmanned aircraft operations to take place
before the integration framework is implemented. Section 333 of
the Act authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to establish
special interim requirements for the operation of these aircraft
by designated operators, provided the aircraft and their
operators meet certain minimum standards and have applied for a
commercial use exemption. To date, a handful of commercial
operators have applied for, and received, permission to fly
commercial drones, including several film production companies,
construction, surveying, and inspection companies, and a number
of real estate firms. The Act also sets out a separate interim
operation exemption for "public unmanned aircraft," allowing
public agencies like police departments to operate drones upon
application, provided the aircraft and their operators meet
certain minimum standards.<2>
Unlike commercial drone operations, flying an unmanned aircraft
"strictly for hobby or recreational use" is allowed today so
long as the operator pilots the craft in accordance with
specific safety rules.<3> As a result, private citizens are
piloting most of the drones one sees in California today. The
Modernization and Reform Act's safety rules include a
requirement to operate these recreational aircraft "in
---------------------------
<1> H.R.658, 112th Congress (2011-2012). In general, the FAA is
tasked with regulating aircraft operations conducted in the
national airspace under 49 U.S.C. Sec. 40103. This authority
extends to unmanned aircraft operations, which, by definition,
are considered to be "aircraft." (See 49 U.S.C. Sec.
40102(a)(6), which defines an "aircraft" as "any contrivance
invented, used, or designed to navigate, or fly in, the air.")
<2> See Section 334 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of
2012.
<3> See Section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of
2012.
SB 142 (Jackson)
PageC of?
accordance with a community-based set of safety guidelines," but
the lack of more comprehensive rules establishing clear
boundaries for when, where, and how these craft are to be
operated has raised concerns. (Id.) Indeed, a recent poll
shows just how far this concern has permeated into the general
public. According to Reuters, "[s]ome 73 percent of respondents
to [an online poll] said they want regulations for the
lightweight, remote-control planes," and "forty-two percent went
as far as to oppose private ownership of drones, suggesting they
prefer restricting them to officials or experts trained in safe
operation." (Alwyn Scott, Americans OK With Police Drones -
Private Ownership, Not So Much: Poll
[as of Mar. 31, 2015].) Even though
drone technology is in its infancy, there have already been
disputes between landowners who have used these machines to
traverse traditional boundaries, including a New Jersey man who
shot an aerial drone from the sky when it entered his land.
(See Steve Beck, New Jersey Man Accused of Shooting Down
Neighbor's Remote Control Drone
[as of Mar. 31, 2015].)
This bill would clarify that operation of an unmanned aerial
vehicle over the property of another without permission
constitutes trespass, and that using such a vehicle in trespass
to capture images or recordings may be a physical invasion of
privacy.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law , the California Constitution, provides that all
people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable
rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and
pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy. (Cal.
Const, art. I, Sec. 1.)
Existing law provides, for the breach of an obligation not
arising from contract (including trespass), the measure of
damages, except where otherwise expressly provided, is the
amount which will compensate for all the detriment proximately
caused thereby, whether it could have been anticipated or not.
(Civ. Code Sec. 3333.)
SB 142 (Jackson)
PageD of?
Existing law provides that the detriment caused by the wrongful
occupation of real property is deemed to include the value of
the use of the property for the time of that wrongful
occupation, the reasonable cost of repair or restoration of the
property to its original condition, and the costs, if any, of
recovering the possession. (Civ. Code Sec. 3334.)
Existing federal law defines "navigable airspace" as airspace
above the minimum altitudes of flight prescribed by federal law
and regulations, including airspace needed to ensure safety in
the takeoff and landing of aircraft. (49 U.S.C. Sec.
40102(a)(32).)
This bill would state that a person wrongfully occupies real
property and is liable for damages if, without permission, he or
she operates an unmanned aerial vehicle below the navigable
airspace, as defined in paragraph (32) of subsection (a) of
section 42102 of title 49 of the United States Code, overlaying
the real property.
Existing law provides that a person is liable for physical
invasion of privacy when the defendant knowingly enters onto the
land of another person without permission or otherwise committed
a trespass in order to capture any type of visual image, sound
recording, or other physical impression of the plaintiff
engaging in a private, personal, or familial activity and the
invasion occurs in a manner that is offensive to a reasonable
person. (Civ. Code Sec. 1708.8(a).)
This bill would state that a person knowingly enters onto the
land of another person pursuant to subdivision (a) of section
1708.8 if he or she operates an unmanned aerial vehicle below
the navigable airspace, as defined in paragraph (32) of
subsection (a) of section 40102 of title 49 of the United States
Code, overlaying the property.
