California Modifies Proposed UAV Trespass Bill | Aero-News Network
Aero-News Network
RSS icon RSS feed
podcast icon MP3 podcast
Subscribe Aero-News e-mail Newsletter Subscribe

Airborne Unlimited -- Most Recent Daily Episodes

Episode Date

Airborne-Monday

Airborne-Tuesday

Airborne-Wednesday Airborne-Thursday

Airborne-Friday

Airborne On YouTube

Airborne-Unlimited-06.23.25

Airborne-NextGen-06.24.25

AirborneUnlimited-06.25.25

Airborne-AffordableFlyers-06.26.25

AirborneUnlimited-06.27.25

Thu, Aug 13, 2015

California Modifies Proposed UAV Trespass Bill

Would Consider Any Flight Under 350 Feet As A Violation

The California general assembly is considering a modified UAV trespass bill that would make any flight over private property at an altitude under 350 feet a violation of the state's trespassing law.

The bill as modified says that liability for "wrongful occupation of real property and damages to a person who operates an unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system, as defined, less than 350 feet above ground level within the airspace overlaying the real property, without the consent of the landowner express permission of the person or entity with the legal authority to grant access or without legal authority."

Basically it means that if you don't have the express permission of the property owner, you can be charged with a crime if you fly your UAV under 350 feet. The FAA limits most UAV flights to an altitude of 400 feet.

For the purpose of the bill, “Unmanned aircraft” means an aircraft that is operated without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the aircraft. “Unmanned aircraft system” means an unmanned aircraft and associated elements, including communication links and the components that control the unmanned aircraft, that are required for the pilot in command to operate safely and efficiently in the national airspace system.

Previously, the bill would have only made such flights a crime if the UAV operator knowingly violated the landowner's rights, and captured still or video images or audio recording, and (the 'ands' are important here) that image or recording of the plaintiff showed them “engaging in a private, personal, or familial activity”, and the invasion of privacy was “in a manner that is offensive to a reasonable person.”

Now it includes a blanket ban of anything under 350 feet.

The bill is still working its way through the California legislature. It was last amended on June 30th.

(Image from file)

FMI: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB142

Advertisement

More News

NTSB Final Report: Rutan Long-EZ

He Attempted To Restart The Engine Three Times. On The Third Restart Attempt, He Noticed That Flames Were Coming Out From The Right Wing Near The Fuel Cap Analysis: The pilot repor>[...]

ANN FAQ: Turn On Post Notifications

Make Sure You NEVER Miss A New Story From Aero-News Network Do you ever feel like you never see posts from a certain person or page on Facebook or Instagram? Here’s how you c>[...]

Classic Aero-TV: ICAS Perspectives - Advice for New Air Show Performers

From 2009 (YouTube Edition): Leading Air Show Performers Give Their Best Advice for Newcomers On December 6th through December 9th, the Paris Las Vegas Hotel hosted over 1,500 air >[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Linx (06.28.25)

Aero Linx: NASA ASRS ASRS captures confidential reports, analyzes the resulting aviation safety data, and disseminates vital information to the aviation community. The ASRS is an i>[...]

Aero-News: Quote of the Day (06.28.25)

“For our inaugural Pylon Racing Seminar in Roswell, we were thrilled to certify 60 pilots across our six closed-course pylon race classes. Not only did this year’s PRS >[...]

blog comments powered by Disqus



Advertisement

Advertisement

Podcasts

Advertisement

© 2007 - 2025 Web Development & Design by Pauli Systems, LC