(1)Existing federal law, the Federal Aviation Administration Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, provides for the integration of civil and public unmanned aircraft systems, commonly known as drones, into the national airspace system.

Existing state law generally authorizes a court to issue an order for the protection of certain persons, including, among others, the victims of domestic violence, elder and dependent adult abuse, workplace violence, and civil harassment. Under existing law, an intentional and knowing violation of those types of protective orders is a misdemeanor. If the violation results in physical injury, or occurs within specified time periods of a previous violation, existing law imposes additional penalties. Existing law also makes the crime of stalking another person, as defined, punishable as a misdemeanor or felony. Existing law makes it a felony to commit that offense when there is a temporary restraining order, injunction, or any other court order in effect prohibiting the behavior.

This bill would specifically prohibit a person who is prohibited from coming within a specified distance of another person, from operating an unmanned aircraft system in a way that causes an unmanned aircraft, as those terms are defined, to fly within the prohibited distance of the other person or from capturing images of the other person by using an unmanned aircraft system. By creating a new crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(2)Existing law requires a person who has been convicted of specified sex offenses to register with local law enforcement authorities as a sex offender.

This bill would specifically authorize a judge to order a person required to register pursuant to those provisions for an offense committed on or after January 1, 2017, to not operate an unmanned aircraft system if the judge finds that restriction is in the public interest. Because a violation of that provision would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(3)Existing law provides that every person who goes to the scene of an emergency or stops at the scene of an emergency for the purpose of viewing the scene or the activities of police officers, firefighters, emergency medical or other emergency personnel, or military personnel coping with the emergency in the course of their duties during the time it is necessary for emergency vehicles or those personnel to be at the scene of the emergency or to be moving to or from the scene of the emergency for the purpose of protecting lives or property, unless it is part of the duties of that persons employment to view that scene or activities, and thereby impedes police officers, firefighters, emergency medical or other emergency personnel, or military personnel in the performance of their duties in coping with the emergency, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

This bill would also make the operation or use of an unmanned aircraft system, that is at the scene of an emergency, regardless of the operators location, punishable as a misdemeanor. By expanding the scope of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(4)Existing law makes a person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or willfully and maliciously harasses another person and who makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of his or her immediate family, guilty of the crime of stalking, punishable as a misdemeanor or a felony.

This bill would specifically include, for purposes of these provisions, the operation or use of an unmanned aircraft system in the definition of a person.

(5)Existing law makes a person who knowingly brings into certain correctional facilities or certain other places where prisoners or inmates of those facilities are located, any alcoholic beverage, any drugs, other than controlled substances, in any manner, shape, form, dispenser, or container, or any device, contrivance, instrument, or paraphernalia intended to be used for unlawfully injecting or consuming any drug other than controlled substances, without having authority so to do by the rules of the correctional facility, guilty of a felony.

This bill would specifically include, for purposes of these provisions, the operation or use of an unmanned aircraft system in the definition of a person.

(6)The bill would make related legislative findings and declarations.

(7)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

(1)Existing federal law, the Federal Aviation Administration Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, provides for the integration of civil and public unmanned aircraft systems, commonly known as drones, into the national airspace system.

Existing state law generally authorizes a court to issue an order for the protection of certain persons, including, among others, the victims of domestic violence, elder and dependent adult abuse, workplace violence, and civil harassment. Under existing law, an intentional and knowing violation of those types of protective orders is a misdemeanor. If the violation results in physical injury, or occurs within specified time periods of a previous violation, existing law imposes additional penalties. Existing law also makes the crime of stalking another person, as defined, punishable as a misdemeanor or felony. Existing law makes it a felony to commit that offense when there is a temporary restraining order, injunction, or any other court order in effect prohibiting the behavior.

This bill would specifically prohibit a person who is prohibited from coming within a specified distance of another person, from operating an unmanned aircraft system in a way that causes an unmanned aircraft, as those terms are defined, to fly within the prohibited distance of the other person or from capturing images of the other person by using an unmanned aircraft system. By creating a new crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(2)Existing law requires a person who has been convicted of specified sex offenses to register with local law enforcement authorities as a sex offender.

This bill would specifically authorize a judge to order a person required to register pursuant to those provisions for an offense committed on or after January 1, 2017, from operating to not operate an unmanned aircraft system if the judge finds that restriction is in the public interest. Because a violation of that provision would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(3)Existing law provides that every person who goes to the scene of an emergency or stops at the scene of an emergency for the purpose of viewing the scene or the activities of police officers, firefighters, emergency medical or other emergency personnel, or military personnel coping with the emergency in the course of their duties during the time it is necessary for emergency vehicles or those personnel to be at the scene of the emergency or to be moving to or from the scene of the emergency for the purpose of protecting lives or property, unless it is part of the duties of that persons employment to view that scene or activities, and thereby impedes police officers, firefighters, emergency medical or other emergency personnel, or military personnel in the performance of their duties in coping with the emergency, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

This bill would include, for purposes of these provisions, also make the operation or use of an unmanned aircraft system in the definition of a person. system, that is at the scene of an emergency, regardless of the operators location, punishable as a misdemeanor. By expanding the scope of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(4)Existing law makes a person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or willfully and maliciously harasses another person and who makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of his or her immediate family, guilty of the crime of stalking, punishable as a misdemeanor or a felony.

This bill would specifically include, for purposes of these provisions, the operation or use of an unmanned aircraft system in the definition of a person.

(5)Existing law makes a person who knowingly brings into certain correctional facilities or certain other places where prisoners or inmates of those facilities are located, any alcoholic beverage, any drugs, other than controlled substances, in any manner, shape, form, dispenser, or container, or any device, contrivance, instrument, or paraphernalia intended to be used for unlawfully injecting or consuming any drug other than controlled substances, without having authority so to do by the rules of the correctional facility, guilty of a felony.

This bill would specifically include, for purposes of these provisions, the operation or use of an unmanned aircraft system in the definition of a person.

(6)The bill would make related legislative findings and declarations and would include a statement of legislative intent. declarations.

(7)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

(1)Existing federal law, the Federal Aviation Administration Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, provides for the integration of civil and public unmanned aircraft systems, commonly known as drones, into the national airspace system.

Existing state law generally authorizes a court to issue an order for the protection of certain persons, including, among others, the victims of domestic violence, elder and dependent adult abuse, workplace violence, and civil harassment. Under existing law, an intentional and knowing violation of those types of protective orders is a misdemeanor. If the violation results in physical injury, or occurs within specified time periods of a previous violation, existing law imposes additional penalties. Existing law also makes the crime of stalking another person, as defined, punishable as a misdemeanor or felony. Existing law makes it a felony to commit that offense when there is a temporary restraining order, injunction, or any other court order in effect prohibiting the behavior.

This bill would specifically prohibit a person who is prohibited from coming within a specified distance of another person, from operating an unmanned aircraft system in a way that causes an unmanned aircraft, as those terms are defined, to fly within the prohibited distance of the other person or from capturing images of the other person by using an unmanned aircraft system. By creating a new crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(2)Existing law requires a person who has been convicted of specified sex offenses to register with local law enforcement authorities as a sex offender.

This bill would prohibit specifically authorize a judge to order a person required to register pursuant to those provisions for an offense committed on or after January 1, 2017, from operating an unmanned aircraft system. system if the judge finds that restriction is in the public interest. Because a violation of that provision would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(3)Existing law provides that every person who goes to the scene of an emergency or stops at the scene of an emergency for the purpose of viewing the scene or the activities of police officers, firefighters, emergency medical or other emergency personnel, or military personnel coping with the emergency in the course of their duties during the time it is necessary for emergency vehicles or those personnel to be at the scene of the emergency or to be moving to or from the scene of the emergency for the purpose of protecting lives or property, unless it is part of the duties of that persons employment to view that scene or activities, and thereby impedes police officers, firefighters, emergency medical or other emergency personnel, or military personnel in the performance of their duties in coping with the emergency, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

This bill would include, for purposes of these provisions, the operation or use of an unmanned aircraft system in the definition of a person. By expanding the scope of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(4)Existing law makes a person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or willfully and maliciously harasses another person and who makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of his or her immediate family, guilty of the crime of stalking, punishable as a misdemeanor or a felony.

This bill would specifically include, for purposes of these provisions, the operation or use of an unmanned aircraft system in the definition of a person.

(5)Existing law makes a person who knowingly brings into certain correctional facilities or certain other places where prisoners or inmates of those facilities are located, any alcoholic beverage, any drugs, other than controlled substances, in any manner, shape, form, dispenser, or container, or any device, contrivance, instrument, or paraphernalia intended to be used for unlawfully injecting or consuming any drug other than controlled substances, without having authority so to do by the rules of the correctional facility, guilty of a felony.

This bill would specifically include, for purposes of these provisions, the operation or use of an unmanned aircraft system in the definition of a person.

(6)The bill would make related legislative findings and declarations and would include a statement of legislative intent.

(7)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

(1)Existing federal law, the Federal Aviation Administration Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, provides for the integration of civil and public unmanned aircraft systems, commonly known as drones, into the national airspace system.

Existing state law generally authorizes a court to issue an order for the protection of certain persons, including, among others, the victims of domestic violence, elder and dependent adult abuse, workplace violence, and civil harassment. Under existing law, an intentional and knowing violation of those types of protective orders is a misdemeanor. If the violation results in physical injury, or occurs within specified time periods of a previous violation, existing law imposes additional penalties. Existing law also makes the crime of stalking another person, as defined, punishable as a misdemeanor or felony. Existing law makes it a felony to commit that offense when there is a temporary restraining order, injunction, or any other court order in effect prohibiting the behavior.

This bill would specifically prohibit a person who is prohibited from coming within a specified distance of another person, from operating an unmanned aircraft system in a way that causes an unmanned aircraft, as those terms are defined, to fly within the prohibited distance of the other person or from capturing images of the other person by using an unmanned aircraft system. By creating a new crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(2)Existing law requires a person who has been convicted of specified sex offenses to register with local law enforcement authorities as a sex offender.

This bill would prohibit a person required to register pursuant to those provisions for an offense committed on or after January 1, 2017, from operating an unmanned aircraft system. Because a violation of that provision would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(3)Existing law provides that every person who goes to the scene of an emergency or stops at the scene of an emergency for the purpose of viewing the scene or the activities of police officers, firefighters, emergency medical or other emergency personnel, or military personnel coping with the emergency in the course of their duties during the time it is necessary for emergency vehicles or those personnel to be at the scene of the emergency or to be moving to or from the scene of the emergency for the purpose of protecting lives or property, unless it is part of the duties of that persons employment to view that scene or activities, and thereby impedes police officers, firefighters, emergency medical or other emergency personnel, or military personnel in the performance of their duties in coping with the emergency, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

This bill would include, for purposes of these provisions, the operation or use of an unmanned aircraft system in the definition of a person. By expanding the scope of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(4)Existing law makes a person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or willfully and maliciously harasses another person and who makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of his or her immediate family, guilty of the crime of stalking, punishable as a misdemeanor or a felony.

This bill would specifically include, for purposes of these provisions, the operation or use of an unmanned aircraft system in the definition of a person.

