(Texas) CHAPTER 423. USE OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT

[retiredwon]

GOVERNMENT CODE


TITLE 4. EXECUTIVE BRANCH


SUBTITLE B. LAW ENFORCEMENT AND PUBLIC PROTECTION


CHAPTER 423. USE OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT


Sec. 423.001. DEFINITION. In this chapter, "image" means any capturing of sound waves, thermal, infrared, ultraviolet, visible light, or other electromagnetic waves, odor, or other conditions existing on or about real property in this state or an individual located on that property.


Added by Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., Ch. 1390 (H.B. 912), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2013.



Sec. 423.002. NONAPPLICABILITY. (a) It is lawful to capture an image using an unmanned aircraft in this state:

(1) for the purpose of professional or scholarly research and development or for another academic purpose by a person acting on behalf of an institution of higher education or a private or independent institution of higher education, as those terms are defined by Section 61.003, Education Code, including a person who:

(A) is a professor, employee, or student of the institution; or

(B) is under contract with or otherwise acting under the direction or on behalf of the institution;

(2) in airspace designated as a test site or range authorized by the Federal Aviation Administration for the purpose of integrating unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace;

(3) as part of an operation, exercise, or mission of any branch of the United States military;

(4) if the image is captured by a satellite for the purposes of mapping;

(5) if the image is captured by or for an electric or natural gas utility:

(A) for operations and maintenance of utility facilities for the purpose of maintaining utility system reliability and integrity;

(B) for inspecting utility facilities to determine repair, maintenance, or replacement needs during and after construction of such facilities;

(C) for assessing vegetation growth for the purpose of maintaining clearances on utility easements; and

(D) for utility facility routing and siting for the purpose of providing utility service;

(6) with the consent of the individual who owns or lawfully occupies the real property captured in the image;

(7) pursuant to a valid search or arrest warrant;

(8) if the image is captured by a law enforcement authority or a person who is under contract with or otherwise acting under the direction or on behalf of a law enforcement authority:

(A) in immediate pursuit of a person law enforcement officers have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to suspect has committed an offense, not including misdemeanors or offenses punishable by a fine only;

(B) for the purpose of documenting a crime scene where an offense, not including misdemeanors or offenses punishable by a fine only, has been committed;

(C) for the purpose of investigating the scene of:

(i) a human fatality;

(ii) a motor vehicle accident causing death or serious bodily injury to a person; or

(iii) any motor vehicle accident on a state highway or federal interstate or highway;

(D) in connection with the search for a missing person;

(E) for the purpose of conducting a high-risk tactical operation that poses a threat to human life; or

(F) of private property that is generally open to the public where the property owner consents to law enforcement public safety responsibilities;

(9) if the image is captured by state or local law enforcement authorities, or a person who is under contract with or otherwise acting under the direction or on behalf of state authorities, for the purpose of:

(A) surveying the scene of a catastrophe or other damage to determine whether a state of emergency should be declared;

(B) preserving public safety, protecting property, or surveying damage or contamination during a lawfully declared state of emergency; or

(C) conducting routine air quality sampling and monitoring, as provided by state or local law;

(10) at the scene of a spill, or a suspected spill, of hazardous materials;

(11) for the purpose of fire suppression;

(12) for the purpose of rescuing a person whose life or well-being is in imminent danger;

(13) if the image is captured by a Texas licensed real estate broker in connection with the marketing, sale, or financing of real property, provided that no individual is identifiable in the image;

(14) of real property or a person on real property that is within 25 miles of the United States border;
(I think this has been removed from the law by the Texas Legislature)

(15) from a height no more than eight feet above ground level in a public place, if the image was captured without using any electronic, mechanical, or other means to amplify the image beyond normal human perception;

(16) of public real property or a person on that property;

(17) if the image is captured by the owner or operator of an oil, gas, water, or other pipeline for the purpose of inspecting, maintaining, or repairing pipelines or other related facilities, and is captured without the intent to conduct surveillance on an individual or real property located in this state;

(18) in connection with oil pipeline safety and rig protection;

(19) in connection with port authority surveillance and security;

(20) if the image is captured by a registered professional land surveyor in connection with the practice of professional surveying, as those terms are defined by Section 1071.002, Occupations Code, provided that no individual is identifiable in the image; or

(21) if the image is captured by a professional engineer licensed under Subchapter G, Chapter 1001, Occupations Code, in connection with the practice of engineering, as defined by Section 1001.003, Occupations Code, provided that no individual is identifiable in the image.

