Here is why that is a problem. Every state has its own Constitution which in some cases provides more privacy protection than the US Constitution/Fourth Amendment and every state has the right to enact its own laws limiting when and how drones may be used by law enforcement to conduct surveillance.
And there you have it. This is why drones need the FAA to step up with federal protection. You think this is ok? The reason why I object to states have such "rights" is because they won't be able to implement them legally. Here's the proof:
St. Louis has adopted a law barring commercial drone flights that threaten personal or property privacy without obtaining a permit first
dronedj.com
As you can see, the law is aimed at commercial flight or drone pilots who apparently hold a part 107 license. The law is blatantly unconstitutional because the city has no jurisdiction and it violates the rights of commercial drone pilots; however, it is obvious they made exceptions so they can selectively enforce the law as needed. They don't stop the media which would be a first amendment violation and they allow first responders to fly because they're the government. It also appears the law does not apply to recreational pilots because that is probably the big majority of drone pilots and a law that bans 90% of potential flights could be seen as sweeping and too broad and overreach. So they cleverly narrow it down. But the city is smart, anybody flying a drone with a camera on it, if the city wanted to claim you were flying for commercial use even if you didn't have a part 107, they can stick you with it anyway, arrest you and confiscate your drone, and report you to the FAA for flying commercial without a part 107. City residents need to look over their shoulder and behave or else you can face the wrath. This law chills the use of recreational drones.
If the FAA would show up at at city hall and tell the city council they will sue if they don't retract the ordinance, then other cities will soon follow this city. Except you will see some of the new bills that include recreational pilots, some of the bills will let anyone fly as long as they get a city permit, and some of the bills will be 500 feet, not 25 feet...or 350 feet and above, etc. The list of special situations will be longer and grow over time until everything is off limits.
And now, according to this law the commercial drone pilots have a CBO they have to follow. Oh joy, wait until you have to deal with these fickle rules. Illegally using a drone to break existing laws is already a deterrent, a specific drone law like this one wasn't needed. But all the keywords are in this new law from reasonable time place and manner to preemption of federal law to public safety to sensitive infrastructure. It even goes into detail on how to properly seize a drones. This is a bad, bad law but alas, seems like nobody cares.
Just want to point out one more thing. The new law says recreational pilots flying just for fun are exempt from this entire law. So when a drone comes near a police car at a traffic stop with lights on, the recreational and news drones are ok and the commercial drones flying for payments are not ok. What do you think will happen in the city when a drone comes near a traffic stop? How long before they repeal this portion of the law, the section that excludes recreational pilots? I do not like the fact this law keeps referring to commercial pilots as those who work and receive compensation.