COMMENT
1.Stated need for the bill
The author writes:
SB 142 (Jackson)
PageE of?
Existing law protects the privacy of California residents in
their homes both by prohibiting others from entering onto
private land without permission, and by prohibiting attempts
to capture images or recordings of individuals engaged in
personal or familial activities in situations where they have
a reasonable expectation of privacy. This bill clarifies how
long-standing principles of trespass and privacy apply to
unmanned aircraft, also known as drones.
Drone technology is exciting and offers great new commercial
and recreational opportunities for Californians. But we need
to make clear what the rules are, and avoid situations where
people start crossing that line into someone else's private
space. This bill clarifies and reinforces California's
existing law on trespass and physical invasion of privacy in
two important ways:
Trespass Includes Entry by Drone :
First, this bill explicitly provides that operating an
unmanned aerial vehicle below the federal "navigable airspace"
overlaying the property of another constitutes trespass. Just
as trespass occurs when one directs a remote controlled
vehicle onto another's property, this bill clarifies that
flying a drone in close proximity to another's land without
permission constitutes unauthorized entry.
Physical Invasion of Privacy Includes Use of Drones :
Second, this bill clarifies that committing trespass in order
to physically invade the property of another with the intent
of recording their private personal or familial activities
includes physical entry by a drone. Just as taking
unauthorized pictures of an individual inside their home while
standing in their backyard violates their right to privacy,
this bill clarifies that directing a drone to do the same
thing without permission constitutes physical invasion of
privacy.
Drones have a lot of potentially useful and extremely
innovative uses, but invading our privacy and property without
permission shouldn't be among them. When we're in our
backyards, with our families, we have an expectation that we
have a right to privacy. By extending the long-established
concepts of trespass and privacy to include drone operations,
SB 142 (Jackson)
PageF of?
this bill brings these concepts into the 21st century.
2.Property Right to Overlying Airspace
For the past several centuries, property law has mainly limited
its concern to events taking place at or below ground level.
California law generally reflects this focus on things
terrestrial, and existing laws pertaining to implied easements,
trespass, nuisance, and the like typically examine activities
taking place on the surface. Consequently, existing law does
not clearly delineate the aerial boundary between private
property - where owners of land may ostensibly prohibit
unauthorized entry by drone - and public airspace.
At common law, the maxim "cuius est solum, eius est usque ad
coelum" (whoever owns the soil, it is theirs up to heaven)
rendered all airspace above one's land as part of their estate.
With the advent of aircraft and air travel, the common law
understanding of property rights extending to the stratosphere
gave way to a belief that the public ought to be able to
traverse the skies as freely as they do the seas. The case of
United States v. Causby (1946) 328 U.S. 256 formalized this new,
more limited understanding of aerial property rights. In that
case, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized "that the airspace is a
public highway," but also held in unresolved tension that "it is
obvious that if the landowner is to have full enjoyment of the
land, he must have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of
the enveloping atmosphere." (Id. at 264.) The Court explained:
[t]he landowner owns at least as much of the space above the
ground as he can occupy or use in connection with the land. .
. . While the owner does not in any physical manner occupy
that stratum of airspace or make use of it in the conventional
sense, he does use it in somewhat the same sense that space
left between buildings for the purpose of light and air is
used. The superadjacent airspace at this low altitude is so
close to the land that continuous invasions of it affect the
use of the surface of the land itself. We think that the
landowner, as an incident to his ownership, has a claim to it,
and that invasions of it are in the same category as invasions
of the surface. (Id. at 264-65.)
While recognizing the existence of these two competing
interests, the Court declined to delineate the boundary between
SB 142 (Jackson)
PageG of?
public and private airspace. (See Id. at 266 ["we need not
determine at this time what those precise limits are"].)
However, the Court did at least recognize on the facts
particular to that case that the Causby's property interests
were encroached upon by military aircraft flying 83 feet above
their land. (Id. at 258.)
This bill attempts to clarify the boundary between where private
property rights end and the public servitude for air travel
begins. Specifically, it would provide that operating an
unmanned aerial vehicle without permission below the "navigable
airspace" overlaying real property constitutes wrongful
occupation of real property. Under federal law, "navigable
airspace" refers to the "airspace above the minimum altitudes of
flight prescribed by regulations under [the Federal Aviation Act
of 1958], including airspace needed to ensure safety in the
takeoff and landing of aircraft." (49 U.S.C. Sec.
