Used AI to analyze Florida drone law - a port as critical infrastructure

[mavictk]

My reaction: A good analysis. I was unaware of the Texas case.

My question:

It today’s environment where people are afraid of drones how do we convince Florida politicians that Florida law 330.41, which in part prohibits drone flights over critical infrastructure, is in clear conflict with the fact that the federal government controls the airspace. BTW 330.41 defines ports as critical infrastructure and one port in Florida has parks and restaurants as part of the port.

Grok’s answer (AI)
Key Points

• 
  
• It seems likely that Florida Statute 330.41, which prohibits drone flights over critical infrastructure including ports, may conflict with federal control over airspace, given the FAA’s exclusive authority.
• 
  
• Research suggests that while states can regulate drone use for security, the law’s broad application to public areas like parks and restaurants within ports could be seen as overreaching.
• 
  
• The evidence leans toward potential legal challenges, as similar laws have been upheld, but ambiguities in Florida’s law might invite scrutiny.

Background on Florida’s Law
Florida Statute 330.41, known as the Unmanned Aircraft Systems Act, aims to protect critical infrastructure by prohibiting drone flights over facilities like ports, which are defined as critical if enclosed or marked to exclude intruders. This includes areas within ports that might have public access, such as parks and restaurants, raising concerns about its scope.
Federal Control Over Airspace
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has exclusive control over aviation safety and the efficient use of airspace, but states can legislate on security and privacy, provided they don’t conflict with federal rules. The FAA’s 2023 Fact Sheet suggests state laws on where drones can fly are generally permissible, as long as they don’t impair airspace use.
Potential Conflicts and Legal Considerations
The law’s prohibition on flights “over” and “close enough to interfere” with critical infrastructure might be seen as regulating navigable airspace, potentially conflicting with federal authority. This is particularly relevant for public areas within ports, where the law could restrict flights over spaces not truly critical, possibly leading to legal challenges. The 2023 Texas case (National Press Photographers Association v. McCraw) upheld a similar law, but Florida’s broader application could differ.

Survey Note: Detailed Analysis of Florida’s Drone Law and Federal Preemption
This analysis delves into the complexities of Florida Statute 330.41, which prohibits drone flights over critical infrastructure, including ports, and evaluates its potential conflict with federal control over airspace. Given the current environment of drone-related fears, this note explores how to convince Florida politicians of the law’s potential issues, considering legal precedents, FAA guidelines, and practical implications.
Legal Framework of Florida Statute 330.41
Florida’s Unmanned Aircraft Systems Act, section 330.41, is designed to enhance security by restricting drone operations over critical infrastructure facilities. The law defines these facilities as including:

• 
  
• Nuclear power plants
• 
  
• Electrical power generation facilities
• 
  
• Water treatment facilities
• 
  
• Chemical and petroleum storage
• 
  
• Military installations
• 
  
• Correctional facilities
• 
  
• Seaports, as defined in section 311.09(1)
• 
  
• Airports, as defined in section 330.27

The prohibition applies if the facility is “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 which indicate that entry is forbidden and which are posted on the property in a manner reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders.” Specific prohibitions include:

• 
  
• Operating a drone over a critical infrastructure facility
• 
  
• Allowing a drone to make contact with the facility, including persons or objects on the premises
• 
  
• Allowing a drone to come within a distance close enough to interfere with operations or cause disturbance

Violations are penalized as misdemeanors, with exceptions for federal, state, or law enforcement operations, and owners or authorized persons.
Federal Authority and Preemption
The FAA, under federal law, holds exclusive authority over aviation safety and the efficient use of the navigable airspace, as outlined in its 2018 statement (FAA Statement on Federal vs. Local Drone Authority). However, the 2023 FAA Fact Sheet (State and Local Regulation of Unmanned Aircraft Systems Fact Sheet) clarifies that state and local regulations not involving aviation safety or airspace efficiency are not preempted, provided they do not impair reasonable airspace use. Examples include laws regulating takeoff and landing sites, voyeurism, and security-related restrictions over critical infrastructure at lower altitudes.
This suggests that Florida’s law, aimed at security, might fall within state police powers, but the extent of its application—particularly over public areas—could raise preemption concerns.
Legal Precedents and Case Law
A significant precedent is National Press Photographers Association v. McCraw, decided by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2023 (Nat’l Press Photographers ***’n v. McCraw, 84 F.4th 632). This case upheld a Texas law prohibiting drone flights over private property and critical infrastructure, finding no First Amendment violation and no federal preemption. The court noted that the FAA’s 2016 final rule on drone operations (Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, 81 FR 42064-01, 42194, June 28, 2016) allows concurrent state regulation for privacy and security, supporting the idea that Florida’s law could be permissible.
However, the Texas law’s specifics differed, and Florida’s inclusion of public areas like parks and restaurants within ports could be seen as broader, potentially conflicting with federal airspace management.
Analysis of Conflict with Federal Control
The primary concern is whether Florida’s law regulates the navigable airspace, which is federally controlled. The law’s prohibition on flights “over” and “close enough to interfere” could be interpreted as regulating flight paths or distances, potentially falling under FAA jurisdiction. For instance:

• 
  
• The law does not specify altitude, which could imply it applies to all altitudes, conflicting with federal control over higher airspace.
• 
  
• Public areas within ports, if considered part of the critical infrastructure facility due to enclosure, might restrict flights over spaces not inherently critical, impairing reasonable airspace use.

