Attn: Drone fans, Possible Drone issue development in Florida

[ElDiabloJoe]

Source website: Florida lawmakers take aim at drones, protecting homeowners''' right to privacy | Fox News (https://www.foxnews.com/us/florida-property-owners-pestered-spying-drones-could-soon-be-allowed-fight-back-force)

Florida property owners pestered by spying drones could soon be allowed to fight back with 'force'

The bill aims to increase drone regulations throughout Florida

Julia Bonavita By Julia BonavitaFox News
Published April 21, 2025 4:00am EDT

Florida attorney weighs in on bill giving homeowners the right to take down drones over property:

Raul Gastesi speaks with Fox News Digital about a bill moving through the Florida Senate that would give homeowners the right to use "reasonable force" to take down drones infringing on their privacy rights.

A new bill moving through the Florida Senate would give homeowners the right to use "reasonable force" to take down drones infringing on their right to privacy, directly conflicting with federal airspace regulations while raising new legal questions regarding how far a person can go to defend their home from surveillance.

The bill primarily focuses on further regulating the use of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) while broadening the scope of locations that are protected from drone flights within the state, such as airports and correctional facilities.

Notably, the bill would permit homeowners to use "reasonable force" to stop a drone from infringing on their expectation of privacy.

A drone flies in the sky
A bill proposed in the Florida Senate would allow homeowners to use "reasonable force" to take down drones infringing on their right to privacy. (Jens Büttner/Picture Alliance via Getty Images)
"No one wants to have a drone sitting over their property, filming what they do for any number of reasons," Florida-based attorney Raul Gastesi told Fox News Digital. "Almost every state has laws on privacy, including drones. I can't say that I've seen one where it allows for self-help."

The bill highlights a legal gray area surrounding the rights of homeowners and drone pilots. Under federal law, it is legal to fly a drone over private residential areas if the drone remains in unrestricted airspace.

However, drone pilots operating low-flying aircraft that create a nuisance for homeowners could be prosecuted for trespassing and, in extreme cases, stalking.

Drones can help keep officers safe too, one police department says.
As drone technology advances, police departments are using the technology more frequently. (Wheat Ridge Police Department )
A 2024 Florida statute titled the "Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act" prohibits drone operators from using an aircraft to take photos or videos of private property, citing a person’s right to privacy. However, it does not address using drones to gather a live view of a person’s property.

"I would include an image device to view or record an image of private property with the intent to conduct surveillance in violation of the person's reasonable expectation of privacy," Gastesi said. "If I'm at a park and I'm playing baseball with my kids, and somebody takes up a drone just to show what's going on in the park, do I really have an expectation of privacy? But if my daughters are sunbathing in the pool behind my house, I have an expectation of privacy."

If passed, the bill would allow homeowners to take matters into their own hands if a drone is spotted over their property, but does not specify what constitutes "reasonable force," raising red flags that could force a showdown between Florida law and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

Florida is looking to pass a law allowing homeowners to take down drones.
FAA regulations allow drones to be flown over residential areas, as long as they are in unrestricted airspace.(iStock)
Currently, federal law prohibits anyone from tampering with an aircraft while it is in the air, with violators facing hefty fines and up to five years in jail.

"It’s illegal under federal law to shoot at an aircraft," the FAA said in a statement to Fox News Digital. "A private citizen shooting at any aircraft – including unmanned aircraft – poses a significant safety hazard."

The FAA declined to comment on the bill, citing the department’s inability to comment on pending legislation.

The bill's sponsor, state Sen. Keith L. Truenow, R-FL, did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment.

The bill would directly conflict with federal law, opening the door for homeowners to face confusion regarding what is permitted.

Florida is looking to pass a law allowing homeowners to take down drones.
Drones are gaining in popularity, with companies and civilians using them more frequently in recent years.(iStock)
"There are certain things that are permissible under state law that are not permitted by federal law," Gastesi said. "Just because your state says you can do it, doesn't mean the federal government won't prosecute you for it."

The FAA also cites the possible safety hazards that come with interfering with drone flights, especially over populated areas.