40102(a)(32).) Though not precisely defined, "navigable
airspace" has until recently been thought of as generally
describing airspace beginning at a point higher than 400 feet
above ground level, as demonstrated in part by a 1981 FAA
Advisory (AC 91-57) pertaining to "Model Aircraft Operating
Standards," and such things as the FAA's regulations declaring
the minimum safe operating altitude for fixed-wing aircraft to
be 500 feet above ground level. (See 14 C.F.R. Sec. 91.119(c).)
However, recent proposed rules pertaining to unmanned aircraft
operations suggest that the FAA may expand its definition of
"navigable airspace" to include all airspace above ground level.
(See FAA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Operation and
Certification of Small
Unmanned Aircraft Systems, 80 Fed. Reg. 9544 (Feb. 23, 2015)
(proposing navigable airspace for drones between 0 and 500 feet
above ground level.)
In order to clarify the altitude below which the provisions of
this bill would apply, and to correct a drafting error in a
citation to federal law, the author offers the following
amendments:
Author's Amendments :
On page 2, line 5, following "she," insert "does any of the
following: (1)"
SB 142 (Jackson)
PageH of?
On page 2, line 8, strike "property" and insert "real
property; or"
On page 2, between lines 8 and 9, insert "(2) operates an
unmanned aerial vehicle less than 350 feet above ground level
within the airspace overlaying the real property."
On page 2, line 11, following "she," insert "does any of the
following: (1)"
On page 2, line 13, strike "42102" and insert "40102"
On page 2, line 14, strike "property" and insert "property;
or"
On page 2, after line 14, insert "(2) operates an unmanned
aerial vehicle less than 350 feet above ground level within
the airspace overlaying the real property."
3.California Trespass Law
As discussed in Comment 2, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that
an individual's property rights extend into the airspace
overlaying their land. While this right is not absolute, it
does encompass one of the most basic of property rights -- the
right to exclude. In California, the right to exclude is
maintained, in part, through laws providing remedies for civil
trespass. Combining the concepts of aerial property rights and
civil trespass, the Restatement of Torts states that "a trespass
may be committed on, beneath, or above the surface of the
earth." (Restat. 2d of Torts, § 159; see also McKenzie v.
Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (Cal.App.5th Dist. 1962) 200
Cal.App.2d 731, 737 (the placement of power lines overlaying
private property outside of an easement constitutes trespass).)
"The essence of the cause of action for trespass is an
"unauthorized entry" onto the land of another. Such invasions
are characterized as intentional torts, regardless of the
actor's motivation. Where there is a consensual entry, there is
no tort, because lack of consent is an element of the wrong."
(Civic Western Corp. v. Zila Industries, Inc., 66 Cal.App.3d 1,
16-17 (Cal.App.2d Dist. 1977).) However, as it pertains to
trespass by airplanes, the Restatement qualifies its
pronouncement on aerial trespass, stating that "[f]light by
aircraft in the air space above the land of another is a
SB 142 (Jackson)
PageI of?
trespass if, but only if, it enters into the immediate reaches
of the air space next to the land, and it interferes
substantially with the other's use and enjoyment of his land."
(Restat. 2d of Torts, § 159.)
This bill, as proposed to be amended in Comment 2, clarifies
ambiguity surrounding what constitutes the "immediate reaches of
air space" and what "substantially interferes with the use and
enjoyment of land" by providing that wrongful occupation of real
property occurs when one operates an unmanned aerial vehicle
without the permission of the landowner less than 350 feet above
ground level within the airspace overlaying real property. The
American Chemistry Council (ACC), in support, states:
The proliferation of unmanned aerial vehicles has raised
questions about potential security threats to critical
infrastructure such as chemical plants, refineries, and
electricity generating facilities. As states and the federal
government look to further regulate the use of unmanned aerial
vehicles, ACC feels it is necessary to ensure sufficient
protections are in place to prohibit the intentional use of an
unmanned aerial vehicle by a private party to conduct
surveillance of these types of facilities.
As proposed to be amended, this bill will help ensure that
businesses are able to protect critical infrastructure like
chemical manufacturing plants by clarifying that these entities
have the right, as landowners, to exclude unmanned aerial
vehicles from the airspace immediately above their facilities.
4.Measure of Trespass Damages
The measure for trespass damages is given in Civil Code Section
3333, California's general measure of damages provision.
