police, authorities are required to follow the state’s law governing UAS data retention and disclosure. The law also loosens regulations around law enforcement’s use of UAS during a disaster or public health emergency (NCSL, 2015b). In 2015, SB44 created a UAS Oversight Task Force, which is tasked with considering commercial and private use of UAS, landowner and privacy rights and general rules and regulations for the safe operation of UAS. The task force is to prepare recommendations for the use of UAS in Illinois (NCSL, 2015c).
Indiana in 2013 adopted a resolution Senate Resolution (SR) 27 urging their legislative council to study UAS issues. In 2014, in HB1009, Indiana created warrant requirements and exceptions for the police use of UAS and real-time geo-location tracking devices. The law also prohibits law enforcement from compelling individuals to reveal passwords for electronic devices without a warrant. If law enforcement in Indiana obtains information from an electronic service provider pursuant to a warrant, the provider is immune from criminal or civil liability. Furthermore, the law provides that if police seek a warrant to compel information from media entities and personnel, then those individuals must be notified and given the opportunity to be heard by the court concerning issuance of the warrant. Finally, this new law creates the crime of “Unlawful Photography and Surveillance on Private Property” thereby making it a class A misdemeanor. A person commits this crime if he or she knowingly and intentionally electronically surveys the private property of another without permission. This law also requests that the state’s legislative council study digital privacy during the 2014 interim (NCSL, 2015b). Iowa enacted House File (HF) 2289 that makes it illegal for a state agency to use a UAS to enforce traffic laws. This new law requires a warrant, or other lawful means, to use information obtained with UAS in a civil or criminal court proceeding. It also requires the department of public safety to develop guidelines for the use of UAS and to determine whether changes to the criminal code are necessary (NCSL, 2015b).
Louisiana enacted HB1029, creating the crime of unlawful use of a UAS. This law defines the unlawful use of a UAS as the intentional use of a UAS to conduct surveillance of a targeted facility without the owner’s prior written consent. The crime is punishable by a fine of up to $500 and imprisonment for six months. A second offense is punishable by a fine up to $1,000 and one-year imprisonment (NCSL, 2015b). SB183 regulates the use of UAS in agricultural commercial operations (NCSL, 2015c).
Maine Legislative Document (LD) 25 requires law enforcement agencies to receive approval before acquiring UAS. This bill also specified that the use of UAS by law enforcement should comply with all FAA requirements and guidelines. LD25 requires a warrant to use UAS for criminal investigations except in certain circumstances and sets out standards for the operation of UAS by law enforcement (NCSL, 2015c).
Maryland, through HB100 in 2013, appropriated $500,000 for the state’s unmanned aerial system test site (NCSL, 2015a). In 2015, SB370 specified that only the state could enact laws to prohibit, restrict, or regulate the testing or operation of unmanned aircraft systems. This preempts county and municipal authority. The bill also required a study on specified benefits (NCSL, 2015c).
Michigan adopted in 2013, HR280 and HR87, to recognize the benefits of a thriving UAS industry in their state (NCSL, 2015a). In 2015, SB54 prohibits using UAS to interfere with or harass an individual who is hunting. SB55 prohibits using UAS to take game (NCSL, 2015c).
Mississippi SB2022 specifies that using a UAS to commit “peeping tom” activities is a felony (NCSL, 2015c).
Montana enacted SB196 that limits when information gained from the use of UAS may be admitted as evidence in any prosecution or proceeding within the state. The information can be used when it was obtained pursuant to a search warrant, or through a judicially recognized exception to search warrants. This law defined UAS as an aircraft that is operated without direct human intervention from on or within the aircraft not including satellites (NCSL, 2015a).