"An unmanned aircraft hit by gunfire could crash, causing damage to persons or property on the ground, or it could collide with other objects in the air," the FAA said in a statement to Fox News Digital. "Shooting at an unmanned aircraft could result in a civil penalty from the FAA and criminal charges from federal, state or local law enforcement."

While the bill does not explicitly legalize using a firearm to take down a nosy drone, Gastesi believes the possibility could have dangerous consequences, since everything that goes up, must come down.

"The discharge or the use of the device is not as dangerous as the consequences, which is with [the drone] falling," Gastesi told Fox News Digital. "Florida has strict gun laws as far as discharging a weapon in a residential area [and] over residential neighborhoods.

"But if you use it the wrong way, you can kill people and go to jail for a long time."

State law prohibits firing a gun in local neighborhoods, with the exception being for self-defense. However, Gastesi does not believe using a firearm to shoot down a drone would qualify.

"Are you defending property when you are taking down a drone," Gastesi said. "I think you're defending your right to privacy. I don't necessarily think that you're defending property. It would be an argument to somebody charged with that crime that they're defending their property, [but] the way the statute's written, I don't think it would prevail. It's very concerning, giving people rights to discharge firearms in open spaces in public is really concerning and I don't know how my fellow Floridians are going to react to something like this."

The first-of-its-kind bill focuses on growing unease throughout the country as drone sightings become more frequent, and could usher in a flurry of similar legislation from additional states as lawmakers race to keep up with evolving technology.

"There's going to be other states that are going to follow suit, I believe it," Gastesi said. "Especially the states with the most liberal gun laws, states that have open carry; I am sure they are going to pass it."

The bill has sailed through various committees largely uncontested and is currently scheduled to be considered by the Florida Senate. If passed, it would go into effect in October 2025.

[Caymus]

Will The Villages allow miniature Patriot Systems?:D

[MarshBendLover]

Drone jammer. Neighbor up north had one that cost less than 1k last year. They used it to stop drones over the neighborhood pool. Jams the signal and forces the drone to return to owner. Easy to operate and fun to watch. Of course for a bit more, you can just place a unit that operates 24/7 sorta like a protective bubble.

[Bill14564]

Drone jammer. Neighbor up north had one that cost less than 1k last year. They used it to stop drones over the neighborhood pool. Jams the signal and forces the drone to return to owner. Easy to operate and fun to watch. Of course for a bit more, you can just place a unit that operates 24/7 sorta like a protective bubble.

Also illegal (but maybe only if you get caught)

[Normal]

Drone jammer. Neighbor up north had one that cost less than 1k last year. They used it to stop drones over the neighborhood pool. Jams the signal and forces the drone to return to owner. Easy to operate and fun to watch. Of course for a bit more, you can just place a unit that operates 24/7 sorta like a protective bubble.

I would be for jamming drone signals. Shoot, it’s legal to block cell phones in stores , schools and restaurants, so why not?

[CarlR33]

I would be for jamming drone signals. Shoot, it’s legal to block cell phones in stores , schools and restaurants, so why not?
Probably because a cell phone is not in danger of falling on your head when the signal drops?

[ElDiabloJoe]

I would be for jamming drone signals. Shoot, it’s legal to block cell phones in stores , schools and restaurants, so why not?
Pretty sure cell phone jammers are NOT legal:
Jammer Enforcement | Federal Communications Commission (https://www.fcc.gov/general/jammer-enforcement)

P.S., BB guns work well on drones.

[Bill14564]

I would be for jamming drone signals. Shoot, it’s legal to block cell phones in stores , schools and restaurants, so why not?

What gives you the idea that jamming cell phones is legal???

[Aces4]

Shoot down drones? Talk about draconian measures, who is electing these people? Maybe airplanes will be next..:cus:

[Whatnext]

Pretty sure cell phone jammers are NOT legal:
Jammer Enforcement | Federal Communications Commission (https://www.fcc.gov/general/jammer-enforcement)

P.S., BB guns work well on drones.

.000 is better. Its what Ukraine infantry use.

[Normal]

What gives you the idea that jamming cell phones is legal???

Devices are used to render cell phones inoperable. Whether that is jamming or not I’m not sure of. At the same time, there are stores where cell phones are overwhelmed with advertising messages pertaining the section of the store you are in. I guess it can go either way.