(b) This chapter does not apply to the manufacture, assembly, distribution, or sale of an unmanned aircraft.


Added by Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., Ch. 1390 (H.B. 912), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2013.

Amended by:

Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., Ch. 360 (H.B. 2167), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2015.



Sec. 423.003. OFFENSE: ILLEGAL USE OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT TO CAPTURE IMAGE. (a) A person commits an offense if the person uses an unmanned aircraft to capture an image of an individual or privately owned real property in this state with the intent to conduct surveillance on the individual or property captured in the image.

(b) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor.

(c) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the person destroyed the image:

(1) as soon as the person had knowledge that the image was captured in violation of this section; and

(2) without disclosing, displaying, or distributing the image to a third party.

(d) In this section, "intent" has the meaning assigned by Section 6.03, Penal Code.


Added by Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., Ch. 1390 (H.B. 912), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2013.



Sec. 423.004. OFFENSE: POSSESSION, DISCLOSURE, DISPLAY, DISTRIBUTION, OR USE OF IMAGE. (a) A person commits an offense if the person:

(1) captures an image in violation of Section 423.003; and

(2) possesses, discloses, displays, distributes, or otherwise uses that image.

(b) An offense under this section for the possession of an image is a Class C misdemeanor. An offense under this section for the disclosure, display, distribution, or other use of an image is a Class B misdemeanor.

(c) Each image a person possesses, discloses, displays, distributes, or otherwise uses in violation of this section is a separate offense.

(d) It is a defense to prosecution under this section for the possession of an image that the person destroyed the image as soon as the person had knowledge that the image was captured in violation of Section 423.003.

(e) It is a defense to prosecution under this section for the disclosure, display, distribution, or other use of an image that the person stopped disclosing, displaying, distributing, or otherwise using the image as soon as the person had knowledge that the image was captured in violation of Section 423.003.


Added by Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., Ch. 1390 (H.B. 912), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2013.



Sec. 423.0045. OFFENSE: OPERATION OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT OVER CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY. (a) In this section:

(1) "Critical infrastructure facility" means:

(A) one of the following, if completely enclosed by a fence or other physical barrier that is obviously designed to exclude intruders, or if clearly marked with a sign or signs that are posted on the property, are reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders, and indicate that entry is forbidden:

(i) a petroleum or alumina refinery;

(ii) an electrical power generating facility, substation, switching station, or electrical control center;

(iii) a chemical, polymer, or rubber manufacturing facility;

(iv) a water intake structure, water treatment facility, wastewater treatment plant, or pump station;

(v) a natural gas compressor station;

(vi) a liquid natural gas terminal or storage facility;

(vii) a telecommunications central switching office;

(viii) a port, railroad switching yard, trucking terminal, or other freight transportation facility;

(ix) a gas processing plant, including a plant used in the processing, treatment, or fractionation of natural gas;

(x) a transmission facility used by a federally licensed radio or television station;

(xi) a steelmaking facility that uses an electric arc furnace to make steel; or

(xii) a dam that is classified as a high hazard by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality; or

(B) any portion of an aboveground oil, gas, or chemical pipeline that is enclosed by a fence or other physical barrier that is obviously designed to exclude intruders.

(2) "Dam" means any barrier, including any appurtenant structures, that is constructed for the purpose of permanently or temporarily impounding water.

(b) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally or knowingly:

(1) operates an unmanned aircraft over a critical infrastructure facility and the unmanned aircraft is not higher than 400 feet above ground level;

(2) allows an unmanned aircraft to make contact with a critical infrastructure facility, including any person or object on the premises of or within the facility; or

(3) allows an unmanned aircraft to come within a distance of a critical infrastructure facility that is close enough to interfere with the operations of or cause a disturbance to the facility.

(c) This section does not apply to conduct described by Subsection (b) that is committed by:

(1) the federal government, the state, or a governmental entity;

(2) a person under contract with or otherwise acting under the direction or on behalf of the federal government, the state, or a governmental entity;

(3) a law enforcement agency;

(4) a person under contract with or otherwise acting under the direction or on behalf of a law enforcement agency;

(5) an owner or operator of the critical infrastructure facility;

(6) a person under contract with or otherwise acting under the direction or on behalf of an owner or operator of the critical infrastructure facility;

(7) a person who has the prior written consent of the owner or operator of the critical infrastructure facility;

(8) the owner or occupant of the property on which the critical infrastructure facility is located or a person who has the prior written consent of the owner or occupant of that property; or

(9) an operator of an unmanned aircraft that is being used for a commercial purpose, if the operator is authorized by the Federal Aviation Administration to conduct operations over that airspace.