(Hawthorne v. Siegel (1891) 88 Cal. 159, 163.) That section
provides "[f]or the breach of an obligation not arising from
contract [including trespass], the measure of damages . . . is
the amount which will compensate for all the detriment
proximately caused thereby, whether it could have been
anticipated or not. (Civ. Code Sec. 3333.) "When a breach of
duty has caused no appreciable detriment to the party affected,
he may yet recover nominal damages." (Civ. Code Sec. 3360.)
When the person committing trespass receives an economic benefit
from the trespass, the measure of damages for the wrongful
SB 142 (Jackson)
PageJ of?
occupation of real property is deemed to include the value of
the use of the property for the time of that wrongful
occupation, the reasonable cost of repair or restoration of the
property to its original condition, and the costs, if any, of
recovering the possession. (Civ. Code Sec. 3334.)
Under this bill's provisions, a drone operator who flies their
aircraft without permission less than 350 feet over the property
of another could incur liability ranging from nominal damages to
the equivalent of unpaid rent that the landowner would otherwise
charge for entry onto his or her land with an aerial vehicle.
Additionally, an aggrieved landowner could, in some
circumstances, petition a court for an injunction or a
restraining order to prevent a drone operator from repeatedly
trespassing within the landowner's airspace.
The CSAC Excess Insurance Authority, writing in opposition,
raises concerns about potential trespass liability resulting
from the use of unmanned aerial vehicles over private property,
and states:
Unfortunately, SB 142 does not appear to take any of the
positive aspects of unmanned aerial vehicles into
consideration and, instead, creates liability for wrongful
occupation of real property anytime an unmanned aerial vehicle
flies over real property without first obtaining permission
from the owner of the real property. The reality is that such
flyover would occur on almost all occasions when an unmanned
aerial vehicle is used as it would be difficult for the
operator of the vehicle to ensure that he or she is only
flying the vehicle over property owned by the entity that is
operating the vehicle.
This concern over liability fails to take into consideration
that, under existing law, flying unmanned aerial vehicles over
private property without permission may already constitute
trespass, especially when such flights occur close to ground
level or occupied structures. Rather than imposing additional
liability, this bill creates clear guidelines for drone
operators to avoid liability for trespass. California law has
traditionally marked property boundaries with things like
fences, gates, and walls, but similarly clear boundaries do not
exist under laws pertaining to aerial trespass (discussed in
Comment 3 above). This bill, as proposed to be amended in
SB 142 (Jackson)
PageK of?
Comment 2, would create a clear boundary at the 350 foot level,
and would provide drone operators with a measure of certainty
not present in existing trespass law.
5.Drone Operations on Public Land
On February 17, 2015, this Committee held an oversight hearing
on the subject of integrating unmanned aerial vehicles into
California's airspace. During that hearing, managers of public
lands expressed a desire to be able to exclude drones from
flying over lands under their charge, stating that unrestricted
drone use in the skies overlying property under their care could
undermine resource values they are tasked with preserving. As
an example of the problems drone use on public lands might
cause, witnesses mentioned instances where drone use by visitors
to the National Parks have threatened wildlife and risked
damaging natural features like geysers and thermal pools. (See
Mike Koshmrl, Despite Ban in Parks, Drones Are in the Air
[as of Mar. 31, 2015].) Indeed, the National Park
Service has responded by issuing a temporary moratorium on
private unpermitted drone use in National Park units until more
long-term regulations can be formulated. (See Unmanned Aircraft
to be Prohibited in America's National Parks
[as of Mar. 31,
2015].) More generally, witnesses stated that drone use in city
parks may present a safety risk to park visitors, especially for
aerial vehicles with exposed fast-moving components or operators
with insufficient training. In a similar manner, witnesses
representing the public safety community testified that
unrestricted drone use over public lands hosting prisons, police
stations, and military installations, may threaten the security
of such facilities.
While this bill does not address drone use on public lands
directly, staff notes that under existing law public land
managers, acting as representatives of the public, can already
use California's civil trespass statutes in the management of
public lands. (See e.g. California v. Kinder Morgan Energy
Partners, L.P. (S.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2013) 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
10503, 52 (discussing application of California civil trespass
law to public land).) It is therefore likely that, under
existing law, public land managers may already have the same
SB 142 (Jackson)
PageL of?
authority as private individuals to close airspace under their
control to drone operations. (See Comment 3 (discussing
aircraft trespass under existing law.) As with private land,
this bill would help clarify the zone of airspace overlaying
public land subject to control by land managers.