Given that ports in Florida, such as Port Everglades (Port Everglades Official Site), often include public access areas, the law’s application could affect drone operations over these spaces, potentially leading to legal challenges. The FAA’s regulations, such as requiring flights below 400 feet and avoiding controlled airspace without authorization (Airspace 101 – Rules of the Sky), do not specifically address ports, leaving room for state laws but also for potential overlap.
Practical Implications and Public Areas
The user’s mention of a port with parks and restaurants highlights a practical issue. If these areas are within the port’s enclosed or marked boundaries, the law applies, prohibiting drone flights over them. This could be seen as overbroad, restricting flights over public spaces that do not pose security threats. For example, recreational drone flights over a park within Port Everglades might be prohibited, despite no direct threat to port operations, potentially conflicting with federal allowances for recreational use under Part 107 (Recreational Flyers & Community-Based Organizations).
Convincing Florida Politicians
To convince Florida politicians of the potential conflict, consider the following arguments:

1. 
   
2. Federal Preemption Risk: Highlight that the law’s broad prohibition could be challenged as regulating navigable airspace, given the FAA’s exclusive authority. Cite the 2023 FAA Fact Sheet for clarity on preemption limits.
3. 
   
4. Legal Precedent with Caveats: While the Texas case supports such laws, Florida’s inclusion of public areas might differ, increasing litigation risk. Reference Nat’l Press Photographers ***’n v. McCraw, 84 F.4th 632 for context.
5. 
   
6. Public Access Concerns: Argue that prohibiting flights over public parks and restaurants within ports is overreaching, potentially impairing reasonable airspace use and inviting federal scrutiny.
7. 
   
8. Coordination with FAA: Suggest amending the law to specify restrictions only over restricted port areas, aligning with FAA guidelines and reducing conflict.

By presenting these points, politicians can be encouraged to review the law’s scope and ensure it aligns with federal authority, minimizing legal and practical risks.
Table: Comparison of State and Federal Drone Regulations

Aspect​	State (Florida 330.41)​	Federal (FAA)​
Scope	Prohibits flights over critical infrastructure, including ports, if enclosed or marked	Regulates all airspace for safety, with general rules for drones below 400 feet
Altitude Specification	Not specified, implies all altitudes over facility	Requires flights below 400 feet, with exceptions for authorizations
Public Areas	May include public parks and restaurants within ports	Allows recreational flights with safety guidelines, subject to Part 107
Preemption Risk	Potential if seen as regulating navigable airspace	Exclusive authority over aviation safety and airspace efficiency
Legal Precedents	Supported by Texas case, but scope may differ	Allows concurrent state regulation for security, per 2023 Fact Sheet

This table summarizes key differences, highlighting potential conflict areas.
Conclusion
While Florida’s law seems permissible under current precedents, its broad application to public areas within ports could conflict with federal airspace control, inviting legal challenges. Convincing politicians requires emphasizing these risks and advocating for amendments to clarify and narrow the law’s scope, ensuring alignment with FAA regulations.
Key Citations

• 
  
• Florida Statute 330.41 Unmanned Aircraft Systems Act 2023
• 
  
• State and Local Regulation of Unmanned Aircraft Systems Fact Sheet FAA 2023
• 
  
• Nat’l Press Photographers ***’n v. McCraw, 84 F.4th 632 Case Text 2023
• 
  
• FAA Statement on Federal vs. Local Drone Authority 2018
• 
  
• Port Everglades Official Site Information 2024
• 
  
• Airspace 101 – Rules of the Sky FAA 2021
• 
  
• Recreational Flyers & Community-Based Organizations FAA 2024

Caveats: Not legal advice. AI’s still make mistakes.

 

[Cafguy]

This is why our taxes are so high! Why would Florida need to create laws that are already in existence federally.
If you were to get this Florida law thrown out (good luck), You still would not be able to fly around such places.
because of FEDERAL critical infrastructure Regulations.
So this is simply a case of politicians wasting money to gain Voters.

 

[mavic3usa]

This is why our taxes are so high! Why would Florida need to create laws that are already in existence federally.
If you were to get this Florida law thrown out (good luck), You still would not be able to fly around such places.
because of FEDERAL critical infrastructure Regulations.
So this is simply a case of politicians wasting money to gain Voters.

Because the Federal government is not actively enforcing their laws so if the state passes an identical law, the state would enforce it vigorously. In general when there is only a federal law prohibiting an activity, troopers, deputies, constables, and officers cannot enforce federal law against state residents so they need a state law and then you won't need the FBI and the FAA to prosecute drone flyers who fly over critical infrastructure.

 

[Cafguy]

Because the Federal government is not actively enforcing their laws so if the state passes an identical law, the state would enforce it vigorously. In general when there is only a federal law prohibiting an activity, troopers, deputies, constables, and officers cannot enforce federal law against state residents so they need a state law and then you won't need the FBI and the FAA to prosecute drone flyers who fly over critical infrastructure.

True I didnt think of that.