Oklahoma drone bill needs careful review

The use of drones has raised reasonable concerns about their potential use in illegal activity. But legislative efforts to address these concerns often prove impractical. A Senate bill allowing people to be fined if they fly a drone over privately owned agricultural property may be the latest example.

Sen. Casey Murdock, R-Felt, says his bill amounts to a “speeding ticket” for those who misuse drones. Officials with the Oklahoma Farm Bureau note drones can be used by thieves to case private property before stealing livestock or equipment.

Those are valid concerns. But there are also many valid uses of drones. Murdock attempts to address those uses by providing exceptions for drone pilots employed by the state or federal government, law enforcement, utility, oil and gas companies or those who are part of a commercial operation authorized by the Federal Aviation Administration.

That’s a lot of exceptions, and one wonders how property owners or law enforcement officials will be able to conclusively demonstrate a drone is being used for nefarious purposes. In many instances, it’s likely a property owner may never spot a drone operator, only the drone in the sky. Also, how likely is it that law enforcement officials will be on the scene to make an arrest, given that the bill is targeted at mostly rural areas with lower population and relatively few police?

The bill calls for a fine of up to $500 and up to one year in county jail for violations, or both. Given this year’s focus on corrections reform, which often involves diversion programs instead of incarceration, does it make sense to allow people to be locked up for a year for flying drones?

That said, Murdock’s bill is still an improvement on past drone measures that advanced in the Legislature.

In 2015, a bill would have allowed Oklahomans to shoot down drones flying above their property without facing any civil liability for resulting damages. It gained passage in a Senate committee.

In 2016, legislation was filed that would have required police to get a warrant to use a drone for surveillance. That bill even imposed restrictions on law enforcement use of drones in public spaces and did not apply to anyone except for those in law enforcement. That legislation passed the Oklahoma House.

The 2016 bill clearly was counterproductive, and the 2015 measure appeared an invitation for armed confrontations even when all parties involved are engaged in legal activity. Such negative outcomes don’t appear likely with Murdock’s legislation.

Attempting to thwart illegal drone activity is not a frivolous pursuit, and the threat of arrest, fines and imprisonment may prove the deterrent required. But there are many pragmatic concerns that need to be addressed before this bill becomes law. If the legislation creates more confusion than regulatory certainty, it will be no victory for private property owners.