6.Physical Invasion of Privacy
The California Constitution provides that all people have
inalienable rights, including the right to pursue and obtain
privacy. (Cal. Const. art. I, Sec. 1.) Because of their
inherent maneuverability and the ease with which they may enter
spaces infeasible for manned aircraft, the growth of unmanned
aerial vehicle technology presents a challenge to maintaining
traditional boundaries that separate public and private spheres,
and to preserving the fundamental right to privacy in
California.
Existing law, Civil Code Section 1708.8(a), creates a cause of
action for "physical invasion of privacy" where an individual
knowingly enters the land of another person in order to invade
his or her privacy by capturing a visual image, sound recording,
or other physical impression of that person engaging in a
personal or familial activity. This bill would provide that a
person knowingly enters onto the land of another pursuant to
Section 1708.8(a) if he or she operates an unmanned aerial
vehicle below the "navigable airspace" overlaying the real
property, or if he or she operates an unmanned aerial vehicle
less than 350 feet above ground level within the airspace
overlaying the real property.
As with aerial trespass, existing law in California is ambiguous
as to what qualifies as knowingly entering the land of another
when the activity occurs above ground level. This bill would
clarify that ambiguity by specifying that knowingly entering the
land of another includes piloting a drone lower than 350 feet
above someone else's private property. As a consequence, this
bill would allow an aggrieved party to bring an action for
physical invasion of privacy where a drone pilot uses an
unmanned aircraft to enter the property of another and record
that person's personal or familial activities. In so doing,
this bill would strengthen the right to privacy California
residents enjoy while on their own property.
SB 142 (Jackson)
PageM of?
7.Constructive Invasion of Privacy
Existing law also protects the right of privacy from invasive
activities occurring outside one's property through the tort of
"constructive invasion of privacy." Codified at Civil Code
Section 1708.8(b), this tort renders a person liable for
invasion of privacy when they attempt to capture, in a highly
offensive manner, any type of visual image, sound recording, or
other physical impression of another person in which that person
had a reasonable expectation of privacy, through the use of any
device, regardless of whether there was a physical trespass, if
the image or recording could not have been achieved without a
trespass unless the device was used. Unlike physical invasion
of privacy which is premised on physical trespass, the tort of
constructive invasion of privacy requires a plaintiff to show
that his or her "reasonable expectation of privacy" has been
violated. A constructive invasion of privacy claim may, for
example, be brought against a person who took photos of a
neighbor in a secluded portion of his or her property even
though the photographer never stepped foot onto that person's
private land.
Some stakeholders have raised concerns that this bill does not
address the use of drones outside a property's overlying
airspace - such as on nearby public streets or adjacent property
- to observe or record private activities occurring on private
property. As discussed above, California's existing tort on
constructive invasion of privacy likely captures these types of
activities, including operating a drone on a public street to
look over a tall backyard fence and see inside a house.
8.Preserving Rights While Allowing for Innovation
It is important to note that while the emergence of drone
technology presents some compelling public policy challenges,
this new technology could potentially revolutionize the way
Californians interact with each other and could transform
California's economy. A report from Business Insider's
Intelligence Unit estimates that "[twelve percent] of an
estimated $98 billion in cumulative global spending on aerial
drones over the next decade will be for commercial purposes."
(Marcelo Ballve, Commercial Drones: Assessing The Potential For
A New Drone-Powered Economy
[as of Mar. 31, 2015].) "While drones are unlikely to
become a part of our daily lives in the immediate future,"
Business Insider concludes that "they will soon begin taking on
much larger roles for businesses and some individual consumers,
from delivering groceries and e-commerce orders to
revolutionizing private security, to changing the way farmers
manage their crops - perhaps even aerial advertising." (Id.)
This bill seeks to balance privacy and property interests with
the need to create unrestricted space for drone operations, thus
ensuring that California will remain a participant in the new
drone-based economy. Specifically, the author's amendments
offered in Comment 2 create a corridor for drone operations
between 350 feet and 500 feet above ground level, the latter
being the floor for manned aircraft operations under existing
FAA regulations. Should the FAA authorize the commercial use of
drones in the United States, this bill would ensure that
California has designated airspace where commercial operators
could fly their unmanned vehicles. Of course, just as under
existing law, property owners can give businesses permission to
come onto their private land, which means that, with landowner
permission (and FAA authorization), drone operators could in the
future be able to fly deliveries right to your doorstep. Under
this bill, large property owners, like commercial farms, would
be free to deploy unmanned aerial vehicles across their land to
deliver pesticides or monitor crop conditions, and technology
companies like Facebook could use solar powered drones at the
appropriate altitude to provide internet connectivity to remote
areas. (See Issie Lapowsky, Facebook Lays Out Its Roadmap for
Creating Internet-Connected Drones < http://www.wired.com/
2014/09/facebook-drones-2/> [as of Mar. 31, 2015].)
