NH Drone laws proposed

[Magpie]

New Hampshire SB49 | 2025 | Regular Session

Bill Text (2025-01-23) Establishing the crime of and penalties for unlawful use of unmanned aircraft systems. [Hearing: 01/28/2025, Room 100, State House, 01:00 pm; Senate Calendar 7]

legiscan.com

Interesting that they are trying to establish a bunch of misdemeanor/felony charges for specific drone-based violations. Do other states have anything similar, or is this normally left to Federal enforcement and/or general state laws like property damage / negligence?

Also, there appear to be some conflicts with FAA rules, specifically around the hazardous equipment section (things you could get waivers for in some legitimate cases). Personal opinion, but I also don't like the "interferes with law enforcement" language as that feels like it could get easily abused by someone having a bad day.

Thoughts?

 

[Vic Moss]

This looks fine. It's a good law.

 

[Magpie]

That's good to hear, I always get a little nervous when new legislation starts to come through and what legalese to look out for that can end up being problematic.

The prison one is interesting as it looks like only the federal level prisons have the restrictions established here, but it seems like it should probably be all of them. Vic, do you know if states are able to work with the FAA to get other state level facilities of concern covered by flight restrictions that will show up in B4UFLY, or is that still a bit of a process? Should be common sense not to fly over them anyways, but you know how people are...

 

[tstr14]

This looks fine. It's a good law.

"or violates any provisions of RSA 644:9."

Unless you know the contents of RSA 644:9, how do you know it's a "good law"?

 

[Magpie]

"or violates any provisions of RSA 644:9."

Unless you know the contents of RSA 644:9, how do you know it's a "good law"?

Quick search shows that it's the state standard privacy laws: Section 644:9 Violation of Privacy.

I would think those would basically be in effect now anyways related to any situation, including drones, and this just more explicitly spells that out?

 

[tstr14]

Quick search shows that it's the state standard privacy laws: Section 644:9 Violation of Privacy.

I would think those would basically be in effect now anyways related to any situation, including drones, and this just more explicitly spells that out?

Maybe. Part of that section states:
"IV. A person is guilty of a misdemeanor if such person knowingly enters any residential curtilage, as defined in RSA 627:9,"

And RSA 627:9 states in part:
"I. "Curtilage" means those outbuildings which are proximately, directly and intimately connected with a dwelling, together with all the land or grounds surrounding the dwelling such as are necessary, convenient, and habitually used for domestic purposes."

An over-zealous prosecutor could construe 644:9 as meaning a drone is subject to the same limitations under 627:9 as a person and thus attempt to charge the PIC of a misdemeanor for flying over (thereby 'entering') private property.

And before you scoff, prosecutors in my state used to prosecute and put people on the "sex offender" if caught urinating in public, because of a law that said anyone who exposed themselves were sexual offenders. So, if you were on an extended hike and needed to relieve yourself, you risked jail, fines and being labeled a sex offender.

 

[mavic3usa]

No worries, the residents of your state will have to live with an unnecessary law that will only be abused and/or updated over time to make it impossible for recreational drone pilots to enjoy their drones. So much for Live free or die.

 

[Vic Moss]

"or violates any provisions of RSA 644:9."

Unless you know the contents of RSA 644:9, how do you know it's a "good law"?

I've helped with numerous UAS laws from local to federal level, this is a good law. And necessary at time. As far as your question about privacy, the very first sentence of §644:9 includes these words, "unlawfully and without the consent of the persons entitled to privacy" (emphasis mine).

"Reasonable expectation of privacy" does not exist for anything visible from a public thoroughfare. And the NAS is considered a public thoroughfare. This is confirmed by numerous SCOTUS rulings, most notable Ciraolo v CA and Riley v FL.

Maybe. Part of that section states:
"IV. A person is guilty of a misdemeanor if such person knowingly enters any residential curtilage, as defined in RSA 627:9,"

And RSA 627:9 states in part:
"I. "Curtilage" means those outbuildings which are proximately, directly and intimately connected with a dwelling, together with all the land or grounds surrounding the dwelling such as are necessary, convenient, and habitually used for domestic purposes."

An over-zealous prosecutor could construe 644:9 as meaning a drone is subject to the same limitations under 627:9 as a person and thus attempt to charge the PIC of a misdemeanor for flying over (thereby 'entering') private property.

And before you scoff, prosecutors in my state used to prosecute and put people on the "sex offender" if caught urinating in public, because of a law that said anyone who exposed themselves were sexual offenders. So, if you were on an extended hike and needed to relieve yourself, you risked jail, fines and being labeled a sex offender.

Curtilage does not include the airspace. That's also case law.

 

[Jurgen]

This is not a good law. It is duplicative of existing Federal Law.

States, counties, cities and towns should not be creating their own confusing patchwork of rules to further criminalize already illegal UAS operation.

I would encourage your Reps to vote No.

 

[JimSteadman]

That's good to hear, I always get a little nervous when new legislation starts to come through and what legalese to look out for that can end up being problematic.

The prison one is interesting as it looks like only the federal level prisons have the restrictions established here, but it seems like it should probably be all of them. Vic, do you know if states are able to work with the FAA to get other state level facilities of concern covered by flight restrictions that will show up in B4UFLY, or is that still a bit of a process? Should be common sense not to fly over them anyways, but you know how people are...

Prisons do come up in B4UFLY, or at least they do in NY State where i was trying to get some interesting shots of an old, domed courthouse. The county jail is nearby and I got all kinds of warnings. Still got some nice shots, but did NOT fly over the jail or the property where it was located.

 

[mavic3usa]

A law is never good where you have to go to an Appeals court to win. This law basically gives all the actors the right to arrest, confiscate, and convict based on their feelings about the totality of the circumstances. A recreational drone pilot could never avoid an arrest or win a lower court battle against someone who did not understand the law properly and gave it their own interpretation. That's why it shouldn't be a law if I have a hire a lawyer and spend two years fighting back and begging people to try to see it my way. Especially where it comes to privacy which is never easy to adjudicate.

Either the law needs more clarification to make certain everyone understands or it needs to include guardrails to prevent abuse and I see neither of these which tells me a lot as to why it needs to be enacted at the lower level where this plenty of room to manuever. Do yourself a favor NH, reject this; you can do better. For example, add "Reasonable expectation of privacy does not exist for anything visible from a public thoroughfare" or "Curtilage does not include the airspace" sections in the bill.