EMF devices can be purchased for the task also on Amazon. Here is an article on schools that block usage. Do Schools Block Cell Service? A Detailed Look At The Controversial Practice - ExpertBeacon (https://expertbeacon.com/do-schools-block-cell-service/)

[thelegges]

I would be for jamming drone signals. Shoot, it’s legal to block cell phones in stores , schools and restaurants, so why not?

I have to ask how many Drones fly over your house? Do you have that questionable illegal something in your backyard. Can’t imagine who wants to film Old Big Belly 80-90yos. It’s not like girls gone wild in TV pools.

The drone group that searches for a lost child, or in TV looking for a lost pet…Shooting drone down is definitely worthwhile.:oops:

When LEOs are searching for the person of interest, I would bet many who want to shoot down drones, would be very happy for the person of interest will probably hid in your house to thank you.
Then again with the lack of the ability to ID who owns the drone, in TV most won’t know the difference from an insurance, real estate, or Sheriff PD.:popcorn:

[Bill14564]

Devices are used to render cell phones inoperable. Whether that is jamming or not I’m not sure of. At the same time, there are stores where cell phones are overwhelmed with advertising messages pertaining the section of the store you are in. I guess it can go either way.

EMF devices can be purchased for the task also on Amazon. Here is an article on schools that block usage. Do Schools Block Cell Service? A Detailed Look At The Controversial Practice - ExpertBeacon (https://expertbeacon.com/do-schools-block-cell-service/)

The FCC (https://www.fcc.gov/general/jammer-enforcement) is very clear on this - Federal law prohibits the operation,... of any type of jamming equipment that interferes with authorized radio communications, including cellular...

You need to read more about the EMF devices on Amazon, the first two I looked at made it very clear that their products do not interfere with cell phone signals.

The article seems to carefully avoid advising the use of jammers which they acknowledge are illegal.

The "blocking" they are referring to seems to be blocking of particular internet sites, likely using a deny list in a gateway/router device. This is consistent with the article mentioning the VPNs and wireless hotspots make restrictions porous.

Actively jamming an authorized radio signal is illegal in the US.

[MarshBendLover]

Telling people it's illegal is like telling people in the 70s they can't use CB radios for play or use profane language on the air because they will be found and charged by the feds.

[Bill14564]

Telling people it's illegal is like telling people in the 70s they can't use CB radios for play or use profane language on the air because they will be found and charged by the feds.

Just trying to correct some disinformation. Too many don't bother to look things up for themselves, would hate for "it's done in schools" to be the only thing they read.

As for the rest, see post #4.

[Normal]

Just trying to correct some disinformation. Too many don't bother to look things up for themselves, would hate for "it's done in schools" to be the only thing they read.

As for the rest, see post #4.

However it is done in schools.

[Bill14564]

However it is done in schools.

Where (with links)?

Absolutely schools have internet filters on their networks but I challenge you to find a US school that will state they have RF jammers to block cell signals.

[wlasowicz]

The state government what's to stop you from flying your drone over someone 's property. The big question who is going to tell the government to stop using military satellites to speed on you . Or google from driving down public road to to update google maps which many of us use when we travel around the country

[RcCalais]

I have not read all replies but what I did see was all negative. A few years ago, I read of a young man in Switzerland that had developed an AED unit deliverable by a drone. I was impressed with it's value especially in a large city where the traffic problem is avoided.

A message from my neighborhood AED responders that they are being implemented in The Villages. I hope the people with "bubble protection" is not the one in need.

[bmcgowan13]

Florida does not jam signals in schools.

In fact, Florida has a specific app for the students to use to ENCOURAGE students and staff to use their phones to report suspicious activity.

FortifyFL (https://getfortifyfl.com)

Every school I have been in has posters encouraging the students to use the app..

[Sgt Ed]

What gives you the idea that jamming cell phones is legal???. Drive on a military installation and try and use your phone around sensitive areas. Mac Dill AFB for instance, Enter from Bayshore gate and past the guard shack it immediately goes dead.