(d) An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor, except that the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if the actor has previously been convicted under this section.


Added by Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1033 (H.B. 1481), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2015.



Sec. 423.005. ILLEGALLY OR INCIDENTALLY CAPTURED IMAGES NOT SUBJECT TO DISCLOSURE. (a) Except as otherwise provided by Subsection (b), an image captured in violation of Section 423.003, or an image captured by an unmanned aircraft that was incidental to the lawful capturing of an image:

(1) may not be used as evidence in any criminal or juvenile proceeding, civil action, or administrative proceeding;

(2) is not subject to disclosure, inspection, or copying under Chapter 552; and

(3) is not subject to discovery, subpoena, or other means of legal compulsion for its release.

(b) An image described by Subsection (a) may be disclosed and used as evidence to prove a violation of this chapter and is subject to discovery, subpoena, or other means of legal compulsion for that purpose.


Added by Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., Ch. 1390 (H.B. 912), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2013.



Sec. 423.006. CIVIL ACTION. (a) An owner or tenant of privately owned real property located in this state may bring against a person who, in violation of Section 423.003, captured an image of the property or the owner or tenant while on the property an action to:

(1) enjoin a violation or imminent violation of Section 423.003 or 423.004;

(2) recover a civil penalty of:

(A) $5,000 for all images captured in a single episode in violation of Section 423.003; or

(B) $10,000 for disclosure, display, distribution, or other use of any images captured in a single episode in violation of Section 423.004; or

(3) recover actual damages if the person who captured the image in violation of Section 423.003 discloses, displays, or distributes the image with malice.

(b) For purposes of recovering the civil penalty or actual damages under Subsection (a), all owners of a parcel of real property are considered to be a single owner and all tenants of a parcel of real property are considered to be a single tenant.

(c) In this section, "malice" has the meaning assigned by Section 41.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code.

(d) In addition to any civil penalties authorized under this section, the court shall award court costs and reasonable attorney's fees to the prevailing party.

(e) Venue for an action under this section is governed by Chapter 15, Civil Practice and Remedies Code.

(f) An action brought under this section must be commenced within two years from the date the image was:

(1) captured in violation of Section 423.003; or

(2) initially disclosed, displayed, distributed, or otherwise used in violation of Section 423.004.


Added by Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., Ch. 1390 (H.B. 912), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2013.



Sec. 423.007. RULES FOR USE BY LAW ENFORCEMENT. The Department of Public Safety shall adopt rules and guidelines for use of an unmanned aircraft by a law enforcement authority in this state.


Added by Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., Ch. 1390 (H.B. 912), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2013.



Sec. 423.008. REPORTING BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY. (a) Not earlier than January 1 and not later than January 15 of each odd-numbered year, each state law enforcement agency and each county or municipal law enforcement agency located in a county or municipality, as applicable, with a population greater than 150,000, that used or operated an unmanned aircraft during the preceding 24 months shall issue a written report to the governor, the lieutenant governor, and each member of the legislature and shall:

(1) retain the report for public viewing; and

(2) post the report on the law enforcement agency's publicly accessible website, if one exists.

(b) The report must include:

(1) the number of times an unmanned aircraft was used, organized by date, time, location, and the types of incidents and types of justification for the use;

(2) the number of criminal investigations aided by the use of an unmanned aircraft and a description of how the unmanned aircraft aided each investigation;

(3) the number of times an unmanned aircraft was used for a law enforcement operation other than a criminal investigation, the dates and locations of those operations, and a description of how the unmanned aircraft aided each operation;

(4) the type of information collected on an individual, residence, property, or area that was not the subject of a law enforcement operation and the frequency of the collection of this information; and

(5) the total cost of acquiring, maintaining, repairing, and operating or otherwise using each unmanned aircraft for the preceding 24 months.


Added by Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., Ch. 1390 (H.B. 912), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2013.

 

[Lapeer20m]

I think it just got a lot less fun to fly a drone in the state of Texas, especially for hobbyists. For what it's worth, I think that potential FAA penalty for flying over 400' agl is much less severe than violating state law below 400'.

This is a sharp contrast to Michigan law, which just made all local regulation of UAS unenforceable. You can fly on any public property or in any park (except federal) with very few exceptions.

