As drones became more popular and concerns arose about privacy and neighbors spying on neighbors, the topic of shooting drones out of the sky came up as well. In 2015 a Kentucky man shot down a drone hovering over his yard and was charged with criminal mischief and wanton endangerment. In 2017 a lawsuit filed in federal court against the shooter was dismissed. The drone owner had filed suit asking the court to make a legal determination whether or not the drone flight was trespassing. The drone owner felt the destruction of the drone was unwarranted and he should be compensated for damages. The court dismissed the case stating that this was the wrong venue, and that it should be handled in Kentucky state court.
Other drones have been shot down in New Jersey and California. Many have been arrested for shooting down drones as FAA regulations state it is illegal. Meanwhile Lockheed Martin and Boeing are selling anti-drone laser weapons, and another company is selling shotgun shells specifically designed for those who feel they have a need for ammunition against drones. While not making a recommendation, in April 2015 Popular Mechanics ran an article discussing how to take down a drone. One of the significant points is that what goes up must come down, and bullets falling out of the sky are always a bad idea. Another issue is actually hitting the drone which is a moving target; the drone may be missed and other objects may be struck instead.
It's not just private individuals who have problems with drones. In June of 2015 the presence of drones caused firefighting aircraft to divert and caused the grounding of four responding aircraft for over two and one half hours before firefighting efforts could resume. Some planes had to drop their fire retardant, and the failed mission cost between $10,000 and $15,000. In July 2015 a fire near a California interstate was interfered with and caused a twenty minute delay of responding aircraft, allowing the fire to grow substantially. Some counties offered rewards for information on drone flyers, up to $75,000, and proposed legislation would let firefighters knock drones out of the air if they were impeding firefighting efforts without having to pay for damage caused to the drone.
In April 2016 the FAA made it clear that shooting at any aircraft, including unmanned aircraft was a significant safety hazard and was a federal crime. Out of control drones falling out of the sky can collide with objects in the air or on the ground. Shooting at a drone is a felony under title 18 USC 32 and carries a penalty of 20 years in prison.
In May 2017 draft legislation would let government agencies monitor any drones flying over an American "covered facility, location or installation" and give the facilities broad leeway to intercept wireless signals going to the drone, and if it was determined to be a threat that the agency could redirect, disable, confiscate or destroy it. Areas considered "covered" could be search and rescue operations, wildfires, police investigations, and other government activities. An exception for drones in US hacking and surveillance laws would be made; intercepting drone signals could be considered wiretapping or accessing a "protected computer" and disabling or destroying a drone could be considered aircraft sabotage under certain FAA rules. The draft was to become part of the National Defense Authorization Act.
The National Defense Authorization Act of 2017 states that the army will conduct an assessment of capabilities of air defense artillery capacity and responsiveness to include threats posed by unmanned aerial systems along with cruise missiles and manned aircraft. The Secretary of Defense may take actions and may authorize the armed forces to take actions described in the act to mitigate the threat that an unmanned aircraft poses to the safety or security of a covered facility or asset. These actions include monitoring, detecting, identifying including interception or other access, warn the operator of the aircraft by passive or active, and direct or indirect physical, electronic, radio, and electromagnetic means, and disrupt control of the aircraft without prior consent including disabling by intercepting, interfering, or causing interference with wire, oral, electronic or radio communications to control the unmanned aircraft. Those so authorized can seize or exercise control, confiscate, or use reasonable force to disable, damage, or destroy the unmanned aircraft. Any seized aircraft is considered forfeited to the United States. The Secretary of Energy has the same authority with regards to facilities identified by the Secretary of Energy for purposes of the section and located and owned in the United States or contracted to the United States to store or use special nuclear material.
The goal of the defense act is to protect government and other significant properties from interference by drones. Many such areas are already restricted so that only those with proper authorization can enter the facility. If seen as a threat to national security, this Act allows the army to dispatch drones.
Since drones can fly overhead, an unauthorized drone can readily fly into restricted areas.On August 7th the Pentagon approved a policy that allows military bases to shoot down unauthorized drones in their airspace. Details are unavailable as the information is classified, but rules of engagement concerning drones have been issued. Complications arise however because many military installations are surrounded by farmland and farmers often use drones to monitor their crops; and the government may have even leased the property from the owner. Anti-drone measures include water cannons, shotguns, sophisticated electronic warfare systems designed to disable the drone's controls and power systems. Disabling the power system would avoid issues such as where the bullets are headed when released from anti-drone shotguns or missiles.
Meanwhile, some states have created their own laws surrounding the ability of individuals or state agencies to shoot at drones over their property. Only Oklahoma allows an individual to shoot down a drone if it is not in Federal Air Space; the homeowner is granted civil immunity. Other states allow public entities, law enforcement or fire departments to disable drones if the drone endangers the officer's or the public's safety. Chances are good that other states will follow suit, as drones are popular and are expected to keep increasing. Currently there are 1.1 million drones in the United States; estimates are that by 2021, only four years from now, that number will be at least 3.55 million, and maybe even 4.55 million. The number of remote pilots is expected to grow from 20,362 in 2016 to 281,300 by 2021.
State | Provision |
Cal Gov Code § 853 & 853.1 (California S.B. 807) | Provide local public entities and public employees of local public entities with immunity from civil liability for any damage to an unmanned aircraft or unmanned aircraft system, if the damage was caused while the local public entity and public employee of the local public entity was providing, and the unmanned aircraft system was interfering with, the operation, support, or enabling of specified emergency services. |
Fla. Stat. § 934.50 (Florida H.B. 979) | The owner, tenant, occupant, invitee, or licensee of privately owned real property may initiate a civil action for compensatory damages for violations of this section and may seek injunctive relief to prevent future violations of this section against a person, state agency, or political subdivision. |
La. R.S. § 14:108 (Louisiana S.B. 73) | Allows law enforcement or fire department personnel to disable the UAS if it endangers the public or an officer's safety. |
Oklahoma S.B. 660 (pending) | Provides civil immunity for certain damage if a homeowner shoots down a drone, as long as the drone isn't in Federal Aviation Administration Airspace air space or where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists. |
Utah Code Ann. § 65A-3-2.5 (Utah H.B. 3003) | Gives firefighters and law enforcement the right to take out drones that interfere with firefighters' efforts to control wildfires. |
Washington H.B. 1049 (pending) | Allows a property owner to file a trespass charge against a drone owner if the drone has previously entered airspace over the property at least once, and the property owner has told the drone operator not to do so. |
This premium content is locked for FC&S Coverage Interpretation Subscribers
Enjoy unlimited access to the trusted solution for successful interpretation and analyses of complex insurance policies.
- Quality content from industry experts with over 60 years insurance experience, combined
- Customizable alerts of changes in relevant policies and trends
- Search and navigate Q&As to find answers to your specific questions
- Filter by article, discussion, analysis and more to find the exact information you’re looking for
- Continually updated to bring you the latest reports, trending topics, and coverage analysis
Already have an account? Sign In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate access, please contact our Sales Department at 1-800-543-0874 or email [email protected]