Why Civilians Must Defend Against Drones and the Legal Path to Empowering Their Rights
The proliferation of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) otherwise known to the public as “drone” technology in modern society has led to incredible advancements in fields such as delivery, surveillance, and emergency response. However, the same technology has also created significant risks, including privacy invasion, physical harm, stalking, harassment, and even criminal activity. Despite these dangers, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has largely focused on regulating airspace for safety, commercial and recreational drone operations, while neglecting the privacy and individual liberty rights of everyday citizens.
This article explores why civilians must have the right and means to neutralize intrusive or threatening drones. It also examines current laws, their inadequacies, and the legal frameworks needed to empower citizens to defend themselves.
Drones: A Double-Edged Sword
1. Privacy Violations
Drones equipped with high-resolution cameras and infrared capabilities can easily invade personal spaces where an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy. These devices can hover over private properties, capturing intimate and potentially compromising images and conversations without the homeowner’s knowledge or consent.
- Example: In 2021, a California homeowner discovered a drone repeatedly flying over their backyard, capturing footage of their children playing. Attempts to identify the operator failed due to the drone’s anonymous nature. Despite reporting the incident to local authorities, no action was taken due to a lack of enforceable regulations.
2. Physical Harm
Drones can malfunction, lose control, or be deliberately used to cause injury. Their spinning rotors and falling debris present substantial risks, particularly in crowded areas. As the weight increases the potential for harm increases even from a linear fall from any altitude due to loss of power or collision with a static object;
- Example: During a 2024 Orlando holiday drone show, technical failures caused drones to crash into spectators, resulting in injuries【55†source】. This incident underscores the potential for harm even when drones are operated legally.
3. Stalking and Harassment
The ability to remotely pilot drones makes them an ideal tool for stalking and harassment. Drones have been used used by governments and criminals to track individuals, monitor their routines, and intimidate victims.
- Example: In 2023, a New York woman obtained a restraining order against an ex-partner who had used a drone to follow her to work, record her private moments, and hover outside her apartment window.
4. Weaponization
Drones equipped with firearms, explosives, or other harmful devices are no longer science fiction. Criminals and even hobbyists have demonstrated the feasibility of weaponized drones.
- Example: In Connecticut, a man attached a handgun to a drone and posted footage online of the weapon firing mid-flight. While authorities investigated, the existing regulatory structure has continued to generate conflict among the local, county, state and federal law enforcement.
Current Legal Landscape: FAA Regulations and Their Shortcomings
The FAA regulates drones under Part 107, Part 135, and 137 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs), primarily focusing on the safe integration of drones into national airspace. However, these regulations do not sufficiently address the protection of individual rights, privacy violations, stalking, or physical harm. Local, county and state administrative regulations and laws have been expanding since the day that the FAA began regulating civilian drone operators.
1. FAA’s Definition of Airspace
Under FAA rules, the airspace above private property is considered navigable and regulated by federal law. This effectively removes a property owner’s right to control what happens in the air directly above their land.
- Example: A drone flying at 150 feet over a homeowner’s backyard is within FAA jurisdiction, even if the homeowner perceives it as a violation of privacy.
2. Enforcement Challenges
Local law enforcement agencies often defer to the FAA on drone-related complaints, but the FAA lacks the resources to address individual grievances. This creates a regulatory void, leaving civilians without recourse.
3. Limited Scope of Existing Privacy Laws
State privacy laws often lag behind technology. While some states, like Florida, have enacted anti-surveillance laws to address drone misuse, these statutes are inconsistent across the U.S. and do not address the full range of potential harms.
Why Civilians Should Be Allowed to Neutralize Threatening Drones
1. Protecting Privacy
The right to privacy is enshrined in the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and various state laws with respect to government sanctioned operations. Common law (otherwise known as judicially interpreted case opinions that may ultimately have the weight of law) has been developing slowly to protect actions from private and non governmental operators. Allowing individuals to defend against drones restores control over personal spaces and reinforces the sanctity of private property and the constitutional rights of American citizens.
- Annotation: The “curtilage doctrine” in United States v. Dunn (1987) protects areas immediately surrounding a home from government intrusion. By extension, the airspace above this curtilage should also be considered part of a citizen’s private domain. However, with the current state of the law, anyone trying to interrupt flight operations of a drone would be violating federal regulations.
2. Deterring Criminal Activity
Empowering civilians to act against invasive drones can deter their use in criminal activities such as stalking, burglary reconnaissance, and illegal surveillance.
- Example: A homeowner equipped with a drone jammer or net launcher could disrupt a drone used to scope out their property for a potential break-in. However, with the current state of the law, they would be violating federal regulations.
3. Ensuring Immediate Safety
Drones malfunctioning or deliberately used for harm require immediate action. Waiting for authorities can result in preventable injuries or damage.
- Example: A drone carrying an unknown package crashes near a school playground. Allowing civilians to neutralize the drone could mitigate potential risks, whether the package contains a toy or a harmful substance. However, with the current state of the law, they would be violating federal regulations.
Legal Framework for Civilian Drone Defense
To balance individual rights and public safety, the following legal measures are essential:
1. Amend FAA Regulations
- Recognize a “no-fly zone” over private properties unless explicitly authorized.
- Define specific altitudes and scenarios where drones can operate legally over residential areas.
2. Permit Non-Lethal Drone Neutralization
Civilians should be allowed to use non-lethal tools to disable drones that invade their property or pose an imminent threat of serious bodily harm or death:
- Signal Jammers: Disrupt the connection between a drone and its operator.
- Net Launchers: Capture drones safely without causing collateral damage.
- Annotation: These tools should comply with FCC regulations to avoid interference with other devices including manned private and commercial flight.
3. Establish Federal and State Protections
- Legislation: Enact laws similar to “Stand Your Ground” principles, allowing civilians to defend their property against aerial intrusions.
- Example: Florida’s Stand Your Ground law could be expanded to include protections against drones used for stalking or harassment.
4. Clear Definitions of Drone Misuse
Legislation should classify unauthorized surveillance, stalking, or weaponization of drones as criminal acts with severe penalties when operated within specific distances of persons, animals or property.
Defensive Measures for Civilians
1. Surveillance Detectors
Use sound- or RF-based systems to identify drones operating near your property.
2. Training and Awareness
Civilians should be educated about their rights and the tools available for drone defense.
3. Community Action
Neighborhoods can establish drone defense cooperatives, pooling resources to monitor and respond to drone activity.
4. Providing for a private civil cause of action which allows for damages to an aggrieved party for compensatory and punitive damages, including attorneys and costs.
Balancing Safety and Responsibility
Critics may worry that empowering civilians to act against drones could lead to abuse or unnecessary risks. To address these concerns:
- Training Programs: Require civilians to complete certified courses on drone identification and neutralization.
- Accountability Mechanisms: Mandate reporting and documentation of defensive actions to local authorities.
Conclusion
As drones become an integral part of modern life, the risks associated with their misuse cannot be ignored. The FAA’s focus on airspace management has left a significant gap in addressing privacy, safety, and autonomy concerns for Americans. Civilians must be empowered through clear laws and practical tools to defend against drones that threaten their security or invade their reasonable expectations of privacy.
By creating a legal framework that balances individual rights with public safety, society can harness the benefits of drone technology while mitigating its dangers. In this evolving technological landscape, the ability to neutralize threatening drones is not just a right—it is a necessity.