 

[Cyberpower678]

Can someone please summarize this for those not good with legal speak?

 

[retiredwon]

I think it just got a lot less fun to fly a drone in the state of Texas, especially for hobbyists. For what it's worth, I think that potential FAA penalty for flying over 400' agl is much less severe than violating state law below 400'.

This is a sharp contrast to Michigan law, which just made all local regulation of UAS unenforceable. You can fly on any public property or in any park (except federal) with very few exceptions.

I live in Texas and these laws severely restrict the use of the still and video function of the hobbyist drone flyer; there are civil and criminal penalties for any violation. I'm not sure I will be keeping my Mavpro.

 

[erkme73]

I think it's incredibly predictable that government always leaves an exception for themselves when it comes to these things. Remember kiddos, the push to keep all-seeing eyes-in-the-sky out of civilian hands has little to do with safety - and everything to do with accountability.

Cameras to government is like the kitchen light is to roaches. Just look at all the problems TV helicopter cameras have caused when they show how cops behave when they think they're not being watched. The last thing government wants is to have small, undetectable cameras contradicting their official narrative of how events unfolded in a given scenario. Call me skeptical, but I think we've seen enough official accounts walked back after civilian video comes to light. We've also seen how aggressive government gets when they see a serf with a camera filming them doing their jobs.

Once again, the laws apply to the serfs, and not the leaders (or their enforcers). Police state much?

 

[RavenTBK]

From what I see, as a hobbyist, you can still legally fly pretty much wherever you please, but you may not capture photographs or video, nor fly over "critical infrastructure".

However, if you're Part 107 authorized, you are exempt from the critical infrastructure bit, but are still limited on capturing images.

Screw that. Other than obvious infractions like that dude whose neighbor shot at his Mavic with a pellet gun, I'd be curious as to how they'd actually enforce this.

Austin needs to be swallowed by a sinkhole, and everything below I-10 needs to be auctioned off.

(Florida LEO. Statutory language is similar.)

 

[kooknboo]

From what I see, as a hobbyist, you can still legally fly pretty much wherever you please, but you may not capture photographs or video, nor fly over "critical infrastructure".

However, if you're Part 107 authorized, you are exempt from the critical infrastructure bit, but are still limited on capturing images.

Screw that. Other than obvious infractions like that dude whose neighbor shot at his Mavic with a pellet gun, I'd be curious as to how they'd actually enforce this.

Austin needs to be swallowed by a sinkhole, and everything below I-10 needs to be auctioned off.

(Florida LEO. Statutory language is similar.)

I don't read this as that much of a big deal. It specifically speaks to INTENT TO COMMIT SURVEILLANCE. IANAL blah blah... my interpretation is that miscellaneous pic/vid of real property is not at issue. Camp out and focus on someone's back yard - yes, you're liable and probably a ****. Otherwise this seems to be largely enforcing common sense.

 

[erkme73]

The problem isn't criminal, it's civil. This statute, just like the one in FL, provides the weapons for a 'victim' to hire an attorney through a contingency fee. Because the statutes spells out the monetary value/damages, and in FL, actually allows attorneys 2x legal fees in recovery, it incentivizes ambulance chasers to solicit clients.

One such firm here in FL (and several other states), Morgan & Morgan, is already advertising just such actions:



And since this is a civil remedy, the burden of proof is significantly less. All you need is a jury that hates drones, and you're looking at some very poor odds. Given all the anti-drone hysteria, facts don't matter. If there's a drone in the sky, and a homeowner sees it, they're calling Morgan & Morgan (once they start seeing those "my lawyer got me $X million dollars" daytime ads). You may win... but even if you do, M&M will bankrupt you getting to that point.

I don't fly any differently now than before I learned of these laws. But I'm also not dismissing them as harmless. They appeal to and empower the most ignorant in society.

 

[retiredwon]

I don't read this as that much of a big deal. It specifically speaks to INTENT TO COMMIT SURVEILLANCE. IANAL blah blah... my interpretation is that miscellaneous pic/vid of real property is not at issue. Camp out and focus on someone's back yard - yes, you're liable and probably a ****. Otherwise this seems to be largely enforcing common sense.

I see this law as a very big deal. There are civil remedies and criminal charges if you violate these laws. By this law you are in violation if you take photos or video, intentionally or unintentionally of private real property without the owners permission (sec.423002 #6). If I was to take a photo of my house and property at 200 feet, I would violate this law because that photograph would capture several other private properties that I did not have their permission; you merely have to posses these "illegal" photographs to be in violation. The majority of the state of Texas is privately owned.
Intent to commit surveillance(sec.423.003) is a separate violation.

