Texas Drone Law shot down
Federal Court Strikes down Texas Drone Law
Link
The article is lengthy, but I'll post the lead in. It looks like for the time being there is no recourse or prevention of drones flying over private property.
Link
The article is lengthy, but I'll post the lead in. It looks like for the time being there is no recourse or prevention of drones flying over private property.
A Texas federal judge has stricken down the vast majority of a Texas drone law as unconstitutional.
The “Use of Unmanned Aircraft” statute was passed in 2013. To read a prior blog post reviewing the statute in detail, click here. This lawsuit breaks the challenged provisions into two categories: Surveillance Provisions and No-Fly Provisions.
The Surveillance Provisions (Texas Government Code Sections 423.002, .003, .004, and .005) impose criminal and civil penalties for anyone using a drone to capture an image of an individual or privately owned real property with the intent to “conduct surveillance” on the individual or property. See Texas Government Code Section 423.003. The statute exempts a number of uses from the provisions of the statute including professional or scholarly research, satellite mapping, and real estate agents, for example. See Texas Government Code Section 423.002. Importantly, newsgathering is not an exempted use, meaning the statutory prohibitions apply to newsgathering activities.
The No-Fly Provisions (Texas Government Code Sections 423.0045 and 423.0046) impose criminal penalties by making it unlawful to fly a drone over a correctional facility, detention facility, critical infrastructure facility, or sports venue. Of note for the ag industry, in 2017, the statute was amended to include confined animal feeding operations to the definition of “critical infrastructure facilities.” [Read blog post here.] The No-Fly Provisions also contain exemptions for certain uses, including those with a “commercial purpose.” There is no exemption for newsgathering.
Lawsuit
Two media organizations (National Press Photographers Association & Texas Press Association) and an individual journalist filed suit in Texas federal court. The journalist is a Texas reporter who owns a drone and is certified to operate it by the FAA. He claims the Texas Use of Unmanned Aircraft statute has chilled his newsgathering because he is concerned about liability. He says he has forgone opportunities to use the drone in reporting on multiple stories. The National Press Photographers Association (NPP) is a national organization representing journalists, including 300 members in Texas. Their members regularly use drones for newsgathering, and their reporting efforts have been chilled by the statute. The Texas Press Association (TPA) has more than 400 newspaper members across Texas. They allege some members have avoided using drone photography due to the statute. Members of both organizations reported having threats of prosecution when using drones or have had newspapers decline to carry drone footage because of the statute.
Plaintiffs brought suit against the Director of the Texas Department of Public Safety, Chief of the Texas Highway Patrol, and the District Attorney of Hays County.
The “Use of Unmanned Aircraft” statute was passed in 2013. To read a prior blog post reviewing the statute in detail, click here. This lawsuit breaks the challenged provisions into two categories: Surveillance Provisions and No-Fly Provisions.
The Surveillance Provisions (Texas Government Code Sections 423.002, .003, .004, and .005) impose criminal and civil penalties for anyone using a drone to capture an image of an individual or privately owned real property with the intent to “conduct surveillance” on the individual or property. See Texas Government Code Section 423.003. The statute exempts a number of uses from the provisions of the statute including professional or scholarly research, satellite mapping, and real estate agents, for example. See Texas Government Code Section 423.002. Importantly, newsgathering is not an exempted use, meaning the statutory prohibitions apply to newsgathering activities.
The No-Fly Provisions (Texas Government Code Sections 423.0045 and 423.0046) impose criminal penalties by making it unlawful to fly a drone over a correctional facility, detention facility, critical infrastructure facility, or sports venue. Of note for the ag industry, in 2017, the statute was amended to include confined animal feeding operations to the definition of “critical infrastructure facilities.” [Read blog post here.] The No-Fly Provisions also contain exemptions for certain uses, including those with a “commercial purpose.” There is no exemption for newsgathering.
Lawsuit
Two media organizations (National Press Photographers Association & Texas Press Association) and an individual journalist filed suit in Texas federal court. The journalist is a Texas reporter who owns a drone and is certified to operate it by the FAA. He claims the Texas Use of Unmanned Aircraft statute has chilled his newsgathering because he is concerned about liability. He says he has forgone opportunities to use the drone in reporting on multiple stories. The National Press Photographers Association (NPP) is a national organization representing journalists, including 300 members in Texas. Their members regularly use drones for newsgathering, and their reporting efforts have been chilled by the statute. The Texas Press Association (TPA) has more than 400 newspaper members across Texas. They allege some members have avoided using drone photography due to the statute. Members of both organizations reported having threats of prosecution when using drones or have had newspapers decline to carry drone footage because of the statute.
Plaintiffs brought suit against the Director of the Texas Department of Public Safety, Chief of the Texas Highway Patrol, and the District Attorney of Hays County.
Comment