(5)Existing law makes a person who knowingly brings into certain correctional facilities or certain other places where prisoners or inmates of those facilities are located, any alcoholic beverage, any drugs, other than controlled substances, in any manner, shape, form, dispenser, or container, or any device, contrivance, instrument, or paraphernalia intended to be used for unlawfully injecting or consuming any drug other than controlled substances, without having authority so to do by the rules of the correctional facility, guilty of a felony.

This bill would specifically include, for purposes of these provisions, the operation or use of an unmanned aircraft system in the definition of a person.

(6)The bill would make related legislative findings and declarations and would include a statement of legislative intent.

(7)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

(1)Existing federal law, the Federal Aviation Administration Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, provides for the integration of civil and public unmanned aircraft systems, commonly known as drones, into the national airspace system.

Existing state law generally authorizes a court to issue an order for the protection of certain persons, including, among others, the victims of domestic violence, elder and dependent adult abuse, workplace violence, and civil harassment. Under existing law, an intentional and knowing violation of those types of protective orders is a misdemeanor. If the violation results in physical injury, or occurs within specified time periods of a previous violation, existing law imposes additional penalties. Existing law also makes the crime of stalking another person, as defined, punishable as a misdemeanor or felony. Existing law makes it a felony to commit that offense when there is a temporary restraining order, injunction, or any other court order in effect prohibiting the behavior.

This bill would specifically prohibit a person who is prohibited from coming within a specified distance of another person, from operating an unmanned aircraft system in a way that causes an unmanned aircraft, as those terms are defined, to fly within the prohibited distance of the other person or from capturing images of the other person by using an unmanned aircraft system. By creating a new crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(2)Existing law requires a person who has been convicted of specified sex offenses to register with local law enforcement authorities as a sex offender.

This bill would prohibit a person required to register pursuant to those provisions for an offense committed on or after January 1, 2017, from operating an unmanned aircraft system. Because a violation of that provision would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(3)Existing law provides that every person who goes to the scene of an emergency or stops at the scene of an emergency for the purpose of viewing the scene or the activities of police officers, firefighters, emergency medical or other emergency personnel, or military personnel coping with the emergency in the course of their duties during the time it is necessary for emergency vehicles or those personnel to be at the scene of the emergency or to be moving to or from the scene of the emergency for the purpose of protecting lives or property, unless it is part of the duties of that persons employment to view that scene or activities, and thereby impedes police officers, firefighters, emergency medical or other emergency personnel, or military personnel in the performance of their duties in coping with the emergency, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

This bill would include, for purposes of these provisions, the operation or use of an unmanned aircraft system in the definition of a person. By expanding the scope of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(4)Existing law makes a person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or willfully and maliciously harasses another person and who makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of his or her immediate family, guilty of the crime of stalking, punishable as a misdemeanor or a felony.

This bill would specifically include, for purposes of these provisions, the operation or use of an unmanned aircraft system in the definition of a person.

(5)Existing law makes a person who knowingly brings into certain correctional facilities or certain other places where prisoners or inmates of those facilities are located, any alcoholic beverage, any drugs, other than controlled substances, in any manner, shape, form, dispenser, or container, or any device, contrivance, instrument, or paraphernalia intended to be used for unlawfully injecting or consuming any drug other than controlled substances, without having authority so to do by the rules of the correctional facility, guilty of a felony.

This bill would specifically include, for purposes of these provisions, the operation or use of an unmanned aircraft system in the definition of a person.

(6)The State Aeronautics Act governs various matters relative to aviation in the state, including, among other things, fostering and promoting safety in aeronautics and establishing only those regulations that are essential and clearly within the scope of the authority granted to the Department of Transportation by the Legislature, in order that persons may engage in every phase of aeronautics with the least possible restriction consistent with the safety and the rights of others. A violation of the act is a crime punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 or by imprisonment of not more than 6 months, or both.

This bill would specify that, except as expressly authorized by statute, the authority to regulate the ownership or operation of unmanned aircraft is vested solely in the state. The bill would, except as expressly authorized by statute, prohibit a city, a county, a city and county, or another local government entity from enacting an ordinance or resolution that regulates the ownership or operation of unmanned aircraft and from otherwise engaging in the regulation of the ownership or operation of unmanned aircraft.

(7)The bill would make related legislative findings and declarations and would include a statement of legislative intent.

(8)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing federal law, the Federal Aviation Administration Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, provides for the integration of civil and public unmanned aircraft systems, commonly known as drones, into the national airspace system.

This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that will regulate unmanned aircraft systems.

GOVERNOR'S VETO

GV Bill Id:AB 2320

Author:(Calderon and Low)

As Enrolled Ver:August 31, 2016

2/3 vote

Original Committee Reference: P. & C.P.

SUMMARY: Prohibits the operation of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) in a manner that violates a protective order, constitutes stalking, interferes with emergency response personnel, or facilitates delivery of contraband into a jail or prison; and also allows a judge to prohibit a sex offender from using a UAS.

The Senate amendments:

1. Remove from the bill the intent language pertaining to flight restrictions adjacent to a critical infrastructure facility.
2. Make various technical and nonsubstantive changes.

EXISTING LAW: In 2012, Congress required the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to establish a framework for safely integrating commercial UAS into the national airspace. Under new FAA rules, UAS flight is authorized without special permission over unpopulated areas if the UAS operator meets certain training and safety requirements.

UAS operators who wish to operate over populated areas for a business, academic or research purpose must still apply for a commercial use exemption and an FAA Certificate of Authorization to operate. The FAA's rules require recreational UAS operators to register with the FAA all UAS weighing between half a pound and 55 pounds.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

1. State prisons: Potential minor future increase in state costs (General Fund) to the extent the restrictions imposed on the use or operation of a UAS result in felony convictions and commitments to state prison. To the extent two cases are impacted due to the provisions of this bill would cost $58,000 in any one year based on the contract bed rate of $29,000 per inmate per year.
2. Local jails: Potential minor future increase in non-reimbursable local costs (Local Funds) to the extent the added factor in aggravation for felony convictions would result in longer jail sentences.

COMMENTS: This bill seeks to protect personal privacy and public safety by amending a variety of existing laws to clarify that a violation of those laws can be committed by use of a UAS.

Using UAS to violate protective orders or stalk someone. A protective order is a court-issued directive to stop a person who has harassed or abused another person from getting within a specified distance of that person for a certain time period. Since UAS can be used to bother or capture images of a person, this bill specifies that using a UAS to enter the prohibited distance specified in a protective order is a violation of the order and subject to the same penalties as other violations of protective orders. Similarly, stalking laws prohibit a person from repeatedly following or harassing another person in a way that puts that person in fear. While a future court might find that a UAS can be used to violate any of California's specific privacy laws, the author contends that statutory updates are needed in order to ensure that people's privacy and personal safety is protected. This bill specifies that using a UAS to stalk someone constitutes a violation of stalking laws and is subject to the same penalties that apply when a person stalks a person by physically following or harassing someone.

Sex offenders and UAS. This bill authorizes a judge to prohibit a person who is a registered sex offender from using a UAS if doing so would be in the public interest. Under current law, a person convicted of any felony is prohibited from possessing a firearm. However, unlike firearms, UAS have numerous commercial and recreational uses that a person who is a registered sex offender might lawfully pursue without posing a danger to others.

Emergencies and UAS interference. California law prohibits people from stopping at an emergency in order to view the scene if doing so interferes with emergency personnel. Nevertheless, in 2015, California experienced a number of UAS interferences with emergency responses to wildfires throughout the state. Aerial firefighting aircraft, such as air tankers and helicopters, must fly at very low altitudes in order to be effective. Hobbyists who fly UAS near fires create the potential for a mid-air collision that could injure or kill aerial and ground firefighters as well as innocent bystanders on the ground below. Because of this risk, when firefighters detect a UAS flying over or near a wildfire, air operations must be suspended until all drones flying in a fire area are removed. This delay allows wildfires to grow, and in some cases like the North Fire in San Bernardino County, such a delay can pose an immediate threat to human lives and property. This bill explicitly prohibits any use of a UAS that interferes with police, fire, medical, or other emergency or military personnel as they respond to natural or manmade emergencies.

Prisons and UAS. Concerns have been raised about drone overflights of prisons, and there are multiple examples of people attempting to use UAS to introduce contraband to prisons. The author aims to improve prison and jail security by making it a felony to use a UAS to deliver contraband to a prison or jail.

GOVERNOR'S VETO MESSAGE:

I am returning Assembly Bill 2320 without my signature.

This bill prohibits the operation of a drone in a manner that violates a protective order, constitutes stalking, interferes with emergency response personnel, or facilitates delivery of contraband into a jail or prison. The bill also allows a court to bar a registered sex offender from operating a drone.

Current law is sufficient to prosecute the violations referenced in this bill. There is no need to add special reference to drones in multiple places in the penal code.

Analysis Prepared by: Jennie Bretschneider / P. & C.P. / (916) 319-2200 FN: 0005125

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 2320

Author:(Calderon and Low)

As Amended Ver:August 15, 2016

Majority vote

Original Committee Reference: P. & C.P.

SUMMARY: Prohibits the operation of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) in a manner that violates a protective order, constitutes stalking, interferes with emergency response personnel, or facilitates delivery of contraband into a jail or prison; and also allows a judge to prohibit a sex offender from using a UAS.

The Senate amendments:

1. Remove from the bill the intent language pertaining to flight restrictions adjacent to a critical infrastructure facility.
2. Make various technical and nonsubstantive changes.

EXISTING LAW: In 2012, Congress required the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to establish a framework for safely integrating commercial UAS into the national airspace. Under new FAA rules, UAS flight is authorized without special permission over unpopulated areas if the UAS operator meets certain training and safety requirements.

UAS operators who wish to operate over populated areas for a business, academic or research purpose must still apply for a commercial use exemption and an FAA Certificate of Authorization to operate. The FAA's rules require recreational UAS operators to register with the FAA all UAS weighing between half a pound and 55 pounds.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

1. State prisons: Potential minor future increase in state costs (General Fund) to the extent the restrictions imposed on the use or operation of a UAS result in felony convictions and commitments to state prison. To the extent two cases are impacted due to the provisions of this bill would cost $58,000 in any one year based on the contract bed rate of $29,000 per inmate per year.
2. Local jails: Potential minor future increase in non-reimbursable local costs (Local Funds) to the extent the added factor in aggravation for felony convictions would result in longer jail sentences.

COMMENTS: This bill seeks to protect personal privacy and public safety by amending a variety of existing laws to clarify that a violation of those laws can be committed by use of a UAS.

Using UAS to violate protective orders or stalk someone. A protective order is a court-issued directive to stop a person who has harassed or abused another person from getting within a specified distance of that person for a certain time period. Since UAS can be used to bother or capture images of a person, this bill specifies that using a UAS to enter the prohibited distance specified in a protective order is a violation of the order and subject to the same penalties as other violations of protective orders.