 

[tcope]

I live in Texas and these laws severely restrict the use of the still and video function of the hobbyist drone flyer; there are civil and criminal penalties for any violation. I'm not sure I will be keeping my Mavpro.

Whew, I thought there was going to be a test later.

When you make a post you might want to mention something about the text you are quoting.

I did not need to read much past the opening lines. Statute does not allow people to take pictures.

It's in violation of the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.

Has Texas succeeded from the US at this time?

 

[tcope]

The problem isn't criminal, it's civil. This statute, just like the one in FL, provides the weapons for a 'victim' to hire an attorney through a contingency fee.

I have not read it recently but I don't see this as being the same. The FL Statute simply specifically allowed someone to bring civil proceedings against what was already a criminal action. This TX statute appears to create new criminal law.

 

[retiredwon]

Whew, I thought there was going to be a test later.

When you make a post you might want to mention something about the text you are quoting.

I did not need to read much past the opening lines. Statute does not allow people to take pictures.

It's in violation of the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.

Has Texas succeeded from the US at this time?

Whew, I thought there was going to be a test later.

When you make a post you might want to mention something about the text you are quoting.

I did not need to read much past the opening lines. Statute does not allow people to take pictures.

It's in violation of the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.

Has Texas succeeded from the US at this time?

I was responded to the original post/ purpose of this message thread

 

[retiredwon]

From what I see, as a hobbyist, you can still legally fly pretty much wherever you please, but you may not capture photographs or video, nor fly over "critical infrastructure".

However, if you're Part 107 authorized, you are exempt from the critical infrastructure bit, but are still limited on capturing images.

Screw that. Other than obvious infractions like that dude whose neighbor shot at his Mavic with a pellet gun, I'd be curious as to how they'd actually enforce this.

Austin needs to be swallowed by a sinkhole, and everything below I-10 needs to be auctioned off.

(Florida LEO. Statutory language is similar.)

If you posted photos/video on Facebook that were a violation of this Texas law and an offended party were to view them, you have just posted evidence of a violation. Here is another violation of this law: if you take photographs/video, while on public property, your drone can be no higher then 8 feet! Drone fliers, welcome to Texas.

 

[kooknboo]

I see this law as a very big deal. There are civil remedies and criminal charges if you violate these laws. By this law you are in violation if you take photos or video, intentionally or unintentionally of private real property without the owners permission (sec.423002 #6). If I was to take a photo of my house and property at 200 feet, I would violate this law because that photograph would capture several other private properties that I did not have their permission; you merely have to posses these "illegal" photographs to be in violation. The majority of the state of Texas is privately owned.
Intent to commit surveillance(sec.423.003) is a separate violation.

Hmm... again, IANAL, etc, but I don't read it the same way as you. My interpretation is that you are in violation only if 423.003(a) is applicable, which uses the term "intent to conduct surveillance". If you intend to take a picture of your house and catch your neighbor cutting his grass, you're safe - you didn't intend to surveil him. If you're flying out to a public park, left your camera on and flew, without lingering, over someone's house, you're safe - you didn't intend to surveil that house. You were just passing by. If you spy on the neighbor's hot tub trying to catch your spouse doing some out-of-school shagging, then you have a problem. In this case, taking a Class C misdemeanor may be the least of your problems.

Let's also not ignore 423.003(c) and 423.004(e).

One legal definition of "surveillance" is found here. If you're not intending or lingering, then you're not collecting data to "provide evidence for a purpose".

It seems logical to me. Maybe I'm wrong. And, I'm sure logic will ultimately have little to do with how this plays out.

 

[erkme73]

You guys are locking in on the criminal aspect of this. As I read this, the most dangerous part is that it incentivizes people to sue, and encourages attorneys to accept cases on contingency.

Intention is very difficult to prove in a criminal case. But civilly, you only have to raise the idea to the jury (which is likely comprised of brainwashed anti-drone types) - so that's a losing battle.

Further, if you incidentally capture your neighbor, you may not have any intention to surveil him - but if you have that video saved, and later refer to it to see if he was home, or was busy doing XXXX then you're retroactively used incidental capture to conduct surveillance.