[FredMitchell]

. Drive on a military installation and try and [sic] use your phone around sensitive areas. Mac Dill AFB for instance, Enter from Bayshore gate and past the guard shack it immediately goes dead.

Yes, cell phones generally work on MacDill Air Force Base. However, there are restrictions on their use, especially while operating a vehicle. Specifically, cell phone use while driving is prohibited, and hands-free devices are mandatory for all vehicle operators, according to MacDill Air Force Base. Furthermore, cell phones cannot be used to dial DSN numbers, which are military long-distance phone numbers, states Military INSTALLATIONS.

DSN is a secure military network.

"Going dead" is not evidence of jamming. It is evidence of loss of signal, for which there are many reasons.

FCC compliance
In the United States, all electrical devices must undergo testing to ensure they meet FCC requirements. Manufacturers that fail to complete the required testing are subject to costly fines and product recalls.

Using signal jammers is illegal.

[ElDiabloJoe]

. Drive on a military installation and try and use your phone around sensitive areas. Mac Dill AFB for instance, Enter from Bayshore gate and past the guard shack it immediately goes dead.

One of the very few places in America I should think the FCC may grant an exemption (or an MOU of non-enforcement) for cell phone jamming is around sensitive areas of a federal Air Force base.

[CybrSage]

The drone group that searches for a lost child, or in TV looking for a lost pet…Shooting drone down is definitely worthwhile.:oops:

When LEOs are searching for the person of interest, I would bet many who want to shoot down drones, would be very happy for the person of interest will probably hid in your house to thank you.
Then again with the lack of the ability to ID who owns the drone, in TV most won’t know the difference from an insurance, real estate, or Sheriff PD.:popcorn:

Yeah, I agree. Lets remove all the walls around homes, all the window coverings, and such on all the homes. Privacy is overrated, amirite?

[CybrSage]

"Going dead" is not evidence of jamming. It is evidence of loss of signal, for which there are many reasons.

FCC compliance
In the United States, all electrical devices must undergo testing to ensure they meet FCC requirements. Manufacturers that fail to complete the required testing are subject to costly fines and product recalls.

Using signal jammers is illegal.

It is not illigal for the military to jam radio signals on military bases. I have witnessed this many times in secure areas.

If nothing else, the Ukraine war is showing the world signal jammers are needed in areas where munitions are stored and during transport.

[CybrSage]

However it is done in schools.

Nope. Some states have legislation in the works to allow jammers in certain areas. Some allow the teacher direct control of the jammer and some do not. None has been passed into law yet.

For those who say the state laws would be late violate the federal law, I agree. However, I point to medical marijuana and say violations of fed law only are an issue if the feds care to fight it. I doubt they would fight well crafted state laws.

[CybrSage]

Will The Villages allow miniature Patriot Systems?:D

I see a new product niche that needs to be filled. If it is done right, it can be labeled as a model rocket system or maybe even a drone so it is legal.

Not my fault your drone got in the way of my model rocket launch over my own home...

[CybrSage]

Shoot down drones? Talk about draconian measures, who is electing these people? Maybe airplanes will be next..:cus:

If an airplane hovers over my home, then sure. Unless it is a military plane, then it would simply be fricken awesome and I would film it.

[Normal]

Source website: Florida lawmakers take aim at drones, protecting homeowners''' right to privacy | Fox News (https://www.foxnews.com/us/florida-property-owners-pestered-spying-drones-could-soon-be-allowed-fight-back-force)



Notably, the bill would permit homeowners to use "reasonable force" to stop a drone from infringing on their expectation of privacy.


"No one wants to have a drone sitting over their property, filming what they do for any number of reasons," Florida-based attorney Raul Gastesi told Fox News Digital. "Almost every state has laws on privacy, including drones. I can't say that I've seen one where it allows for self-help."


A 2024 Florida statute titled the "Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act" prohibits drone operators from using an aircraft to take photos or videos of private property, citing a person’s right to privacy.


If passed, the bill would allow homeowners to take matters into their own hands if a drone is spotted over their property.


The bill has sailed through various committees largely uncontested and is currently scheduled to be considered by the Florida Senate. If passed, it would go into effect in October 2025.

