BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 807
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 3, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Lorena Gonzalez, Chair
SB 807
(Gaines) - As Amended June 21, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Privacy and Consumer |Vote:|11 - 0 |
|Committee: |Protection | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| |Judiciary | |10 - 0 |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: NoReimbursable: No
SUMMARY:
This bill provides that a public entity, public employee, or an
emergency responder, as defined, is not liable for damage to a
unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV, or "drone") if the damage was
caused while any of these parties was providing, and the UAV was
SB 807
Page 2
interfering with, the operation, support, or enabling of any of
the following emergency services:
1)Emergency medical services or ambulance transport services,
including, but not limited to, air ambulance services;
2)Firefighting or firefighting-related services, including, but
not limited to, air services related to firefighting or
firefighting-related services; and
3)Search and rescue services, including, but not limited to, air
search and rescue services.
FISCAL EFFECT:
Negligible fiscal impact.
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose. The bill is in response to recent reports of
unauthorized drones interfering with the efforts of
firefighting aircraft. According to the author, this bill
would allow emergency responders to damage or destroy a drone
that is interfering with their work without fear of being sued
by the drone's owner for any damage done to the drone. It is
unclear whether emergency responders have ever found it
necessary to destroy a drone that was interfering with their
work or, if they have, if any person has sued an emergency
responder for damaging that drone. Nonetheless, the author
maintains that emergency responders are unsure as to what they
may or may not do in such a situation, and that this bill
would allow them to "do their job of protecting the public
SB 807
Page 3
without worrying about frivolous lawsuits." This bill is
co-sponsored by the California Police Chiefs Association and
the League of California Cities. There is no known opposition.
2)Prior Legislation. The immunity provisions in this bill are
substantially similar to those provided in last year's SB 168
(Gaines and Jackson), which was vetoed by the Governor along
with several other bills that created new crimes. The criminal
penalties contained in SB 168 are not included in this bill.
Analysis Prepared by:Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916)
319-2081