Just like the NSA, which captures every bit that travels the internet, claims it's just 'incidental capture' - they can scour it later to actively surveil a suspect. In essence, creating a time machine. Thus, there are many layers of intent. Is it intent while originally capturing the content? Or is it later review of the video?

These are arguments that I'm sure a hysterical, brain-dead jury will hear, and it won't end well.

 

[retiredwon]

Hmm... again, IANAL, etc, but I don't read it the same way as you. My interpretation is that you are in violation only if 423.003(a) is applicable, which uses the term "intent to conduct surveillance". If you intend to take a picture of your house and catch your neighbor cutting his grass, you're safe - you didn't intend to surveil him. If you're flying out to a public park, left your camera on and flew, without lingering, over someone's house, you're safe - you didn't intend to surveil that house. You were just passing by. If you spy on the neighbor's hot tub trying to catch your spouse doing some out-of-school shagging, then you have a problem. In this case, taking a Class C misdemeanor may be the least of your problems.

Let's also not ignore 423.003(c) and 423.004(e).

One legal definition of "surveillance" is found here. If you're not intending or lingering, then you're not collecting data to "provide evidence for a purpose".

It seems logical to me. Maybe I'm wrong. And, I'm sure logic will ultimately have little to do with how this plays out.

423.002 and 423.003 are two separate sections; 423.002 describes when you can lawfully take photos/video and 423.003 describes a very specific illegal use of the unmanned aircraft; just because you are not violating 423.003(intent to conduct surveillance) does not cancel your responsibility to follow 423.002.

 

[retiredwon]

You guys are locking in on the criminal aspect of this. As I read this, the most dangerous part is that it incentivizes people to sue, and encourages attorneys to accept cases on contingency.

Intention is very difficult to prove in a criminal case. But civilly, you only have to raise the idea to the jury (which is likely comprised of brainwashed anti-drone types) - so that's a losing battle.

Further, if you incidentally capture your neighbor, you may not have any intention to surveil him - but if you have that video saved, and later refer to it to see if he was home, or was busy doing XXXX then you're retroactively used incidental capture to conduct surveillance.

Just like the NSA, which captures every bit that travels the internet, claims it's just 'incidental capture' - they can scour it later to actively surveil a suspect. In essence, creating a time machine. Thus, there are many layers of intent. Is it intent while originally capturing the content? Or is it later review of the video?

These are arguments that I'm sure a hysterical, brain-dead jury will hear, and it won't end well.

violations of Sec 423.002(list of lawful capture of image) will be very easy to prove; the image you took unlawfully will be the objective evidence they will use to prosecute you, that will be the proof of intent. 423.003(intent to conduct surveillance) might be a bit more difficult to prove but here again, if the prosecution has the series of photos/video that you captured, they may be able to prove intent.

 

[erkme73]

I think you'll be hard pressed to find a DA that will charge one neighbor who captured images of another neighbor (inadvertently or not). Fly over a police station, or a DUI check point, or capture some cops giving a handcuffed suspect a beat-down, and that DA will come at you with both barrels for violating 423.002. The criminal aspect simply gives .gov the tools needed to prevent you from capturing (exposing) them.

The civil aspect empowers the 'victimized' neighbor to be able to hire an attorney without fronting any money. So, unless you're an activist who likes to film .gov as they perform their duties in public, this law will likely result in significantly more lawsuits than criminal charges.

 

[W Rabbit]

So if I read this correctly no more taking Ariel video or photos of water towers in Texas.

Seen a lot of them videos online already lol

 

[DavidB4775]

First, lets examine the statute. Right after .003, .004 and .0045 is the word "OFFENSE". Think of "offense" as violations of the law. After .002 is "NONAPPLICABILITY". It is NOT that everyone is illegal except ....If one falls within any of the criteria of .002, then 003, 004 and 0045 do not apply, which also automatically prevents 006 action. As a previous poster has pointed out, the key in 003 is "with the intent to conduct surveillance..." That is very hard to prove if one happens to capture a property as they fly by. It might be a problem, however, if one gets caught circling property numerous times, like in POI mode.

Regarding 006, a requirement of a civil action is to prove a violation of 003. Since 003 is a criminal violation, I believe that there would still have to be proof on a criminal scale (beyond a reasonable doubt). All that being said, it does not prevent an ambulance chaser from bringing a civil action. Many like doing that to garnish a quick and easy settlement.

In my mind, the Federal Government needs to step up to the plate and enact legislation of what is or is not legal and, MOST IMPORTANTLY, that states may not enact legislation that is contrary to federal law.