This is a great idea. Drones aren’t safe. Why allow something that is not 100% controllable fly over your property. In January a drone injured a boy spectator at a show. What ever goes up, must come down. Thankfully they can be brought down and forced to land safely with the latest technology so you can protect your rights!

I’ve seen Goldwingnut videos where the drone was actually at eye level flying over private property. He even once commented on attempting to fly through the bay of a car wash and another occasion during Sawgrass construction we see the drone looking in the building at about 30 feet. I’m not against his videos or any others, but anything less than 50 feet certainly is dangerous.

Endanger your own property and people on it, but stay out of my airspace.

[ElDiabloJoe]

This is a great idea. Drones aren’t safe. Why allow something that is not 100% controllable fly over your property. In January a drone injured a boy spectator at a show. What ever goes up, must come down. Thankfully they can be brought down and forced to land safely with the latest technology so you can protect your rights!

I’ve seen Goldwingnut videos where the drone was actually at eye level flying over private property. He even once commented on attempting to fly through the bay of a car wash and another occasion during Sawgrass construction we see the drone looking in the building at about 30 feet. I’m not against his videos or any others, but anything less than 50 feet certainly is dangerous.

Endanger your own property and people on it, but stay out of my airspace.
What makes 51 feet okay, but 49 feet unsafe, in YOUR opinion? What evidence do you have to support this, or what studies have been done that support YOUR opinion? It's not like the 21-foot knife fighting rule, which has been studied, tested, and court-approved.

[Normal]

What makes 51 feet okay, but 49 feet unsafe, in YOUR opinion? What evidence do you have to support this, or what studies have been done that support YOUR opinion? It's not like the 21-foot knife fighting rule, which has been studied, tested, and court-approved.

Zero feet is best. Remember physics when you dropped objects from different heights and measure impact velocity? Just don’t fly over my home. Nothing is OK when you increase endangering those on my land. Fly over your own space, but not mine. Not even airplanes are reliable 100 percent of the time, of course drones remotely flown have less control during malfunctions. No one has a right to endanger you or me.

[Normal]

Ahh, I understand now. It's an irrational fear of random things dropping out of the sky onto your head that causes your perspective, not common sense nor researched studies nor practical experience.

Were you this frightened when SkyLab or any other satellite has fallen from space the last few years? How about chunks of blue ice or loose rivets from airplanes? Bird crap?

I don't necessarily disagree with you, just wish you were upfront with the basis for your statement and opinion from the get-go.
No, it’s more like going through reliable rationality. Why increase risk? Why should some idiot with a drone toy be permitted to encroach and use myself for risk for their own benefit? Keep your ball in your own yard, if it lands in mine I’m keeping it. So play safe. It’s all about enterprising egocentric individuals deciding they have rights to broadcast their peeping skills for profit on YouTube. Let the narcissistic toy drone flyers stay over their own land.

There is certainly nothing wrong with defending myself with SAFE technology that blocks or disables people like that. Does your sky is falling theory only to apply to kids like the one hospitalized thanks to the January drone incident? Privacy is important too.

[Bill14564]

No, it’s more like going through reliable rationality. Why increase risk? Why should some idiot with a drone toy be permitted to encroach and use myself for risk for their own benefit? Keep your ball in your own yard, if it lands in mine I’m keeping it. So play safe. It’s all about enterprising egocentric individuals deciding they have rights to broadcast their peeping skills for profit on YouTube. Let the narcissistic toy drone flyers stay over their own land.

There is certainly nothing wrong with defending myself with SAFE technology that blocks or disables people like that. Does your sky is falling theory only to apply to kids like the one hospitalized thanks to the January drone incident? Privacy is important too.

Yeah, I can see how that might worry you, if not for:
- The accident was in December, not January (okay, doesn't matter too much)
- If you had 25,000 people in your yard then it would illegal for a drone to hover overhead
- The drone involved in this accident was likely over the water and NOT over the crowd.
- Flying dozens (hundreds?) of drones above the 25,000 people in your yard would certainly be illegal
- But yeah, this is JUST LIKE a single drone flying over empty land while viewing a construction area

Define "wrong." To me, using an illegal device is wrong. It is highly questionable to define a device which is intended to interfere with the controlled flight of a drone as SAFE. There are several things wrong with using an illegal device that interferes with the safe flight of a drone is.