Similarly, stalking laws prohibit a person from repeatedly following or harassing another person in a way that puts that person in fear. While a future court might find that a UAS can be used to violate any of California's specific privacy laws, the author contends that statutory updates are needed in order to ensure that people's privacy and personal safety is protected. This bill specifies that using a UAS to stalk someone constitutes a violation of stalking laws and is subject to the same penalties that apply when a person stalks a person by physically following or harassing someone.

Sex offenders and UAS. This bill authorizes a judge to prohibit a person who is a registered sex offender from using a UAS if doing so would be in the public interest. Under current law, a person convicted of any felony is prohibited from possessing a firearm. However, unlike firearms, UAS have numerous commercial and recreational uses that a person who is a registered sex offender might lawfully pursue without posing a danger to others.

Emergencies and UAS interference. California law prohibits people from stopping at an emergency in order to view the scene if doing so interferes with emergency personnel. Nevertheless, in 2015, California experienced a number of UAS interferences with emergency responses to wildfires throughout the state.

Aerial firefighting aircraft, such as air tankers and helicopters, must fly at very low altitudes in order to be effective. Hobbyists who fly UAS near fires create the potential for a mid-air collision that could injure or kill aerial and ground firefighters as well as innocent bystanders on the ground below. Because of this risk, when firefighters detect a UAS flying over or near a wildfire, air operations must be suspended until all drones flying in a fire area are removed. This delay allows wildfires to grow, and in some cases like the North Fire in San Bernardino County, such a delay can pose an immediate threat to human lives and property.

This bill explicitly prohibits any use of a UAS that interferes with police, fire, medical, or other emergency or military personnel as they respond to natural or manmade emergencies.

Prisons and UAS. Concerns have been raised about drone overflights of prisons, and there are multiple examples of people attempting to use UAS to introduce contraband to prisons. The author aims to improve prison and jail security by making it a felony to use a UAS to deliver contraband to a prison or jail.

Analysis Prepared by: Jennie Bretschneider / P. & C.P. / (916) 319-2200 FN: 0004294

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 2320

Author:

: Senate

Vote:

SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 7-0, 6/21/16

AYES: Hancock, Anderson, Glazer, Leno, Liu, Monning, Stone

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 8/11/16

AYES: Lara, Bates, Beall, Hill, McGuire, Mendoza, Nielsen

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 76-0, 5/19/16 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT:

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST: This bill includes using an Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) in a number of statutes prohibiting behavior by an individual.

ANALYSIS:

Existing federal law:

1. Requires all drone owners to register their drones with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Commercial drone operators, but not recreational drone operators, must also obtain FAA authorization, which is granted on a case-by-case basis.
2. Requires, under the Aviation Administration Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, the Secretary of Transportation to develop a comprehensive plan to safely accelerate the integration of civil unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace system. The plan is required to provide for safe integration of civil UAS into national airspace as soon as practicable, not later than September 30, 2015. (112 P.L. 95, 332.)

Existing state law:

1. Establishes a Division of Aeronautics within the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). (Public Utilities Code §§ 21001 et seq)
2. Makes it a misdemeanor to violate a protective order that prohibits a person from coming within a specified distance of another person. If the violation results in physical injury, or is second violation in a year then the penalty is a fine of up to $2,000 and/or not less than and 30 days to one year in county jail. (Penal Code § 237.6)
3. Requires specified offenders to register as a sex offender. (Penal Code §290 et seq.)
4. States that every person who goes to the scene of an emergency, or stops at the scene of an emergency, for the purpose of viewing the scene or the activities of police officers, firefighters, emergency medical, or other emergency personnel, or military personnel coping with the emergency in the course of their duties during the time it is necessary for emergency vehicles or those personnel to be at the scene of the emergency or to be moving to or from the scene of the emergency for the purpose of protecting lives or property, unless it is part of the duties of that person's employment to view that scene or activities, and thereby impedes police officers, firefighters, emergency medical, or other emergency personnel or military personnel, in the performance of their duties in coping with the emergency, is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Penal Code § 402 (a).)
5. Provides that every person who knowingly resists or interferes with the lawful efforts of a lifeguard in the discharge or attempted discharge of an official duty in an emergency situation, when the person knows or reasonably should know that the lifeguard is engaged in the performance of his or her official duty, is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Penal Code § 402 (b).)
6. Specifies that “emergency” includes a condition or situation involving injury to persons, damage to property, or peril to the safety of persons or property, which results from a fire, an explosion, an airplane crash, flooding, windstorm damage, a railroad accident, a traffic accident, a power plant accident, a toxic chemical or biological spill, or any other natural or human-caused event. (Penal Code § 402(c).)
7. Provides that a person who willfully, maliciously and repeatedly follows or willfully and maliciously harasses another person and who makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of his or her immediate family is guilty of stalking which is punishable as a wobbler. (Penal Code § 646.9)
8. Provides that a person who knowingly brings into any correctional institution or jail any alcoholic beverage, any drugs other than controlled substances or any container or device intended to be used for unlawfully injecting or consuming any drug is guilty of a felony. (Penal Code § 4573.5)

This bill:

1. Provides that a person who is subject to a protective order and prohibited by that order to stay a specified distance from another person shall not: operate a UAS in a way that causes it to fly within the prohibited distance of the other person or capture images of the other person by using an UAS. Doing either of these things will be considered a violation of the protective order.
2. Provides that a judge may order a person required to register as a sex offender for an offense committed on or after January 1, 2017, to not operate an UAS if the judge finds that the restriction is in the public interests.
3. Provides that for the purposes of Penal Code Section 402, a person includes a person who operates or uses an UAS.
4. Provides that for purposes of Penal Code Section 646.9, a person includes a person who operates or uses a UAS.
5. Provides that for purposes of Penal Code Section 4573.6, a person includes a person who operates or uses a UAS.
6. Defines unmanned aircraft as an aircraft that is operated without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the aircraft.
7. Defines unmanned aircraft system as an unmanned aircraft and associated elements, including, but not limited to, communication links and components that control the unmanned aircraft that ware required of the pilot in command to operate safely and efficiently in the national airspace system.
8. Makes uncodified legislative findings and declarations.
9. Contains uncodified intent language stating that it is the intent of the Legislature that a person be prohibited from, without the owner or business operator’s written consent, operating or using an unmanned system to knowingly and intentionally fly within 250 feet of the perimeter of any critical infrastructure facility for the purpose of conducting surveillance of the facility, gathering evidence or collecting information about the facility, or photographically or electronically recording critical infrastructure data.

Background

According to the author:

Unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), commonly called unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) or drones, are being put to use in a growing number of applications, including law enforcement, infrastructure inspection, precision agriculture, wildlife tracking, search and rescue operations, disaster response, border patrol, photography and film.

UAS are aircraft subject to regulation by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to ensure safety of flight, and safety of people and property on the ground. The FAA is in the process of developing rules that are intended to safely integrate small unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace system and that are expected to be released in late 2016 or 2017.

In the absence of a complete federal regulatory structure, the state has an obligation to provide common sense legislation that will protect the public from unsafe operations of drones. With almost 1 million UAS sold in 2015, a jump from 430,000 in 2014, human interactions with UAS will only increase. Without any significant actions from the FAA, updating specific code sections in California to clarify specific unsafe operations of the UAS is illegal is of utmost importance.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

• State prison: Potential minor future increase in state costs (General Fund) to the extent the restrictions imposed on the use or operation of a UAS result in felony convictions and commitments to state prison. To the extent two cases are impacted due to the provisions of this bill would cost $58,000 in any one year based on the contract bed rate of $29,000 per inmate per year.
• Local jails: Potential minor future increase in non-reimbursable local costs (Local Funds) to the extent the added factor in aggravation for felony convictions would result in longer jail sentences

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/12/16)

None received

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/12/16)

City of Thousand Oaks

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 76-0, 5/19/16

AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Travis Allen, Arambula, Atkins, Baker, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brough, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chávez, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones, Jones-Sawyer, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low, Maienschein, Mayes, Medina, Melendez, Mullin, Nazarian, Obernolte, O'Donnell, Olsen, Patterson, Quirk, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Steinorth, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Wagner, Waldron, Weber, Wilk, Wood, Rendon

NO VOTE RECORDED: Chang, Mathis, McCarty, Williams

Prepared by:

8/15/16 20:22:19

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular Session

AB 2320 (Calderon) - Unmanned aircraft systems

Bill Summary:

AB 2320 would impose numerous restrictions on the operation or use of an unmanned aircraft system (UAS), as specified.

*********** ANALYSIS ADDENDUM – SUSPENSE FILE ***********

The following information is revised to reflect amendments

adopted by the committee on August 11, 2016

Fiscal Impact:

• State prison: Potential minor future increase in state costs (General Fund) to the extent the restrictions imposed on the use or operation of a UAS result in felony convictions and commitments to state prison. To the extent two cases are impacted due to the provisions of this bill would cost $58,000 in any one year based on the contract bed rate of $29,000 per inmate per year.
• Local jails: Potential minor future increase in non-reimbursable local costs (Local Funds) to the extent the added factor in aggravation for felony convictions would result in longer jail sentences.

Author Amendments:

• Delete the uncodified intent language (b)(1) and (b)(2), which prohibits a person from, without the owner or business operator’s written consent, operating a UAS to knowingly and intentionally fly within 250 feet of the perimeter of any critical infrastructure facility.
• Make other technical and conforming changes.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular Session

AB 2320 (Calderon) - Unmanned aircraft systems

This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.

Bill Summary:

AB 2320 would impose numerous restrictions on the operation or use of an unmanned aircraft system (UAS), as specified.

Fiscal Impact:

• State prison: Potential minor future increase in state costs (General Fund) to the extent the restrictions imposed on the use or operation of a UAS result in felony convictions and commitments to state prison. To the extent two cases are impacted due to the provisions of this bill would cost $58,000 in any one year based on the contract bed rate of $29,000 per inmate per year.
• Local jails: Potential minor future increase in non-reimbursable local costs (Local Funds) to the extent the added factor in aggravation for felony convictions would result in longer jail sentences.

Background:

An unmanned aircraft system (UAS), also referred to as “unmanned aerial vehicle,” “remote piloted aircraft,” or “drone,” is an aircraft without a human pilot that is either controlled remotely or fully automated. UAS are being utilized in a growing number of applications, including but not limited to the activities of businesses, law enforcement, government agencies, and hobbyists. This bill seeks to impose specified restrictions on the use or operation of UAS.

