Final update to this chart 1/22/14. Status of 2014 legislation is available here.
We’re currently seeing an unprecedented surge of activity in state legislatures across the country aimed at regulating domestic surveillance drones. (My colleagues Jay Stanley and Catherine Crump have detailing the trend.) Working closely with our lobbyists in state capitols around the country, we have been tracking this activity and working hard to make sure these privacy-protective bills become law. The chart below shows the current status of state legislation as we understand it. We will update this as we receive new information.
With the exceptions noted below, almost all of the bills we’re seeing require law enforcement to get a before using a drone in an investigation. If you see your state listed below (unless you live in Arizona), call your legislators and urge them to support privacy-protective drones legislation.
(See here for an analysis of the content of drone legislation throughout the nation.)
Legislation proposed in 43 states and enacted in 9 states.
(Update: The 2013 state legislative sessions have drawn to a close. This chart represents a snapshot of the 2013 state legislative action on drones. Many of the bills listed below have been 'carried over' into 2014, and the work to legislate privacy protections for law enforcement use of drones continues. Stay tuned.)
State
Status
Notes
AlabamaPassed Senate committee; legislature adjourned without further action Alaskaadopted creating drone task force; legislature adjourned without further actionTask force is to recommend drone policies and legislationArizonaPassed House; legislature adjourned without further action ArkansasLegislature adjourned without taking up proposed legislation CaliforniaBill introduced; legislature adjourned without further action Floridaenacted, goes into effect July 1, 2013. GeorgiaBill introduced; legislature adjourned without further actionResolutions honoring the aerospace/drones industry also passed in both houses.HawaiiBill introduced; legislature adjourned without further action Idaho enacted, goes into effect July 1, 2013 Illinoisenacted, goes into effect Jan. 1 2014 Indiana“Study group” resolution passed Senate committee; bill introduced; legislature adjourned without further action IowaBill introduced; legislature adjourned without further action KansasBill introduced; legislature adjourned without further action KentuckyBill introduced; legislature adjourned without further action, but interim study hearing on drones held Aug. 21. MainePassed both chambers, VETOED by governor MarylandBill introduced; legislature adjourned without further action MassachusettsIntroduced MichiganIntroduced MinnesotaBill introduced; legislature adjourned without further action MissouriPassed House; legislature adjourned without further action Montana enacted, goes into effect Oct. 1, 2013 NebraskaBill introduced; legislature adjourned without further action NevadaBill introduced; legislature adjourned without further action New HampshireDead for this yearPassed House committee; tabled in House.New JerseyPassed Senate; passed committee in AssemblyPocket vetoed (governor did not sign the bill before the deadline)New MexicoDied in committee New YorkIntroduced North CarolinaTwo-year moratorium (PDF, p. 41). North DakotaDead for this year Passed House, defeated in Senate.OhioIntroduced OklahomaDead for this yearBill until next session; interim study hearing on drone privacy issues to be held Sept. 26Oregonenacted PennsylvaniaIntroduced Rhode IslandBill introduced; legislature adjourned without further action South CarolinaPassed House Committee; legislature adjourned without further action Tennesseeenacted, goes into effect July 1 Texasenacted, goes into effect Sept. 1 VermontBill introduced; legislature adjourned without further action Virginia enacted, goes into effect July 1, 2013. WashingtonNot brought up for full House vote before deadline, so dead for this session. West VirginiaBill introduced; legislature adjourned without further action WisconsinIntroducedLegislature adjourned but legislation will carry over into 2014.WyomingDied in committee
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.