California's Proposed Drone Laws Part One: The Text of SB 15

I have written a lot about state drone laws in this blog, and I've tried to discuss laws states have passed as well as proposed regulations of drone technology. But it looks like I have not yet discussed how California has addressed (or is trying to address) the issue of drones. I came across this editorial that opines on California's need for drones and the quality of proposed drone regulations. In a series of posts, I hope to describe and evaluate California's proposed drone laws.

California's proposed bills for drone regulation include SB 15 and AB 1327. I have decided to discuss California's drone regulation bills in a series of three posts. In this post, I will describe SB 15. In Part Two of my discussion of California's drone bills, I will describe AB 1327. And in Part Three, I will evaluate the bills. I will discuss what portions of the bills are unlikely to make a difference, what parts are likely to have an effect, and whether these effects will be positive or negative.

So let's get to SB 15...



This bill would add a Title 14 to California's Penal Code, which defines unmanned aerial vehicles and details several restrictions on their use. Section 14351 of the law would prohibit the attachment of weapons to drones:

a) An unmanned aircraft system may not be equipped with a weapon. 

(b) Equipping an unmanned aircraft system with a weapon is punishable by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding three months, or by both the fine and imprisonment. 

(c) For purposes of this section, "weapon" means any instrument likely to produce great bodily injury or damage to, or the destruction of, real or personal property. property or a less lethal weapon as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 16780.

The bill also restricts the use of drones by law enforcement:

14352. (a) A law enforcement agency shall obtain a search warrant to use an unmanned aircraft system under circumstances where the subject has a reasonable expectation of privacy, and the warrant shall only be issued if that reasonable expectation of privacy is outweighed by a legitimate public safety interest supported by probable cause. 

(b) A search warrant is not required for the use of an unmanned aircraft system under circumstances where there is an exception to the search warrant requirement, or under exigent circumstances.  

(c) The search warrant application shall specify if an unmanned aircraft system, as defined in Section 14350, will be used in the execution of the search warrant, and the intended purpose for which the unmanned aircraft system will be used.

The language in this section seems to imply that drones can be used to obtain information without a warrant in situations where existing Fourth Amendment law would permit police to obtain information without a warrant. This is because the bill's restriction on government use of drones is limited to "circumstances where the subject has a reasonable expectation of privacy." A Fourth Amendment search generally does not occur unless the government's action infringes on a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Proposed section 14354 outlines how information collected by drones should be stored by authorities, and requires that images collected by drones be destroyed after one year, unless those images were retained with a warrant, or if the retention of those images is required for keeping evidence of a crime, or for the ongoing investigation of a crime.

In addition to restrictions on law enforcement's use of drones, and the weapons restrictions on the use of drones, the bill would also clarify that torts and crimes based on invasion of privacy would apply to private use of drones. Below I have listed California statutes that would be changed by SB 15. I have emphasized the sections of the code that the bill would alter or add, since the legislature's website does not make it clear what portions of the existing law are impacted by the bill.

On regulating the private use of drones, the bill seeks to revise Civil Code section 1708.8(b) to read:

A person is liable for constructive invasion of privacy when the defendant attempts to capture, in a manner that is offensive to a reasonable person, any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical impression of the plaintiff engaging in a personal or familial activity under circumstances in which the plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy, through the use of a visual or auditory enhancing device, or through the use of an unmanned aircraft system as defined in Section 14350 of the Penal Code, regardless of whether there is a physical trespass, if this image, sound recording, or other physical impression could not have been achieved without a trespass unless the visual or auditory enhancing device or unmanned aircraft system was used. (emphasis added)

 The bill would amend Penal Code section 632(a) to say, in part,

Every person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, by means of any electronic amplifying or recording device, including a device affixed to or contained within an unmanned aircraft system as defined in Section 14350, eavesdrops upon or records the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment. (emphasis added)

The bill would amend California's disorderly conduct statute, Penal Code section 647(j)(2), to read:

Any person who uses a concealed camcorder, motion picturecamera, or photographic camera of any type, including any of those devices when affixed to or contained within an unmanned aircraft system, to secretly videotape, film, photograph, or record by electronic means, another, identifiable person under or through the clothing being worn by that other person, for the purpose of viewing the body of, or the undergarments worn by, that other person, without the consent or knowledge of that other person, with the intent to arouse, appeal to, or gratify the lust, passions, or sexual desires of that person and invade the privacy of that other person, under circumstances in which the other person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. (emphasis added)

 And it would amend subsection (j)(3)(A) of Penal Code section 647 to read:

Any person who uses a concealed camcorder, motion picture camera, or photographic camera of any type, including any of those devices when affixed to or contained within an unmanned aircraft system, to secretly videotape, film, photograph, or record by electronic means, another, identifiable person who may be in a state of full or partial undress, for the purpose of viewing the body of, or the undergarments worn by, that other person, without the consent or knowledge of that other person, in the interior of a bedroom, bathroom, changing room, fitting room, dressing room, or tanning booth, or the interior of any other area in which that other person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, with the intent to invade the privacy of that other person. (emphasis added)

As my limited use of emphasis in these quotes indicates, the bill would not add any particular crimes relating to the use of drones (aside from the prohibition on weaponized drones that I mentioned earlier), but would instead clarify that existing torts and crimes based on invasion of privacy would apply to the private use of drones.