Proposed Law:

This bill would include the operation or use of an UAS in a number of statutes prohibiting unlawful behavior by an individual. Specifically, this bill:

• Provides that a person who is subject to a protective order and prohibited by that order to stay a specified distance from another person shall not: operate a UAS in a way that causes it to fly within the prohibited distance of the other person or capture images of the other person by using an UAS. Either of these actions will be considered a violation of the protective order, a misdemeanor, or a felony for subsequent violations.
• Provides that a judge may order a person required to register as a sex offender for an offense committed on or after January 1, 2017, to not operate an UAS if the judge finds that the restriction is in the public interest.
• Provides that for purposes of the misdemeanor offense of impeding the activities of emergency personnel in the performance of their duties while coping with an emergency (PC § 402), a “person” includes a person who operates or uses an UAS.
• Provides that for purposes of the alternate felony-misdemeanor offense of stalking (PC § 646.9), a “person” includes a person who operates or uses an UAS.
• Provides that for purposes of the felony offense of knowingly bringing contraband into a state prison or correctional facility, or local correctional facility, camp, or farm (PC § 4573.5), a “person” includes a person who operates or uses an UAS.
• Defines “unmanned aircraft” as an aircraft that is operated without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the aircraft.
• Defines “unmanned aircraft system” as an unmanned aircraft and associated elements, including, but not limited to, communication links and components that control the unmanned aircraft that ware required of the pilot in command to operate safely and efficiently in the national airspace system.
• Makes uncodified Legislative findings and declarations.
• Includes uncodified intent language stating that it is the intent of the Legislature that a person be prohibited from, without the owner or business operator’s written consent, operating or using an UAS to knowingly and intentionally fly within 250 feet of the perimeter of any critical infrastructure facility for the purpose of conducting surveillance of the facility, gathering evidence or collecting information about the facility, or photographically or electronically recording critical infrastructure data.

Related Legislation: AB 1680 (Rodriguez) 2016 would provide that it is a misdemeanor to use a drone to impede specified emergency personnel in the performance of their duties while coping with an emergency. This bill has been placed on the second reading file on the Senate Floor pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8.

Prior Legislation:

SB 170 (Gaines) 2015 would have prohibited a person from knowingly and intentionally operating an UAS over a state prison or county jail. This bill was vetoed along with eight other measures by the Governor with the following message:

Each of these bills creates a new crime - usually by finding a novel way to characterize and criminalize conduct that is already proscribed. This multiplication and particularization of criminal behavior creates increasing complexity without commensurate benefit. 

Over the last several decades, California's criminal code has grown to more than 5,000 separate provisions, covering almost every conceivable form of human misbehavior. During the same period, our jail and prison populations have exploded. Before we keep going down this road, I think we should pause and reflect on how our system of criminal justice could be made more human, more just and more cost-effective. 

Staff Comments:

By expanding the definition of various misdemeanor and felony offenses to include the unlawful operation or use of a UAS, this bill could potentially result in a minor increase in costs to state and local agencies for commitments to state prison and county jail.

The felony offenses potentially resulting in a state prison sentence are felony stalking (PC § 646.9), repeated violations of a protective order for a defendant with a current or prior serious or violent felony conviction or a requirement to register as a sex offender (PC § 273.6), and knowingly bringing contraband into a state or local agency correctional facility (PC § 4573.5). Although the frequency of felony convictions resulting in a state prison sentence are estimated to be minor, even two commitments to state prison in any one year results in additional state costs of $58,000 (General Fund) based on the contract bed cost of $29,000 per inmate per year.

Recommended Amendment: Staff recommends deletion or codification of the uncodified intent language (b)(1) and (b)(2), which prohibits a person from, without the owner or business operator’s written consent, operating a UAS to knowingly and intentionally fly within 250 feet of the perimeter of any critical infrastructure facility.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Senator Loni Hancock, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular

Bill No: AB 2320 Hearing Date: June 21, 2016

Subject: Unmanned Aircraft Systems

HISTORY

Source: Author

Prior Legislation: SB 167 (Gaines) not heard 2015

SB 170 (Gaines) Vetoed 2015

SB 262 (Galgiani) Failed Senate Judiciary 2015

SB 263 (Gaines) not heard 2015

SB 271 (Gaines) Vetoed 2015

AB 56 (Quirk) inactive Senate Floor

SB 15 (Padilla) failed Assembly Public Safety 2014

AB 1327 (Gorell) Vetoed 2014

Support: Unknown

Opposition: City of Thousand Oaks

Assembly Floor Vote: 76 - 0

PURPOSE

The purpose of this bill is to include using an Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) in a number of statutes prohibiting behavior by an individual.

Existing federal regulations require all drone owners to register their drones with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Commercial drone operators, but not recreational drone operators, must also obtain FAA authorization, which is granted on a case-by-case basis.

Existing law establishes a Division of Aeronautics within the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). (Public Utilities Code §§ 21001 et seq)

Existing federal law, the Aviation Administration Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, requires the Secretary of Transportation to develop a comprehensive plan to safely accelerate the integration of civil unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace system. The plan is required to provide for safe integration of civil UAS into national airspace as soon as practicable, not later than September 30, 2015. (112 P.L. 95, 332.)

Existing law makes it a misdemeanor to violate a protective order that prohibits a person from coming within a specified distance of another person. If the violation results in physical injury, or is second violation in a year then the penalty is a fine of up to $2,000 and/or not less than and 30 days to one year in county jail. (Penal Code § 237.6)

This bill provides that a person who is subject to a protective order and prohibited by that order to stay a specified distance from another person shall not: operate a UAS in a way that causes it to fly within the prohibited distance of the other person or capture images of the other person by using an UAS. Doing either of these things will be considered a violation of the protective order.

Existing law requires specified offenders to register as a sex offender. (Penal Code §290 et seq.)

This bill provides that a judge may order a person required to register as a sex offender for an offense committed on or after January 1, 2017 to not operate an UAS if the judge finds that the restriction is in the public interests.

Existing law states that every person who goes to the scene of an emergency, or stops at the scene of an emergency, for the purpose of viewing the scene or the activities of police officers, firefighters, emergency medical, or other emergency personnel, or military personnel coping with the emergency in the course of their duties during the time it is necessary for emergency vehicles or those personnel to be at the scene of the emergency or to be moving to or from the scene of the emergency for the purpose of protecting lives or property, unless it is part of the duties of that person's employment to view that scene or activities, and thereby impedes police officers, firefighters, emergency medical, or other emergency personnel or military personnel, in the performance of their duties in coping with the emergency, is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Penal Code § 402 (a).)

Existing law provides that every person who knowingly resists or interferes with the lawful efforts of a lifeguard in the discharge or attempted discharge of an official duty in an emergency situation, when the person knows or reasonably should know that the lifeguard is engaged in the performance of his or her official duty, is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Penal Code § 402 (b).)

Existing law specifies that “emergency” includes a condition or situation involving injury to persons, damage to property, or peril to the safety of persons or property, which results from a fire, an explosion, an airplane crash, flooding, windstorm damage, a railroad accident, a traffic accident, a power plant accident, a toxic chemical or biological spill, or any other natural or human-caused event. (Penal Code § 402(c).)

This bill provides that for the purposes of Penal Code Section 402, a person includes a person who operates or uses an UAS.

Existing law provides that a person who willfully, maliciously and repeatedly follows or willfully and maliciously harasses another person and who makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of his or her immediate family is guilty of stalking which is punishable as a wobbler. (Penal Code § 646.9)

This bill provides that for purposes of Penal Code Section 646.9 a person includes a person who operates or uses a UAS.

Existing law provides that a person who knowingly brings into any Correctional institution or jail any alcoholic beverage, any drugs other than controlled substances or any container or device intended to be used for unlawfully injecting or consuming any drug is guilty of a felony. (Penal Code § 4573.5)

This bill provides that for purposes of Penal Code Section 4573.6a person includes a person who operates or uses a UAS.

This bill defines unmanned aircraft as an aircraft that is operated without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the aircraft.

This bill defines unmanned aircraft system as an unmanned aircraft and associated elements, including, but not limited to, communication links and components that control the unmanned aircraft that ware required of the pilot in command to operate safely and efficiently in the national airspace system.

This bill makes uncodified Legislative findings and declarations.

This bill has uncodified intent language stating that it is the intent of the Legislature that a person be prohibited from, without the owner or business operator’s written consent, operating or using an unmanned system to knowingly and intentionally fly within 250 feet of the perimeter of any critical infrastructure facility for the purpose of conducting surveillance of the facility, gathering evidence or collecting information about the facility, or photographically or electronically recording critical infrastructure data.

RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION

For the past several years this Committee has scrutinized legislation referred to its jurisdiction for any potential impact on prison overcrowding. Mindful of the United States Supreme Court ruling and federal court orders relating to the state’s ability to provide a constitutional level of health care to its inmate population and the related issue of prison overcrowding, this Committee has applied its “ROCA” policy as a content-neutral, provisional measure necessary to ensure that the Legislature does not erode progress in reducing prison overcrowding.

On February 10, 2014, the federal court ordered California to reduce its in-state adult institution population to 137.5% of design capacity by February 28, 2016, as follows:

• 143% of design bed capacity by June 30, 2014;
• 141.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2015; and,
• 137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2016.

In December of 2015 the administration reported that as “of December 9, 2015, 112,510 inmates were housed in the State’s 34 adult institutions, which amounts to 136.0% of design bed capacity, and 5,264 inmates were housed in out-of-state facilities. The current population is 1,212 inmates below the final court-ordered population benchmark of 137.5% of design bed capacity, and has been under that benchmark since February 2015.” (Defendants’ December 2015 Status Report in Response to February 10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC, 3-Judge Court, Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn. omitted).) One year ago, 115,826 inmates were housed in the State’s 34 adult institutions, which amounted to 140.0% of design bed capacity, and 8,864 inmates were housed in out-of-state facilities. (Defendants’ December 2014 Status Report in Response to February 10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC, 3-Judge Court, Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn. omitted).)

While significant gains have been made in reducing the prison population, the state must stabilize these advances and demonstrate to the federal court that California has in place the “durable solution” to prison overcrowding “consistently demanded” by the court. (Opinion Re: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Request For Extension of December 31, 2013 Deadline, NO. 2:90-cv-0520 LKK DAD (PC), 3-Judge Court, Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (2-10-14). The Committee’s consideration of bills that may impact the prison population therefore will be informed by the following questions:

• Whether a proposal erodes a measure which has contributed to reducing the prison population;
• Whether a proposal addresses a major area of public safety or criminal activity for which there is no other reasonable, appropriate remedy;
• Whether a proposal addresses a crime which is directly dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there is no other reasonably appropriate sanction;
• Whether a proposal corrects a constitutional problem or legislative drafting error; and
• Whether a proposal proposes penalties which are proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other reasonably appropriate remedy.

COMMENTS

1. Need for This Bill

According to the author:

Unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), commonly called unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) or drones, are being put to use in a growing number of applications, including law enforcement, infrastructure inspection, precision agriculture, wildlife tracking, search and rescue operations, disaster response, border patrol, photography and film.

UAS are aircraft subject to regulation by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to ensure safety of flight, and safety of people and property on the ground. The FAA is in the process of developing rules that are intended to safely integrate small unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace system and that are expected to be released in late 2016 or 2017.

In the absence of a complete federal regulatory structure, the state has an obligation to provide common sense legislation that will protect the public from unsafe operations of drones. With almost 1 million UAS sold in 2015, a jump from 430,000 in 2014, human interactions with UAS will only increase. Without any significant actions from the FAA, updating specific code sections in California to clarify specific unsafe operations of the UAS is illegal is of utmost importance.

2. Using a UAS to Violate a Protective Order

This bill would make it a violation of a protective order for a person who has a protective order that includes a stay-away order to use a UAS to: operate an unmanned aircraft system in a way that causes an unmanned aircraft to fly within the prohibited distance of the other person or to capture images of the other person by using a UAS. A violation of a protective order is a misdemeanor.