[Normal]

Yeah, I can see how that might worry you, if not for:
- The accident was in December, not January (okay, doesn't matter too much)
- If you had 25,000 people in your yard then it would illegal for a drone to hover overhead
- The drone involved in this accident was likely over the water and NOT over the crowd.
- Flying dozens (hundreds?) of drones above the 25,000 people in your yard would certainly be illegal
- But yeah, this is JUST LIKE a single drone flying over empty land while viewing a construction area

Define "wrong." To me, using an illegal device is wrong. It is highly questionable to define a device which is intended to interfere with the controlled flight of a drone as SAFE. There are several things wrong with using an illegal device that interferes with the safe flight of a drone is.

You are entitled to fly a drone in your OWN territory. If you are the drone pilot, you are also well aware the drone is in the air and well advised of its route. I’m just saying no one has the right to fly over someone else’s territory while they aren’t warned and unaware of the possible issues. You can’t remove their rights.

No one has the right to remove security or privacy from an individual. In addition, the said property owner certainly has the right to defend security and privacy. There is zero doubt on that.

[Bill14564]

You are entitled to fly a drone in your OWN territory. If you are the drone pilot, you are also well aware the drone is in the air and well advised of its route. I’m just saying no one has the right to fly over someone else’s territory while they aren’t warned and unaware of the possible issues. You can’t remove their rights.

No one has the right to remove security or privacy from an individual. In addition, the said property owner certainly has the right to defend security and privacy. There is zero doubt on that.

Both those statements might be true in your mind but the law (FAA) says otherwise.

It is clear that you WANT things to be this way but stating them as fact on ToTV in no way changes the fact that things are NOT this way.

[asianthree]

Yeah, I agree. Lets remove all the walls around homes, all the window coverings, and such on all the homes. Privacy is overrated, amirite?

If you want to remove walls, one wouldn’t need window coverings.

I have to say when they found the 3yo miles from his home in 40 degree temps, with night vision drone, you would probably be the first to file a privacy suit…after all fear someone flys over your home far important than saving a child.

Then again I don’t have anything to worry if a drone flys over our house, I worry more about how many med choppers have fallen out of the sky lately. Drone won’t find anything illegal, chopper, falls no roof or walls left.

[Normal]

Both those statements might be true in your mind but the law (FAA) says otherwise.

It is clear that you WANT things to be this way but stating them as fact on ToTV in no way changes the fact that things are NOT this way.

Nor does it change the fact that the legislation will be signed into law.

[Bill14564]

Nor does it change the fact that the legislation will be signed into law.

Ahh, back to the topic.

1. The House version does not contain the "reasonable means" language
2. The Senate analysis notes technical deficiencies with that language
3. The two version will need to be reconciled
4. My (rather faulty) crystal ball says it will be easiest to remove the faulty language
5. EVEN IF IT PASSES with the language intact, it will STILL be illegal to shoot at a drone (FAA, Florida) or to jam an RF signal (FCC)

So sure, what you said.

[Goldwingnut]

Ahh, back to the topic.

1. The House version does not contain the "reasonable means" language
2. The Senate analysis notes technical deficiencies with that language
3. The two version will need to be reconciled
4. My (rather faulty) crystal ball says it will be easiest to remove the faulty language
5. EVEN IF IT PASSES with the language intact, it will STILL be illegal to shoot at a drone (FAA, Florida) or to jam an RF signal (FCC)

So sure, what you said.

The senate bill was tabled, the house bill was voted on by both houses and passed and is now awaiting the Governor's signature.

As stated above the house bill does not include the ill-conceived section on 934.50 that would have allowed the undefined "reasonable force". The remaining sections of the bill(s) are very good and further define weaponizing a sUAS (FS330.411), provide additional clarifications on "critical infrastructure", and criminalize the intentional disabling Remote ID functions and knowingly operating sUAS with Remote ID disabled (FS330.41).

While Remote ID as currently implemented is buggy, problematic, and ineffective on a good day and dangerous to the operators safety when it actually is working, it is the law that the vast majority of drone pilots (myself included) are following.