Ohio enacted HB292 that created the aerospace and aviation technology committee. One of this committee’s duties is to research and develop aviation technology including UAS (NCSL, 2015b).
Pennsylvania adopted in 2013, a resolution, HR172, urging the United States Department of Defense to reconsider the rank of a new medal recognizing military achievement in combat drone operations (NCSL, 2015a).
Tennessee SB796, enacted in 2013, enables law enforcement to use UAS in compliance with a search warrant, to counter a high-risk terrorist attack, and if swift action is needed to prevent imminent danger to life. However, evidence obtained in violation of this law is not admissible in state criminal prosecutions. Furthermore, those people wronged by such evidence can seek civil remedy (NCSL, 2015a). In 2014, Tennessee enacted two new laws. The first law, SB1777, makes it a class C misdemeanor for any private entity to use a UAS to conduct video surveillance of a person who is hunting or fishing without their consent. The second law, SB1892, makes it a class C misdemeanor for a person to use UAS to intentionally conduct surveillance of an individual or their property. It also makes it a crime to possess those images, again a class C misdemeanor. Finally, it makes it a crime to distribute or otherwise use these same images, a class B misdemeanor (NCSL, 2015b). In all fairness, Tennessee law also identifies 18 lawful uses of UAS, including the commercial use of UAS under FAA regulation, professional or scholarly research and for use in oil pipeline and well safety (NCSL, 2015b). In 2015, HB153 prohibited using a UAS to capture an image over certain open-air events and fireworks displays. It also prohibited the use of UAS over the grounds of a correctional facility (NCSL, 2015c).
Texas adopted in 2013, two resolutions, HR3035 and SR1084 addressing legislative procedure needed to enact their new UAS law (NCSL, 2015a). Texas then enacted a law, HB912, that enumerates 19 lawful uses for UAS including their use in airspace designated as an FAA test site, their use in connection with a valid search warrant, and their use in oil pipeline safety and rig protection. Texas law created two new crimes that are classified as class C misdemeanors. The first crime is the illegal use of a UAS to capture images, and the second crime is the offense of possessing or distributing the image. It should be noted that an image in this context could be a sound wave, thermal, ultraviolet, visible light or other electromagnetic waves, odor, or other conditions existing on property or an individual located on the property. Finally, Texas law requires the Department of Public Safety to adopt rules for use of UAS by law enforcement and mandates that law enforcement agencies in communities of over 150,000 people make annual reports on their use. Texas HCR217 altered reporting requirements from the original HB912 (NCSL, 2015a). Texas HB3628 permits the creation of rules governing the use of UAS in the Capitol Complex and provides that a violation of those rules is a Class B misdemeanor. HB2167 permits individuals in certain professions to capture images used in those professions using UAS as long as no individual is identifiable in the image. HB1481 made it a Class B misdemeanor to operate UAS over a critical infrastructure facility if the UAS was not more than 400 feet off the ground (NCSL, 2015c).
Utah SB167 regulates the use of UAS by state government entities. A warrant is now required for a law enforcement agency to “obtain, receive or use data” derived from the use of UAS (NCSL, 2015b, para. 9). The law also established standards for when it is acceptable for an individual or other non-governmental entity to submit data to law enforcement. This new law provides standards for law enforcement agencies’ collection, use, storage, deletion and maintenance of data. If a law enforcement agency uses UAS, the measure requires that agency submit an annual report on their use to the Department of Public Safety and also to publish the report on the individual agency’s website. The new law noted that it is not intended to “prohibit or impede the public and private research, development or manufacture of unmanned aerial vehicles” (NCSL, 2015b, para. 9). In 2015, Utah HB296 allows a law enforcement agency to use an unmanned aircraft system to collect data at a testing site and to locate a lost or missing person in an area in which a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy. It also institutes testing requirements for a law enforcement agency’s use of a UAS (NCSL, 2015c).
Virginia laws, HB2012 and SB1331, prohibit UAS use by any state agencies “having jurisdiction over criminal law enforcement or regulatory violations” or units of local law enforcement until July 1, 2015 (NCSL, 2015a, para. 15). Numerous exceptions exist, however, enabling officials to deploy UAS for Amber Alerts, Blue Alerts, and use by the National Guard, by higher education institutions and search and rescue operations. These enacted bills also require the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services and other state agencies to research and develop model protocols for UAS use by law enforcement in the state and report their findings to the COLUMN