3. As a Condition for a Registered Sex Offender

This bill provides that a judge may order a person who commits an offense on or after January 1, 2017 and is required to register as a sex offender to not operate a UAS if the judge finds the restriction is in the public interest.

Since many sex offenses carry long sentences, will this restriction even make sense by the time the person is released? How will this restriction be enforced once the person is off parole?

4. Obstructing, Interfering with or Impeding Emergency Personnel

The Penal Code specifies that it is a misdemeanor to obstruct, delay, or resist specified positions who are engaged in the discharged of their duties. The list includes firemen, emergency rescue personnel, emergency medical technicians, police officers, peace officers, and public officers in positions for which it is a crime to interfere with discharge of their duties. In addition, a Military & Vet. Code section makes it a misdemeanor for a person to delay or obstructs National Guard or California State Military Reserve from performing any military duty.

In addition, Penal Code section 402 prohibits conduct that impedes specified personnel responding to an emergency. Arguably a person could not be prosecuted under Penal Code Section 402 when using a drone from a remote location, because the section only prohibits conduct that impedes specified individuals performing their duties in coping with an emergency when the “person goes to the scene of an emergency, or stops at the scene of an emergency, . . .”

This bill clarifies that a person operating a UAS is included in the definition of Penal Code § 402.

This section does the same thing as AB 1680 (Rodriguez) which is also being heard at the June 21, 2016 hearing.

5. Stalking

This bill provides that a person for the purposes of violating the stalking provision includes a person operating or using a UAS. Stalking is a misdemeanor so using a UAS to stalk would be a misdemeanor.

6. Uncodified Intent

In addition to uncodified Legislative findings and declarations, this bill expresses uncodified intent that a person is prohibited from operating a UAS within 250 of the perimeter of any critical infrastructure facility for the purpose of conducting surveillance. Critical infrastructure facility is defined as an airport, electrical power generation system, petroleum refinery, a manufacturing facility that utilizes any combustible chemicals, a chemical or rubber manufacturing facility or a petroleum or chemical storage facility.

This intent is uncodified and the bill does not address this issue and uncodified intent has no legal impact so it is not clear why it is in the bill.

-- END –

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 2320

Author:(Calderon and Low)

As Amended Ver:May 4, 2016

Majority vote

SUMMARY: Prohibits the operation of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) in a manner that violates a protective order, constitutes stalking, interferes with emergency response personnel, or facilitates delivery of contraband into a jail or prison; and gives a judge the authority to prohibit registered sex offenders from using a UAS if it would be in the public interest. Specifically, this bill:

1. Makes it a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 and a year in county jail, as provided, to use a UAS to intentionally and knowingly violate a protective order that prohibits a person from coming within a specified distance of another person.
2. Specifies that flying a UAS within the distance prohibited or capturing images of the person covered by a protective order is a violation of that order.
3. Provides that if the violation of a protective order by a UAS results in physical injury (or is a second violation within a year), the violation is punishable by a fine of up to $2,000 and not less than 30 days (but no more than one year) in county jail.
4. Authorizes a judge to order a person who is required to register as a sex offender from operating a UAS if such a restriction is in the public interest.
5. Makes it a misdemeanor to use a UAS to view the scene of an emergency in a way that impedes police officers, firefighters, emergency medical, or other emergency personnel, or military personnel in the performance of their emergency duties.
6. Makes it a misdemeanor to use a UAS to stalk another person by willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly following or willfully and maliciously harassing another person and making a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of his or her immediate family; and makes using a UAS to stalk someone when there is a temporary restraining order in place a felony.
7. Makes it a felony to use a UAS to bring contraband into a jail or state prison.
8. Makes various technical and clarifying changes to current law.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

1. Nonreimbursable costs to local governments for enforcement and punishment, offset to some extent by fine revenues.
2. Potential, but likely minor state incarceration costs for felony convictions.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose of this bill. This bill seeks to protect personal privacy and public safety by amending a variety of existing laws to clarify that a violation of those laws can be committed by use of a UAS, and also by prohibiting the regulation of UAS ownership and operation by local governments. This bill is author-sponsored.
2. Using UAS to violate protective orders or stalk someone. Since UAS can be used to bother or capture images of a person, this bill specifies that using a UAS to enter the prohibited distance specified in a protective order is a violation of the order and subject to the same penalties as other violations of protective orders. Similarly, stalking laws prohibit a person from repeatedly following or harassing another person in a way that puts that person in fear. This bill specifies that using a UAS to stalk someone constitutes a violation of stalking laws that apply when physically following or harassing someone.
3. Sex offenders and UAS. This bill authorizes a judge to prohibit a person who must register as a sex offender from using a UAS if it would be in the public interest. Under current law, a person convicted of any felony is prohibited from possessing a firearm.
4. Emergencies and UAS interference. In 2015, California experienced a number of UAS interferences with emergency responses to wildfires throughout the state. This bill explicitly prohibits any use of a UAS that interferes with police, fire, medical, or other emergency or military personnel as they respond to natural or manmade emergencies.
5. Prisons and UAS. According to the New York Times, "some would-be smugglers are experimenting with [UAS] as an alternative to established methods like paying off officers, hiding contraband in incoming laundry and throwing packages disguised as rocks over fences." (Airmail Via Drones Is Vexing For Prisons, New York Times, April 22, 2015) This bill makes it a felony to use a UAS to deliver contraband to a prison or jail.
6. The federal preemption issue. Once the FAA has finished promulgating regulations governing the commercial deployment of UAS, which is expected to occur in the next year or two, a future court may find that those federal regulations preempt certain state laws, or parts thereof – such as this one, if passed – but much remains uncertain.

Analysis Prepared by: Jennie Bretschneider / P. & C.P. / (916) 319-2200 FN: 0002964

Date of Hearing: May 11, 2016

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2320

Author:(Calderon) – As Amended Ver:May 4, 2016

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill places several restrictions on the use of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS)—also known as drones. Specifically, this bill:

1. Makes it a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 and/or a year in county jail, for a person subject to a protective order to operate a UAS within the specified distance of the person who obtained the protective order.
2. Provides that if the violation of (1) that results in physical injury (or is a second violation within a year) is punishable by a fine of up to $2,000 and/or at least 30 days (but no more than one year) in county jail.
3. Authorizes a judge to prohibit a person required to register as a sex offender from operating a UAS, if the judge determines such action is in the public interest.
4. Makes it a misdemeanor to use a UAS to view the scene of an emergency in a way that impedes police officers, firefighters, emergency medical, or other emergency personnel, or military personnel in the performance of their emergency duties.
5. Makes it a misdemeanor to use a UAS to stalk another person by willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly following or willfully and maliciously harassing another person, and makes it a felony to use a UAS to stalk someone when there is a temporary restraining order in place.
6. Makes it a felony to use a UAS to bring contraband into a jail or state prison.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. Nonreimbursable costs to local governments for enforcement and punishment, offset to some extent by fine revenues.
2. Potential, but likely minor state incarceration costs for felony convictions.

COMMENTS:

Purpose. This bill seeks to protect personal privacy and public safety by amending a variety of existing laws to clarify that a violation of those laws can be committed by use of a UAS. According to the author, “The FAA is in the process of developing rules that are intended to safely integrate small unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace system and that, following issuance of a notice of proposed rulemaking and public comment period, are expected to be released in 2016 or 2017. While the FAA is developing the small unmanned aircraft system rules, California has a responsibility to ensure the safety of our citizens and at the same time, help foster an industry that can provide a wide range of useful applications.”

Analysis Prepared by: Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 20, 2016

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Susan Talamantes Eggman, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2320 (

Author:Calderon and Low) – As Amended Ver:April 4, 2016

SUBJECT: Unmanned aircraft systems.

SUMMARY: Prohibits local governments from regulating unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) and places a number of additional restrictions on the use of UAS. Specifically, this bill:

1. States that, except as expressly authorized by statute, the authority to regulate the ownership or operation of unmanned aircraft is vested solely in the state.
2. Prohibits, except as expressly authorized by statute, a city, a county, a city and county, or another local government entity from doing either of the following:
   1. Enacting an ordinance or resolution that regulates the ownership or operation of unmanned aircraft; or,
   2. Otherwise engaging in the regulation of the ownership or operation of unmanned aircraft.
3. Defines, for purposes of the above provisions, "unmanned aircraft" to mean an aircraft that is operated without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the aircraft.
4. Makes it a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 and a year in county jail, as specified, to use a UAS to intentionally and knowingly violate a protective order that prohibits a person from coming within a specified distance of another person, as specified.
5. Provides that if the violation of a protective order by a UAS results in physical injury (or is a second violation within a year), the violation is punishable by a fine of up to $2,000 and not less than 30 days (but no more than one year) in county jail.
6. Prohibits a person who is required to register as a sex offender from operating a UAS.
7. Makes it a misdemeanor to use a UAS to view the scene of an emergency in a way that impedes police officers, firefighters, emergency medical, or other emergency personnel, or military personnel in the performance of their emergency duties.
8. Makes it a misdemeanor to use a UAS to stalk another person by willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly following or willfully and maliciously harassing another person and making a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of his or her immediate family, and makes it a felony to use a UAS to stalk someone when there is a temporary restraining order in place.
9. Makes it a felony to use a UAS to bring contraband into a jail or state prison.
10. Defines "unmanned aircraft" and "unmanned aircraft system" consistent with federal law.
11. States that it is the intent of the Legislature that a person be prohibited from using UAS within 250 feet of a critical infrastructure facility for the purpose of conducting surveillance, gathering evidence or collecting information about the facility, or photographically or electronically recording data about critical infrastructure.
12. Defines “critical infrastructure” to mean an airport, an electrical power generation system, a petroleum refinery, a manufacturing facility that utilizes any combustible chemicals either in storage or in the process of manufacturing, a chemical or rubber manufacturing facility, or a petroleum or chemical storage facility.
13. Makes various legislative findings and declarations regarding the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) regulation of UAS, the beneficial uses of UAS, and public concerns about the privacy and public safety impacts of UAS, including this statement:

"The FAA has warned that a 'patchwork quilt' of inconsistent regulation raises substantial safety concerns, impedes innovation, and makes it virtually impossible for end-users to understand the rules for operating unmanned aircraft systems."

