Authorize Protective Drone Use to Keep Florida’s Public Events Safe

mavic3usa · Sep 11, 2025

Well, that didn't take long. I knew it would happen eventually but didn't know this would be the trigger.

FL has an anti-drone law which was passed to prevent the ordinary recreational drone flyer from surveillance on private property using a drone. You can read the law here: FL 934.50 Searches and seizure using a drone

The law either prohibits everyone from "spying" with a drone or makes it difficult with very specific exceptions. I guess it was ok for Floridians....until it wasn't. It now appears the law is overly broad or there aren't enough good exceptions for everyone, it doesn't help promote positive drone use, it does not to stop criminals, or it's just a plain stupid law.

I have always believed it was good idea to allow drones to be used in helpful ways particularly when it comes to security and overwatch, etc. I did not like law enforcement (government) to fly drones with unrestricted rules and I have always wanted law to make sure government use of drones is Constitutional and transparent and only with the permission of the People. I would be happy with no warrant, no drone; obey the 4th Amendment. I have never been a fan of anti-drone laws which impact the consumer or commercial drone space including this ridiculous FL law.

Seems like a lot of people might agree with me and are now asking for the get out from under that law. I won't post the link to the petition from change.org but here it is:

The Issue

To the Florida Legislature and Governor Ron DeSantis:

We, the undersigned, urge immediate action to close a dangerous gap in Florida law that leaves political candidates, elected officials, and the public vulnerable at rallies, speeches, and civic gatherings.

Under current Florida law (§ 934.50, F.S.), licensed security officers and FAA-certified remote drone pilots cannot legally use drones to scan rooftops or elevated positions for threats. The current law treats these protective sweeps as “surveillance,” even when the goal is to prevent a sniper attack or provide life-saving information during a hostile incident.

This restriction puts lives at risk.

In 2024, a rooftop sniper attempted to assassinate Presidential candidate Donald J. Trump.
On September 10, 2025, political influencer Charlie Kirk was murdered while addressing a college audience.
Florida has seen tragedies like the Pulse nightclub and Parkland school shootings, where faster situational awareness could have saved lives.

Drones are a proven tool for rapid, real-time threat detection. Seconds matter — and the law should empower trained, licensed professionals to use drones responsibly for protection, not tie their hands.

We Call For:

Legislative Action in 2026 — Pass new law authorizing licensed security personnel and contracted FAA-certified drone pilots to conduct protective drone sweeps.

Executive Action Now — Governor DeSantis can issue an executive order to bridge the gap until legislation takes effect, authorizing protective drone operations under FDLE oversight.

Balance and Accountability — Protective drone use must include privacy safeguards, strict limits on data retention, and Good Samaritan protections for operators acting in good faith.

Why This Matters

This is not about politics. It is about protecting people. Florida can lead the nation in responsibly using drone technology to save lives, safeguard free speech, and ensure that no family has to endure another preventable tragedy.

We urge the Governor and Legislature: act now, before it’s too late.

mavic3usa · Sep 16, 2025

Some thoughts for using security at high profile events.

Not me, not my video:

GadgetGuy · Sep 16, 2025

Well reasoned security assessment. In defense of the Second Amendment, Charlie did say that the collateral damage of a several deaths a year was worth it. He just didn’t mean himself!

“It's worth, unfortunately, to have several gun deaths every year so we can have a second amendment.” Charlie Kirk

AMann · Sunday at 2:15 AM

The exceptions (in part 4) look to me like they do allow for public safety threat detection, infrastructure inspections, mapping, etc. Am I missing something about those?

The part I don’t like is that private citizens can take civil action against others to get compensation for damages - lawyers get nasty when they see words like that. We’ve had one in a wheelchair purposely going to small mom and pop restaurants and testing all the access points for ADA compliance - finding anything wrong, he’s collected thousands of dollars from them, and even forced some to close.

Chip · Sunday at 2:12 PM

AMann said:
The part I don’t like is that private citizens can take civil action against others to get compensation for damages - lawyers get nasty when they see words like that. We’ve had one in a wheelchair purposely going to small mom and pop restaurants and testing all the access points for ADA compliance - finding anything wrong, he’s collected thousands of dollars from them, and even forced some to close.

Yes, you are right. There are some people who make their living looking for and suing over ADA violations on massive scale. Sometimes, the damages may be very small or non-existent but federal and state laws allow recovery of attorneys fees if the technical violation is proved.

The FLA statute makes an effort to limit the "profitability" or inducement to file weak claims by limiting contingent multipliers on attorneys fees. Meaning that if a lawyer takes the case on a contingency basis (no fee unless they win) they may recover their reasonable hourly rate only, unless the case goes to trial.

Of course reasonable hourly rate may still be high, but it reduces the perception, or chance of easy, quick, massive windfall. In certain contingency cases where attorneys fees may be recovered, the risk to attorney of pursuing a case at their time and expense and getting nothing is offset by court's right to award a multiplier of hourly rates to compensate for the risk. This is often done in civil rights (just one example) cases where plaintiff may have no money to pay for hourly representation but deserve a chance to have their rights vindicated. To incentivize attorneys to take the case the rules may allow winner to request a multiple of their "normal" rate to account for the risk they took of getting nothing.

A double multiplier seems pretty generous to begin with as a general proposition, but winner only gets the chance to ask the court for it if they go through the whole case and win.

Excerpt at issue:
In such action, the prevailing party is entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees from the non prevailing party based on the actual and reasonable time expended by his or her attorney billed at an appropriate hourly rate and, in cases in which the payment of such a fee is contingent on the outcome, without a multiplier, unless the action is tried to verdict, in which case a multiplier of up to twice the actual value of the time expended may be awarded in the discretion of the trial court.

anotherlab · Sunday at 5:06 PM

Chip said:
Yes, you are right. There are some people who make their living looking for and suing over ADA violations on massive scale. Sometimes, the damages may be very small or non-existent but federal and state laws allow recovery of attorneys fees if the technical violation is proved.

This became a Seriously Big Deal™ when Colorado passed the Accessibility Law HB21-1110 a couple of years ago. All government and government-adjacent websites and software applications must meet the WCAG 2.1 AA accessibility requirements. About 10 other states have implemented the same or similar requirements.