Additionally, this bill would ensure that hobbyists remain free
to fly drones for recreational purposes, either on their own
property, on public property where such activities are allowed,
or throughout an aerial corridor between 350 and 400 feet above
ground level.
Support : American Chemistry Council; Privacy Rights
Clearinghouse; One Individual
Opposition : CSAC Excess Insurance Authority
HISTORY
SB 142 (Jackson)
PageO of?
Source : Author
Related Pending Legislation :
SB 170 (Gaines, 2015) would provide that a person who knowingly
and intentionally operates an unmanned aircraft system below
"navigable airspace," as defined in federal law, overlaying a
state prison is guilty of a misdemeanor, and would also provide,
with certain exceptions, that a person who knowingly and
intentionally captures images or data of a state prison through
the operation of an unmanned aircraft is guilty of a
misdemeanor. This bill is pending in the Senate Public Safety
Committee.
SB 262 (Galgiani, 2015) would authorize law enforcement agencies
to use unmanned aircraft if the use of such aircraft complies
with protections against unreasonable searches guaranteed by the
United States Constitution and the California Constitution,
federal law applicable to the use of an unmanned aircraft system
by a law enforcement agency, and state law applicable to a law
enforcement agency's use of surveillance technology that can be
attached to an unmanned aircraft system. This bill is pending
in the Senate Public Safety Committee.
SB 271 (Gaines, 2015) would make it an infraction to operate an
unmanned aircraft on or above the grounds of a public school
providing instruction in kindergarten or grades 1 to 12.
Violators would face a fine of no more than $150 for the first
violation, and a fine of no more than $500 for each subsequent
violation. This bill is pending in the Senate Public Safety
Committee.
AB 14 (Waldron, 2015) would create the Unmanned Aircraft Systems
Task Force, which would be required to research, develop, and
formulate a comprehensive policy for unmanned aircraft systems
in California. The task force would be required to submit,
among other things, a policy draft and suggested legislation
pertaining to unmanned aircraft systems to the Legislature and
the Governor on or before January 1, 2018. This bill is pending
in the Assembly Transportation Committee.
AB 56 (Quirk, 2015) would prohibit public agencies from using
unmanned aircraft systems, or contracting for the use of these
SB 142 (Jackson)
PageP of?
systems, with certain exceptions for law enforcement agencies
acting pursuant to a warrant and in certain other cases,
including when the use or operation of the unmanned aircraft
system achieves the core mission of the agency and the purpose
for use is unrelated to the gathering of criminal intelligence.
The bill would also require notice by public agencies intending
to deploy unmanned aircraft, would require images, footage, or
data obtained through the use of such aircraft to be permanently
destroyed within one year except as specified, and would
prohibit equipping unmanned aircraft with weapons. This bill is
pending in the Assembly Public Safety Committee.
Prior Legislation :
AB 1327 (Gorell, 2014) would have prohibited public agencies
from using unmanned aircraft systems, or contracting for the use
of these systems, with certain exceptions for law enforcement
agencies acting pursuant to a warrant and in certain other
cases, including when the use or operation of the unmanned
aircraft system achieves the core mission of the agency and the
purpose of use is unrelated to the gathering of criminal
intelligence. The bill would have also required notice by
public agencies intending to deploy unmanned aircraft, would
have required images, footage, or data obtained through the use
of such aircraft to be permanently destroyed within one year
except as specified, and would have prohibited equipping
unmanned aircraft with weapons. This bill was vetoed by
Governor Brown.
SB 15 (Padilla, 2013) would have, among other things, required
law enforcement agencies to obtain search warrants when using
unmanned aircraft, and would have required that an application
for the search warrant specify the intended purpose for which
the unmanned aircraft would be used. The bill would have also
restricted data collection by unmanned aircraft and would have
prohibited equipping unmanned aircraft with weapons. This bill
died in the Assembly Public Safety Committee.
AB 1524 (Waldron, 2013) would have required any entity that owns
or operates an unmanned aircraft to place identifying
information or digitally store identifying information on the
aircraft. The bill would have exempted model aircraft, and
would have made a person or entity that violates its provisions
liable for a civil fine not to exceed $2,500. This bill was set
SB 142 (Jackson)
PageQ of?
for hearing in the Assembly Transportation Committee, but the
hearing was cancelled at the author's request.
**************