1. Makes various technical and clarifying changes.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Vests the FAA with the authority to regulate airspace use, management and efficiency, air traffic control, safety, navigational facilities, and aircraft noise.
2. Requires, pursuant to the Aviation Administration Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Act), the Secretary of Transportation to develop a comprehensive plan to safely accelerate the integration of civil UAS into the National Air Space (NAS). The plan is required to provide for the safe integration of civil UAS into the NAS as soon as practicable, but not later than September 30, 2015.
3. Requires, under FAA rules, as of February 19, 2016, federal registration of a UAS before first flight outdoors, for any UAS weighing more than 0.55 pounds (250 grams) and less than 55 pounds (approx. 25 kilos), including payloads such as on-board cameras, and requires UAS owners to be at least 13 years old to register and to provide name, home address, and email address. Upon registration, UAS owners receive a Certificate of Aircraft Registration/Proof of Ownership, along with a unique identification number, which must be marked or affixed to the UAS.
4. Allows, pursuant to Section 7 of Article XI of the California Constitution, a county or city to make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws.
5. Makes it a misdemeanor to violate a protective order that prohibits a person from coming within a specified distance of another person. If the violation results in physical injury (or is a second violation within a year), makes the violation punishable with a fine of up to $2,000 and not less than 30 days (but no more than one year) in county jail.
6. Under California’s “Megan’s Law,” requires sex offenders to register their current residence in a statewide public registry of sex offenders.
7. Prohibits a person convicted of a felony from possessing a firearm.
8. Makes it a misdemeanor to stop and view the scene of an emergency in a way that impedes police officers, firefighters, emergency medical, or other emergency personnel, or military personnel in the performance of their emergency duties.
9. Makes it a misdemeanor to stalk another person by willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly following or willfully and maliciously harassing another person and making a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of his or her immediate family, and specifies that stalking someone when there is a temporary restraining order in place carries a felony penalty.
10. Makes it a felony to bring contraband into a jail or state prison.

FISCAL EFFECT: This bill is keyed fiscal.

COMMENTS:

1. Bill Summary. This analysis will focus primarily on Section 7 of this bill, which states that the authority to regulate the ownership or operation of unmanned aircraft is vested solely in the state and prohibits a city, a county, a city and county, or another local government entity from doing either of the following:
   1. Enacting an ordinance or resolution that regulates the ownership or operation of unmanned aircraft; or,
   2. Otherwise engaging in the regulation of the ownership or operation of unmanned aircraft.

For a thorough discussion of the other provisions of this bill, please refer to the April 12, 2016, analysis of this bill by the Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee.

This bill is sponsored by the authors.

1. Author's Statement. According to the author, "The FAA is in the process of developing rules that are intended to safely integrate small unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace system and that are expected to be released in 2016 or 2017. While the FAA is developing the small unmanned aircraft system rules, California has a responsibility to ensure the safety of our citizens and at the same time, help foster an industry that can provide a wide range of useful applications."
2. Background. In 2012, Congress passed the Act, which required the FAA to establish a framework for safely integrating commercial UAS into the NAS no later than September 30, 2015, and authorized the FAA to establish interim requirements for the commercial operation of UAS. The FAA’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking came out on February 15, 2015, with safety rules for small UAS (under 55 pounds) conducting non-recreational or non-hobby operations. The proposed rule defines permissible hours of flight, line-of-sight observation, altitude, operator certification, optional use of visual observers, aircraft registration and marking, and operational limits. However, these rules have not yet been finalized and several states and local governments have considered and/or enacted their own statutes or ordinances governing the use of UAS in their jurisdictions.

In 2015, 45 states considered 168 bills meant to regulate use of drones, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. So far, 26 states have moved to limit police use of drones, bar drone surveillance over private property, or impose other restrictions.

Several cities in California have enacted ordinances regulating the operation of UAS in their jurisdictions, including Berkeley, Los Angeles, Poway, San Francisco, Santa Clara, and West Hollywood. The East Bay Regional Park District also has a rule governing drone use, and the cities of Oxnard and Hermosa Beach are developing ordinances.

1. State and Local UAS Laws: Guidance From the FAA. The FAA released a "State and Local Regulation of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Fact Sheet" on December 17, 2015, which states (citations omitted and emphasis added):

"Consistent with its statutory authority, the FAA is requiring Federal registration of UAS in order to operate a UAS…No state or local UAS registration law may relieve a UAS owner or operator from complying with the Federal UAS registration requirements. Because Federal registration is the exclusive means for registering UAS for purposes of operating an aircraft in navigable airspace, no state or local government may impose an additional registration requirement on the operation of UAS in navigable airspace without first obtaining FAA approval.

"Substantial air safety issues are raised when state or local governments attempt to regulate the operation or flight of aircraft. If one or two municipalities enacted ordinances regulating UAS in the navigable airspace and a significant number of municipalities followed suit, fractionalized control of the navigable airspace could result. In turn, this ‘patchwork quilt’ of differing restrictions could severely limit the flexibility of FAA in controlling the airspace and flight patterns, and ensuring safety and an efficient air traffic flow. A navigable airspace free from inconsistent state and local restrictions is essential to the maintenance of a safe and sound air transportation system."

However, the fact sheet continues with, "Examples of State and Local Laws for Which Consultation with the FAA is Recommended," which lists the following:

• 1. Operational UAS restrictions on flight altitude, flight paths; operational bans; any regulation of the navigable airspace. For example – a city ordinance banning anyone from operating UAS within the city limits, within the airspace of the city, or within certain distances of landmarks. Federal courts strictly scrutinize state and local regulation of overflight.
  2. Mandating equipment or training for UAS related to aviation safety…would likely be preempted. Courts have found that state regulation pertaining to mandatory training and equipment requirements related to aviation safety is not consistent with the federal regulatory framework."

In addition, the fact sheet also provides "Examples of State and Local Laws within State and Local Government Police Power," stating that "laws traditionally related to state and local police power – including land use, zoning, privacy, trespass, and law enforcement operations – generally are not subject to federal regulation. Examples include:

• 1. Requiring police to obtain a warrant before using UAS for surveillance;
  2. Specifying that UAS may not be used for voyeurism;
  3. Prohibiting the use of UAS to hunt or fish or interfere with someone hunting or fishing; and,
  4. Banning the weaponization of UAS."

1. State Preemption of Local Laws. This bill states that the authority to regulate the ownership or operation of unmanned aircraft is vested solely in the state and prohibits a city, a county, a city and county, or another local government entity from enacting an ordinance or resolution that regulates the ownership or operation of unmanned aircraft or otherwise engaging in the regulation of the ownership or operation of unmanned aircraft.

The California Constitution allows a county or city to make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws.

The legal test for determining if state law preempts local regulation consists of deciding whether the regulation in question is of statewide concern or a municipal affair. If a regulation is a matter of statewide concern, then it is not a municipal affair, and therefore the regulation is considered to conflict with state law.

Determining "statewide concern" entails a three-prong test. A local regulation is preempted if the court finds one of the following: the ordinance duplicates state law; the ordinance contradicts a state statute that expressly occupies the field; or, the state occupies the legislative area by implication.

In addition, California courts have developed tests for determining when local regulations are not preempted. One approach is known as the balancing of state and local interests. The balancing test requires the local regulation be shown to reflect a strong local interest that will prevail when balanced against a state regulation that it contradicts.

The FAA's guidance on state and local UAS laws explicitly notes that "laws traditionally related to state and local police power – including land use, zoning, privacy, trespass, and law enforcement operations – generally are not subject to federal regulation." It appears that the federal government does not contemplate federal or state preemption of local UAS laws – on the contrary, it lists potential local laws that would require consultation with the FAA and others that would fall within local police powers and, therefore, could be pursued without FAA consultation.

The state of California, while it has considered numerous bills regulating the use of UAS, has enacted only one. Does this mean the state fully occupies the field of UAS regulation, or that it should? It does not appear that any of the few ordinances that California cities have enacted to regulate UAS duplicate state law or contradict a state statute that expressly occupies the field, or that the state occupies the legislative area by implication.

According to the April 12, 2016, analysis of this bill by the Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee, "California laws that regulate aircraft establish statewide uniformity, but those laws also leave room for local governments to pass certain local restrictions on airplanes. Courts have affirmed the authority of municipalities to exercise land-use control over the siting and development of airports. In one recent case, Skyranch Pilots Ass'n v. County of Sacramento (July 2, 2008), a California appeals court held that a county’s decision not to renew a conditional use permit for a privately owned, public-use airport was not preempted by the State Aeronautics Act.

"Likewise, California’s Vehicle Code sets a variety of statewide standards, such as highway, residential and school zone vehicle speed limits, but state law allows cities and counties to set local vehicle restrictions, such as prohibiting cars in downtown pedestrian zones, adding speed bumps to bring car speeds below 25 miles per hour on certain residential streets, and establishing park opening and closing hours including parking restrictions in and around parks when closed." (citation omitted)

1. The UAS Market. The Consumer Technology Association (CTA) estimated about 700,000 drones would be sold in 2015, up from 430,000 drones sold in 2014. The FAA estimates that nearly one million UAS were sold during the December 2015 holiday season. CTA projects sales of consumer drones to grow 57% in 2016.
2. Pending Legislation. AB 1662 (Chau), pending in the Assembly Appropriations Committee, requires UAS operators to remain at the scene of an accident and provide their name and address along with valid identification to the victim and the police.

AB 1680 (Rodriguez), pending in the Assembly Appropriations Committee, makes it a misdemeanor to operate a UAS in a manner that interferes with first responders.

AB 2724 (Gatto), pending in the Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee, requires UAS makers to include with the UAS a copy of FAA safety regulations, and if the UAS is required to be registered with the FAA, a notice of the registration requirement. The bill also requires UAS with GPS technology to be outfitted with a geo-fencing feature and requires UAS owners to have adequate liability insurance.

SB 807 (Gaines), pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee, grants civil immunity to public entities, public employees, and unpaid volunteers, and private entities acting within the scope of delegated authority, that damage a UAS in the course of providing a variety of emergency services.

SB 808 (Gaines), pending in the Senate Public Safety Committee, clarifies that using a UAS to enter the airspace within which a person is prohibited from entering under a protective order is a violation of the protective order.

SB 810 (Gaines), pending in the Senate Public Safety Committee, establishes fines for UAS interference with firefighting activities.

SB 811 (Gaines), pending in the Senate Public Safety Committee, makes it a felony to use UAS to deliver contraband into a prison or county jail and creates a misdemeanor crime for the use of UAS to fly over a prison or capture images of a prison.

SB 868 (Jackson), pending in the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee, proposes the State Remote Piloted Aircraft Act containing numerous provisions regulating the use of UAS.

1. Previous Legislation. SB 168 (Gaines) of 2015 would have increased fines for UAS interference with firefighting activities and granted civil immunity to public entities, public employees, and unpaid volunteers, and private entities acting within the scope of delegated authority, that damage a UAS in the course of providing a variety of emergency services.
   SB 168 was vetoed.

SB 170 (Gaines) of 2015 would have prohibited a person from knowingly and intentionally operating an UAS over a state prison or county jail. SB 170 was vetoed.

SB 263 (Gaines) of 2015 would have clarified that using a UAS to enter the airspace within which a person is prohibited from entering under a given protective order is a violation of the protective order. SB 263 was held in the Senate Public Safety Committee.

SB 271 (Gaines) of 2015 would have prohibited the use of UAS at or less than 350 feet above a public school campus or to use a UAS to capture images of school campus during school hours without the written permission of the school principal. SB 271 was vetoed.

AB 856 (Calderon), Chapter 521, Statutes of 2015, expanded the scope of the cause of action in existing law for physical invasion of privacy by making a person liable for physical invasion of privacy when the person knowingly enters "into the airspace" above the land of another person without permission.

