Updated 6/30/14
Since last year, surveillance have been the subject of fierce debate both among legislators and the public, giving rise to an impressive amount of legislation—proposed and enacted—to protect individuals’ privacy.
Working closely with our lobbyists in state capitols around the country, we’ve been tracking drone legislative activity and working hard to make sure privacy-protective bills become law. The chart below shows the current status of the 2014 state legislation as we understand it. It also includes the bills that became law in 2013. We will keep the below chart up-to-date as we receive new information.
Like last year, almost all of the bills we’re seeing require law enforcement to get a before using a drone in an investigation. This year, though, much of the proposed legislation is more complex, taking into account the more challenging issues like what to do with information that is collected incidentally to lawful drone use, how long law enforcement can hang on to drone-collected data, and how to handle government access to information collected by third-party drones. This may be one reason that drones legislation is moving more slowly this year.
If you are interested in the full complement of 2013 legislative activity, you can find that information here. We have also posted analyses of the first drone bills to become law and the first drones bills introduced, and we released a report on drones available here.
Totals:
2014 legislation introduced in 36 states, active in 22 states, and enacted in 4 states.
Overall (2013-2014): laws enacted in 13 states.
State
Status
Notes
AlabamaPassed Senate. Legislature adjourned without further action.Covers private use of drones to document hunting and fishingAlaskaIntroduced; legislature adjourned without futher action. ArizonaIntroduced. Legislature adjourned without further action. CaliforniaPassed House and passed Senate committee ConnecticutIntroduced. Legislature adjourned without furhter action. Floridaenacted in 2013 GeorgiaIntroduced; legislature adjourned without further action. HawaiiPassed Senate; legislature adjourned without further action. Idaho enacted in 2013 IllinoisLegislation passed both chambers and awaiting governor's signature to update enacted in 2013.Updates the 2013 law to cover law enforcement access to information gathered by third-party dronesIndiana
enacted, goes into effect July 1, 2014.
Iowa enacted. KansasIntroduced. Legislature adjourned without further action. KentuckyIntroduced; legislature adjourned without further action LouisianaPassed Senate. Legislature adjourned without further action.Bill contains a number of prohibitions on private use of drones and very few meaningful protections from drone surveillance by law enforcement.MarylandDied in committee MassachusettsIntroduced MichiganIntroduced MinnesotaDied in committee MissouriPassed House. Legislature adjourned without further action. Montana enacted in 2013 NebraskaIndefinitely postponed New HampshireDead for this year (referred for interim study) New JerseyGovernor "pocket vetoed" a 2013 bill at the beginning of 2014. New YorkIntroduced North CarolinaTwo-year moratorium (PDF, p. 41) in 2013. Legislature is engaged in an interim study process that will likely produce further legislation. Legislature does not convene until May 12.OhioPassed committee OklahomaPassed committee. Legislature adjourned without further action. Oregonenacted in 2013 PennsylvaniaIntroduced Rhode IslandHeld for further study South CarolinaPassed House. Legislature adjourned without further action.Passed House unanimouslyTennesseeenacted in 2013.
2014 enacted, goes into effect July 1, 2014
2013 law covers law enforcement use of drones. 2014 law covers private use of drones to document hunting and fishing
Texasenacted in 2013 Utah
enacted, goes into effect May 13, 2014.
VermontIntroduced; legislature adjourned without further action. Virginia
enacted in 2013
2014 bill introduced; legislature adjourned without further action
WashingtonPassed both chambers, VETOED by governor West VirginiaIntroduced; legislature adjourned without further action. Wisconsin
enacted, went into effect April 9, 2014.
WyomingBill introduced; legislature adjourned without further action.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Privacy & Technology
ACLU Applauds Arizona Supreme Court Historic Decision That Police Need a Warrant to Access DNAACLU Applauds Arizona Supreme Court Historic Decision That Police Need a Warrant to Access DNA
PHOENIX — In a 7-0 decision, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that a warrant is required to extract and analyze people’s DNA, saying that a person’s limited consent to a search of biological material for a specific purpose—in this case, a blood alcohol test for a DUI arrest—does not overcome that requirement. The ACLU and the ACLU of Arizona filed a friend-of-the-court brief in State v. Mitcham, arguing the government cannot genetically test biological material it already has in its possession—whether that’s blood taken from newborns to test for diseases or swabs collected from sexual assault survivors—to investigate the donors for a crime without first obtaining a warrant. In the decision, the court wrote that “in reaching this conclusion, we emphatically reject the State’s position that it was free to analyze Mitcham’s blood in any way it pleased simply because the State lawfully possessed the blood vials.” “Government analysis of our DNA can expose detailed information about our identity, appearance, family relationships, medical conditions, and more. We don’t consent to sharing all of that information each time we involuntarily shed our DNA or consent to a blood draw. The government’s argument in this case was a privacy nightmare,” said Vera Eidelman, staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “We are greatly heartened by the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision to preserve the privacy of our sensitive genetic information.” In 2015, during a DUI arrest, the defendant in this case consented to the government collecting a sample of his blood solely to test it for blood-alcohol content, and was advised that the sample would be destroyed after 90 days. Instead, law enforcement held on to this sample for three years, at which point it used it for a completely different purpose—to extract and analyze his DNA, without a warrant or consent—while investigating another crime. Had the court accepted the government’s rationale here, all of us who consent to a biological sample collection, at any point in time, for any purpose, to any government entity, could have been subject to a warrantless DNA search after the fact. “Our DNA can reveal so much about us that our genetic privacy must be protected,” said Jared Keenan, legal director of ACLU of Arizona. “The Court’s decision is vital to protecting the strong constitutional rights that keep all Arizonans’ information safe from warrantless searches and unconstitutional intrusion.” -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Privacy & Technology
Face Recognition Threatens to Replace Tickets, ID at Sports Events – and BeyondFace Recognition Threatens to Replace Tickets, ID at Sports Events – and Beyond
You shouldn't participate in face recognition ticketing schemes. -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Privacy & Technology
AI Generated Police Reports Raise Concerns Around Transparency, BiasAI Generated Police Reports Raise Concerns Around Transparency, Bias
AI-generated police reports threaten to exacerbate existing problems in law enforcement, and to create new ones.