1. Committee Amendment. The Committee may wish to strike Section 7 of this bill to delete provisions establishing state preemption of local authority to regulate UAS within their jurisdictions.
2. Arguments in Support. None on file.
3. Arguments in Opposition. The California Police Chiefs Association and the League of California Cities, in opposition, note, "The painfully slow evolution of federal regulations with respect to unmanned aircraft systems for recreational use, combined with the rise in irresponsible use of this technology posing unreasonable dangers to first responders and commercial aviation, and finally the most recent and rather weak proposed federal rulemaking for recreational drones which have yet to be formally adopted as federal regulations, all argue against federal pre-emption of either state or local regulation in this area…

"To add explicit pre-emption language at this stage indicates a policy approach that places the interests of the unmanned aircraft system industry above that of aviation safety, first responders, commercial aviation and the public safety needs of the general public. We have noted with alarm that the April 4th amendments contain absolutely no provisions strengthening the ability of the state’s various law enforcement agencies to address the many near mid-air collisions between first responders and drones, or the growing threat to commercial aviation caused by drones repeatedly operating in the federally restricted airspace within 5 miles of airports.

"In the absence of comprehensive state regulation that, at a minimum, seeks to bring state law into conformity with the few federal regulations that apply to recreational drones indicates a premature attempt to shut down local regulation without any meaningful assurance that state regulations will come about…Cities have a compelling interest in preserving their ability under current law, as interpreted by the FAA, to adopt regulations pertaining to the use of unmanned aircraft systems in the areas of allowable land uses, zoning, privacy, trespass and regulation of their own law enforcement operations. We do not intend to cede this authority for convenience of the industry."

1. Double-Referral. This bill was heard by the Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee on April 12, 2016, where it passed with a 6-3 vote.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

None on file

Opposition

California Police Chiefs Association

City of Sacramento

City of Thousand Oaks

League of California Cities

Analysis Prepared by: Angela Mapp / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958

Date of Hearing: April 12, 2016

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PRIVACY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

Ed Chau, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2320 (

Author:Calderon and Low) – As Amended Ver:April 4, 2016

SUBJECT: Unmanned aircraft systems

SUMMARY: Prohibits the operation of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) in a manner that violates a protective order, constitutes stalking, interferes with emergency response personnel, or facilitates delivery of contraband into a jail or prison; and also prohibits sex offenders from using a UAS and prohibits local governments from regulating UAS. Specifically, this bill:

1. Makes it a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 and a year in county jail, as provided, to use a UAS to intentionally and knowingly violate a protective order that prohibits a person from coming within a specified distance of another person.
2. Specifies that flying a UAS within the distance prohibited or capturing images of the person covered by a protective order is a violation of that order.
3. Provides that if the violation of a protective order by a UAS results in physical injury (or is a second violation within a year), the violation is punishable by a fine of up to $2,000 and not less than 30 days (but no more than one year) in county jail.
4. Prohibits a person who is required to register as a sex offender from operating a UAS.
5. Makes it a misdemeanor to use a UAS to view the scene of an emergency in a way that impedes police officers, firefighters, emergency medical, or other emergency personnel, or military personnel in the performance of their emergency duties.
6. Makes it a misdemeanor to use a UAS to stalk another person by willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly following or willfully and maliciously harassing another person and making a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of his or her immediate family; and makes using a UAS to stalk someone when there is a temporary restraining order in place a felony.
7. Makes it a felony to use a UAS to bring contraband into a jail or state prison.
8. Specifies that the authority to regulate the ownership or operation of unmanned aircraft is vested solely in the state, and prohibits cities and counties from enacting ordinances or resolutions that regulate the ownership or operation of UAS, or otherwise engage in the regulation of UAS, unless expressly authorized by statute.
9. Defines “unmanned aircraft” and “unmanned aircraft system” consistent with federal law.
10. Defines “critical infrastructure” to mean an airport, an electrical power generation system, a petroleum refinery, a manufacturing facility that utilizes any combustible chemicals either in storage or in the process of manufacturing, a chemical or rubber manufacturing facility, or a petroleum or chemical storage facility.
11. States that it is the intent of the Legislature that a person be prohibited from using UAS within 250 feet of a critical infrastructure facility for the purpose of conducting surveillance, gathering evidence or collecting information about the facility, or photographically or electronically recording data about critical infrastructure.
12. Makes various legislative findings and declarations regarding the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) regulation of UAS, the beneficial uses of UAS, and public concerns about the privacy and public safety impacts of UAS.
13. Makes various technical and clarifying changes to current law.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Vests the FAA with the authority to regulate airspace use, management and efficiency, air traffic control, safety, navigational facilities, and aircraft noise. (49 U.S.C. Sec. 40103, 44502, and 44701-44735)
2. Requires, under the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Act), the FAA to integrate safely UAS operation into the national airspace system by September 30, 2015, and to develop and implement certification requirements for the operation of UAS in the national airspace system. (Public Law Number 112-095)
3. Requires, under FAA rules, as of February 19, 2016, federal registration of a UAS before first flight outdoors, for any UAS weighing more than 0.55 pounds (250 grams) and less than 55 pounds (approx. 25 kilos), including payloads such as on-board cameras, and requires UAS owners to be at least 13 years old to register and to provide name, home address, and email address. Upon registration, UAS owners receive a Certificate of Aircraft Registration/Proof of Ownership along with a unique identification number, which must be marked or affixed to the UAS. (14 CFR Parts 1, 45, 47, 48, 91, and 375)
4. Makes it a misdemeanor to violate a protective order is a misdemeanor that prohibits a person from coming within a specified distance of another person. If the violation results in physical injury (or is a second violation within a year), makes the violation punishable with a fine of up to $2,000 and not less than 30 days (but no more than one year) in county jail. (Penal Code (PC) Section 273.6)
5. Under California’s “Megan’s Law,” requires sex offenders to register their current residence in a statewide public registry of sex offenders. (PC 290 et seq.)
6. Prohibits a person convicted of a felony from possessing a firearm. (PC 29800)
7. Makes it a misdemeanor to stop and view the scene of an emergency in a way that impedes police officers, firefighters, emergency medical, or other emergency personnel, or military personnel in the performance of their emergency duties. (PC 402)
8. Makes it a misdemeanor to stalk another person by willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly following or willfully and maliciously harassing another person and making a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of his or her immediate family, and specifies that stalking someone when there is a temporary restraining order in place carries a felony penalty (PC 646.9)
9. Makes it a felony to use a UAS to bring contraband into a jail or state prison. (PC 4573.5)

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose of this bill. This bill seeks to protect personal privacy and public safety by amending a variety of existing laws to clarify that a violation of those laws can be committed by use of a UAS, and also by prohibiting the regulation of UAS ownership and operation by local governments. This bill is author-sponsored.
2. Author’s statement. According to the author, “The FAA is in the process of developing rules that are intended to safely integrate small unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace system and that, following issuance of a notice of proposed rulemaking and public comment period, are expected to be released in 2016 or 2017. While the FAA is developing the small unmanned aircraft system rules, California has a responsibility to ensure the safety of our citizens and at the same time, help foster an industry that can provide a wide range of useful applications.”
   
3. What are UAS? The FAA defines a UAS as an unmanned aircraft system and all of the associated support equipment, control stations, data links, telemetry, and communications and navigation equipment necessary to operate the unmanned aircraft. More commonly referred to as a drone, a UAS is flown either by a pilot via a ground control system or autonomously through use of an on-board computer.
4. Proliferation of recreational UAS and new FAA registration rules. UAS are widely available to the public. Retail UAS devices outfitted with cameras now range from roughly $300 to $1,500. The FAA estimates that nearly one million UAS were sold during the December 2015 holiday season. In anticipation of the influx of UAS in the skies, the FAA issued new rules in 2015 requiring any UAS weighing between half a pound and 55 pounds to be registered with the FAA by February 19, 2016. The new FAA registration rules apply only to “model aircraft,” i.e., recreational UAS.

According to FAA Commissioner Michael Huerta, who led a March 2016 panel on the future of UAS at the SXSW “South by Southwest” event in Austin, Texas, the FAA now has more than 400,000 UAS registrants, which surpasses the 320,000 piloted airplanes currently registered with the FAA. Upon registration, the FAA issues a unique identifier, which must be affixed to the UAS in a “readily accessible and visible manner.” The unique identifier can then be used to look up the UAS owner in the event of an accident, for example.

To the extent that registration becomes routine for recreational UAS users, the FAA registration rules would greatly assist with the enforcement of this bill. The FAA rules give law enforcement direct access to search its database of UAS owners using the unique identifier affixed to the registered UAS.

1. Future commercial UAS operation and FAA regulation. While mostly still in the experimental stages, the potential commercial applications for UAS are growing exponentially. UAS can give the news media economical and environmentally friendly access to aerial views of traffic, storms, and other events when compared to the current use of helicopters and other manned aircraft. UAS are beginning to be used in the agricultural industry to observe and measure crops while conserving resources and avoiding the use of heavy equipment. UAS also show great promise for use in commercial delivery and communications.
   
   In 2012, Congress passed the Act which required the FAA to establish a framework for safely integrating commercial UAS into the national airspace no later than September 30, 2015, and authorized the FAA to establish interim requirements for the commercial operation of UAS. Under the interim rules, UAS operators must meet certain standards and apply for a commercial use exemption and an FAA Certificate of Authorization in order to operate in in “navigable airspace,” which is generally above 500 feet.

On February 15, 2015, the FAA proposed a new framework of regulations to allow the use of small UAS in the airspace from the ground up to 500 feet. If enacted, the proposed rules would limit flights to non-recreational, daylight uses and would require a commercial UAS pilot to maintain a visual line of sight with the UAS. Congress is currently considering FAA reauthorization legislation that contains a number of UAS provisions, including a proposed requirement that UAS operators pass an online test, a requirement that UAS contain certain safety features, and a new program to fund interception of UAS that fly to close to airports.

1. Using UAS to violate protective orders or stalk someone. A protective order is a court-issued directive to stop a person who has harassed or abused another person from getting within a specified distance of that person for a certain time period. Since UAS can be used to bother or capture images of a person, this bill specifies that using a UAS to enter the prohibited distance specified in a protective order is a violation of the order and subject to the same penalties as other violations of protective orders.

Similarly, stalking laws prohibit a person from repeatedly following or harassing another person in a way that puts that person in fear. While a future court might find that a UAS can be used to violate any of California’s specific privacy laws, the author contends that statutory updates are needed in order to ensure that people’s privacy and personal safety is protected. This bill specifies that using a UAS to stalk someone constitutes a violation of stalking laws and is subject to the same penalties that apply when a person stalks a person by physically following or harassing someone.

1. Sex offenders and UAS. This bill prohibits a person who is a registered sex offender from using a UAS for any reason. Under current law, a person convicted of any felony is prohibited from possessing a firearm. However, unlike firearms, UAS have numerous commercial and recreational uses that a person who is a registered sex offender might lawfully pursue without posing a danger to others.
   
   The author and the Committee may wish to consider whether a blanket ban on drone use is appropriate, or if only particular activities or areas relevant to the conviction should be denied to registered sex offenders.
2. Emergencies and UAS interference. California law prohibits people from stopping at an emergency in order to view the scene if doing so interferes with emergency personnel. Nevertheless, in 2015, California experienced a number of UAS interferences with emergency responses to wildfires throughout the state.
   
   Aerial firefighting aircraft, such as air tankers and helicopters, must fly at very low altitudes in order to be effective. Hobbyists who fly UAS near fires create the potential for a mid-air collision that could injure or kill aerial and ground firefighters as well as innocent bystanders on the ground below. Because of this risk, when firefighters detect a UAS flying over or near a wildfire, air operations must be suspended until all drones flying in a fire area are removed. This delay allows wildfires to grow, and in some cases like the North Fire in San Bernardino County, such a delay can pose an immediate threat to human lives and property.
   
   This bill explicitly prohibits any use of a UAS that interferes with police, fire, medical, or other emergency or military personnel as they respond to natural or manmade emergencies.
3. Prisons and UAS. Concerns have been raised about drone overflights of prisons, and there are multiple examples of people attempting to use UAS to introduce contraband to prisons. According to the New York Times, “some would-be smugglers are experimenting with [UAS] as an alternative to established methods like paying off officers, hiding contraband in incoming laundry and throwing packages disguised as rocks over fences into recreational yards.” (“Airmail Via Drones Is Vexing For Prisons,” New York Times, April 22, 2015)
   
   The author aims to improve prison and jail security by making it a felony to use a UAS to deliver contraband to a prison or jail.
4. Local government preemption of UAS ordinances and resolutions. This bill was recently amended to prohibit local governments from passing ordinances or resolutions that would regulate UAS. The author contends that having a patchwork of varying UAS rules in cities and counties across the state would make it difficult for recreational and commercial UAS operators to stay apprised of and properly follow local laws.

On the other hand, local governments would argue that they are responsible for local health and safety matters, and are generally more attuned to their communities’ unique needs than the state or federal government - and for that reason may be in a better position to establish local rules for personal privacy and safety.

As an example of this tension between state and local control, California laws that regulate aircraft establish statewide uniformity, but those laws also leave room for local governments to pass certain local restrictions on airplanes. Courts have affirmed the authority of municipalities to exercise land-use control over the siting and development of airports. In one recent case, Skyranch Pilots Ass'n v. County of Sacramento (July 2, 2008), a California appeals court held that a county’s decision not to renew a conditional use permit for a privately owned, public-use airport was not preempted by the State Aeronautics Act. (Ct. App. 3d Dist.; 164 Cal.App.4th 671, 79 Cal.Rptr.3d 539)

Likewise, California’s Vehicle Code sets a variety of statewide standards, such as highway, residential and school zone vehicle speed limits, but state law allows cities and counties to set local vehicle restrictions, such as prohibiting cars in downtown pedestrian zones, adding speed bumps to bring car speeds below 25 miles per hour on certain residential streets, and establishing park opening and closing hours including parking restrictions in and around parks when closed.

As a result of recent amendments that would preempt local ordinances, the bill has been double-referred to the Local Government Committee for consideration of the impact on local governments in California.

1. Critical infrastructure and UAS. This bill states that it is the intent of the Legislature to ban the use of UAS within 250 feet of critical infrastructure. However, Legislative intent language does not have the force of l aw - it merely states the Legislature’s reasons for passing a piece of legislation, which may influence a court when construing a statute that may be unclear or ambiguous on its face.
   
   Because the bill has no operative provisions that would prohibit the flying of UAS near critical infrastructure, the author and the Committee may wish to consider adding such as provision. The author and Committee may also wish to consider whether this bill’s definition of critical infrastructure should eventually be harmonized with two other bills moving through the Legislature this year: AB 1841 (Irwin) and SB 868 (Jackson).
   
2. The federal preemption issue. Once the FAA has finished promulgating regulations governing the commercial deployment of UAS, which is expected to occur in the next year or two, a future court may find that those federal regulations preempt certain state laws, or parts thereof – such as this one, if passed – but much remains uncertain.
   
   For example, in Montalvo v. Spirit Airlines, the Ninth Circuit held in 2007 that federal law preempts state law aviation safety standards in areas in which the FAA has issued “pervasive regulations.” In discussing the Montalvo case, the Ninth Circuit found that the specific FAA regulations relevant in the case were “pervasive” in that they were “specific,” detail[ed],” “complete,” “thorough” and “comprehensive” and that this pervasiveness evidenced Congressional intent to broadly preempt state law. The Montalvo court held that “federal law occupies the entire field of aviation safety. Congress’ intent to displace state law is implicit in the pervasiveness of the federal regulations, the dominance of the federal interest in this area, and the legislative goal of establishing a single, uniform system of control over air safety.” Montalvo v. Spirit Airlines, 508 F.3d 464, 473 (9^th Cir. 2007)

Two years later, in Martin ex rel. Heckman v. Midwest Express Holdings, Inc., the Ninth Circuit limited the scope of FAA preemption and held that state law was only preempted if the specific area covered by the plaintiff’s tort claim was the subject of pervasive federal regulations. Martin ex rel. Heckman v. Midwest Express Holdings, Inc. 555 F.3d 806, 811 (9^th Cir. 2009)

The FAA itself recently took a more concrete position on the issue of preemption of state UAS regulation. According to a December 17, 2015 FAA white paper entitled, “State and Local Regulation of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS),” the FAA stated that “[l]aws traditionally related to state and local police power – including land use, zoning, privacy, trespass, and law enforcement operations – generally are not subject to federal regulation.” The FAA cited the following as examples:

• Requiring police to obtain a warrant before using UAS for surveillance;
• Specifying that UAS may not be used for voyeurism;
• Prohibiting the use of UAS to hunt or fish or interfere with someone hunting or fishing; and
• Banning the weaponization of UAS.

While the courts will ultimately decide whether certain state UAS laws are preempted or not, most of the provisions of this bill appear to fall within the state and local government police power, including the provisions related to violation of protective orders, registered sex offenders, emergency response, stalking and prisons, because they establish public safety rules and help law enforcement prevent crime. As such, the chances of federal preemption of this bill would likely be minimal. However, the author and the Committee may wish to consider whether a severability clause should be added to this bill in the event that one or more parts are preempted.

1. Governor’s vetoes of prior legislation. In 2015, the Legislature passed SB 168 (Gaines), which would have increased fines for UAS interference with firefighting activities and granted civil immunity to public entities, public employees, and unpaid volunteers, and private entities acting within the scope of delegated authority, that damage a UAS in the course of providing a variety of emergency services. The Legislature also passed SB 170 (Gaines), which would have prohibited using UAS over jails and prisons. However, SB 168 and SB 170 were vetoed by Governor Brown in part on the grounds that the measures prohibited activities already prohibited under current law. In his veto message, Governor Brown stated:

“Each of these bills creates a new crime - usually by finding a novel way to characterize and criminalize conduct that is already proscribed. This multiplication and particularization of criminal behavior creates increasing complexity without commensurate benefit. Over the last several decades, California's criminal code has grown to more than 5,000 separate provisions, covering almost every conceivable form of human misbehavior. During the same period, our jail and prison populations have exploded. Before we keep going down this road, I think we should pause and reflect on how our system of criminal justice could be made more human, more just and more cost-effective.”

1. Arguments in opposition. The California Police Chiefs Association and the League of California Cities stated in a co-signed letter: “The April 4^th amendments adding Section 7 of the bill clearly pre-empt municipal authority to regulate unmanned aircraft systems within their borders, in direct violation of cities’ police power pursuant to Section 7 of Article XI of the California Constitution. The painfully slow evolution of federal regulations with respect to unmanned aircraft systems for recreational use, combined with the rise in irresponsible use of this technology posing unreasonable dangers to first responders and commercial aviation, and finally the most recent and rather weak proposed federal rulemaking for recreational drones which have yet to be formally adopted as federal regulations, all argue against federal pre-emption of either state or local regulation in this area.”

The letter states further: “To add explicit pre-emption language at this stage indicates a policy approach that places the interests of the unmanned aircraft system industry above that of aviation safety, first responders, commercial aviation and the public safety needs of the general public.”

1. Related legislation. AB 1662 (Chau) protects people from hit-and-run UAS accidents by requiring UAS operators to remain at the scene of an accident and provide their name and address along with valid identification to the victim and the police. AB 1662 passed the Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee on an 11-0 vote and is pending in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

AB 1680 (Rodriguez) makes it a misdemeanor to operate a UAS in a way that interferes with first responders. AB 1680 passed the Assembly Public Safety Committee on a 7-0 vote and is pending in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

AB 2724 (Gatto) requires UAS makers to include with the UAS a copy of FAA safety regulations, and if the UAS is required to be registered with the FAA, a notice of the registration requirement. The bill also requires UAS with GPS technology to be outfitted with a geo-fencing feature and requires UAS owners to have adequate liability insurance. AB 2724 is pending before the Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee.

SB 807 (Gaines) grants civil immunity to public entities, public employees, and unpaid volunteers, and private entities acting within the scope of delegated authority, that damage a UAS in the course of providing a variety of emergency services. SB 807 is pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

SB 808 (Gaines) clarifies that using a UAS to enter the airspace within which a person is prohibited from entering under a protective order is a violation of the protective order. SB 808 is pending before the Senate Public Safety Committee.

SB 810 (Gaines) established fines for UAS interference with firefighting activities. SB 810 is pending before the Senate Public Safety Committee.

SB 811 (Gaines) makes it a felony to use UAS to deliver contraband into a prison or county jail and creates a misdemeanor crime for the use of UAS to fly over a prison or capture images of a prison. SB 811 is pending before the Senate Public Safety Committee.

SB 868 (Jackson) proposes the State Remote Piloted Aircraft Act containing numerous provisions regulating the use of UAS. SB 868 is pending before the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee (and thereafter the Senate Public Safety Committee).

1. Prior legislation. SB 168 (Gaines) of 2015 would have increased fines for UAS interference with firefighting activities and granted civil immunity to public entities, public employees, and unpaid volunteers, and private entities acting within the scope of delegated authority, that damage a UAS in the course of providing a variety of emergency services. SB 168 was vetoed by Governor Brown.

SB 170 (Gaines) of 2015 would have prohibited a person from knowingly and intentionally operating an UAS over a state prison or county jail. SB 170 was vetoed by Governor Brown.

SB 263 (Gaines) of 2015 would have clarified that using a UAS to enter the airspace within which a person is prohibited from entering under a given protective order is a violation of the protective order. SB 263 was held in the Senate Public Safety Committee.

SB 271 (Gaines) of 2015 would have prohibited the use of UAS at or less than 350 feet above a public school campus or to use a UAS to capture images of school campus during school hours without the written permission of the school principal. SB 271 was vetoed by Governor Brown.

AB 856 (Calderon), Chapter 521, Statutes of 2015, expanded the scope of the cause of action in existing law for physical invasion of privacy by making a person liable for physical invasion of privacy when the person knowingly enters “into the airspace” above the land of another person without permission.

1. Double-referral. This bill has been double-referred to the Assembly Local Government Committee, where it will be heard if it passes this Committee.

Support

None on file.

Opposition

California Police Chiefs Association

City of Lakeport

League of California Cities

Analysis Prepared by: Jennie Bretschneider / P. & C.P. / (916) 319-2200