Last Updated 5th February 2016

Local Regulation

There have been relatively few legislative proposals to regulate the domestic use of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) at the county or municipal levels. Almost all of the existing proposals have been drafted specifically to address privacy concerns regarding the use of UAS by public employees, and most of the existing proposals simply ban UAS from airspace above the regulated locality. Notably, the cities of Charlottesville, VA and St. Bonifacius, MN have each passed resolutions restricting the use of UAS.

Paradise Valley, Arizona

AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF PARADISE VALLEY, ARIZONA AMMENDING THE PARADISE VALLEY TOWN CODE, CHAPTER 10, BY ADDING ARTICLE 10-12, REGULATIONS RELATED TO THE OPERATION OF UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY:

Ordinance  691

*Passed 12/03/2015

Berkeley, California

PROCLAIM BERKELEY A NO DRONE ZONE AND ENACT AN ORDINANCE TO THAT EFFECT:

“NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that the City of Berkeley, with this Resolution and by Proclamation proclaims Berkeley a No Drone Zone, and instructs the City Attorney to perform the necessary legal tasks to transform this declaration of a No Drone Zone into an Ordinance for the City of Berkeley wherein drones are hereby banned from airspace over the City of Berkeley, including drones in transit. Under that Ordinance, flying of a drone within the airspace of the City of Berkeley shall be considered a misdemeanor carrying a maximum penalty of up to one year in jail and a fine not to exceed $10,000. Each offense that is more than one offense of flying a drone within said airspace will be considered to be an additional misdemeanor, with jail time and fines based on the number of violations.”

Submitted by: George Lippman, Chairperson, Peace and Justice Commission

PROCLAIM BERKELEY A NO DRONE ZONE AND ENACT AN ORDINANCE TO THAT EFFECT

Los Angeles, California

Los Angeles Drone Ordinance:

“AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 56.31 TO ARTICLE 6 OF CHAPTER V OF THE LOS ANGELES MUNICIPAL CODE TO IMPOSE COMMUNITY-BASED SAFETY REQUIREMENTS ON THE OPERATION OF MODEL AIRCRAFT AND TO IMPOSE RESTRICTIONS CONSISTENT WITH CERTAIN FEDERAL AVIATION RULES ON THE OPERATION OF BOTH MODEL AIRCRAFT AND CIVIL UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS (UASs), COMMONLY KNOWN AS DRONES”

Status: December 2, 2015–Ordinance became effective

LOS ANGELES DRONE ORDINANCE

Manhattan Beach, California

Manhattan Beach Municipal Code has not yet been updated to show the drone ordinance. In the meantime, this article explains the ordinance. When the code is updated, it will be referenced here.

Status: February 2, 2016–Return for Final Adoption

Track Legislation on Agenda

Rancho Mirage, California

Drone Prohibition Ordinance:

“AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE AMENDING DIVISION III “OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC PEACE” OF TITLE 9 “PUBLIC PEACE, MORALS AND WELFARE” OF THE RANCHO MIRAGE MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROHIBIT THE FLYING OF DRONES IN RESIDENTIALLY ZONED AREAS OF THE CITY”

Status: April 4, 2013–Submitted to Mayor and City Council

Drone Prohibition Ordinance

Deer Trail, Colorado

“An ordinance to defend the sovereign airspace of the Town of Deer Trail, Colorado, and that of its citizens, their homes, businesses, related properties and interests, from unwanted incursions by small unmanned aerial vehicles (popularly referred to as ‘drones’).”

Drafted by: Phillip Steel

Draft Anti-Drone Ordinance

*Scheduled to go before the town council 08/06/2013

Miami, Florida

Miami City Code Section 37-12

“This section is intended to promote public safety and protect people attending large venue public events from the flying of unmanned aircraft systems (“UAS”) in and over such large public events. The city commission wishes to regulate the use of UAS within a half-mile radius around stadiums and sport facilities when these devices are in use, and over other large venue special events in public parks, public facilities, streets, plazas, open spaces and the like that will attract large groups of people. All restrictions are intended to protect persons gathered in groups where a UAS incident would cause greater harm and risk of injury due to a greater number of people gathered in a close proximity. It is not intended to restrict legitimate hobbyists operating UAS in compliance with FAA rules and any other applicable laws, and outside of the prohibited areas. This Section is not intended to preempt FAA rules, but rather to operate in conjunction with those rules to promote public safety while recognizing the limitation in the FAA’s enforcement capabilities.”

Miami Code Section 37-12

Chicago, Illinois

Chicago Drone Ordinance SO2015-5419                                     

Amendment of Municipal Code Title 9 by adding new Chapter 9-121 to regulate use of small unmanned aircraft in City airspace

Chicago Drone Ordinance

Evanston, Illinois

Resolution 27-R-13:

“Authorizing the City of Evanston to Establish a Moratorium on the Use of Unregulated Drone Technology”

Resolution 27-R-13

Evanston City Council

Manhattan, Illinois

Manhattan Drone Ordinance:

“AN ORDINANCE REGULATING UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS IN THE VILLAGE OF MANHATTAN, WILL COUNTY, ILLINOIS”

Manhattan Drone OrdinanceOrdinance Summary

Iowa City, Iowa

ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 9, ENTITLED “MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC:

“ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 9, ENTITLED “MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC,” OF THE CITY CODE BY ADOPTING AN ORDINANCE SIMILAR IN SUBSTANCE TO THE PROPOSED INITIATIVE ON TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT CAMERAS AND DRONES, AUTOMATIC LICENSE PLATE RECOGNITION SYSTEMS AND OTHER KINDS OF TRAFFIC SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMS, AND BY REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 12-4466 THAT ENABLED AUTOMATIC TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT.”

ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 9, ENTITLED “MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC”

Northampton, Massachusetts

Resolution on Drone Aircraft:

“BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Northampton calls on the U.S. government to immediately end its  practice of extrajudicial killing by armed drone aircraft . . . that the City of Northampton affirms that, within the city limits, the navigable airspace for drone aircraft s hall not be expanded below the long – established airspace  for  manned aircraft . . . that the City of Northampton affirms that within the city limits, landowners subject to state laws and local ordinances have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of  the airspace and that no drone aircraft  shall have the ‘public right of transit’ through this private property.”

Northampton Drone Ordinance

*Adopted 07/11/2013

St. Bonifacius, Minnesota

Resolution 2013-8:

“A RESOLUTION RESTRICTING THE USE OF DRONES IN THE CITY OF ST. BONIFACIUS AIR SPACE”

Resolution 2013-8

*Adopted 02/20/2013

Chatham, New Jersey

Ordinance 2016-16:

“WHEREAS, drone technology includes “drones,” which are unmanned aircraft that can
fly under the control of a remote pilot or via a geographic positions system guided autopilot
mode, can fly at altitudes below the navigable airspace (generally 400’), and are equipped with
surveillance technologies (e.g., high definition cameras, night vision cameras, and infrared-seethrough
scopes) . . . unmanned aircraft are prohibited from operating or flying in any airspace below 400 feet within the airspace over any government or public buildings, property, or parks within the Township.”

Ordinance 2015-16

New York, New York

File No. 614:

A Local Law to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to requiring the registration and insurance of unmanned aerial vehicles

No. 614Follow No. 614’s Progress

Celina, Ohio

Ordinance 57-15-O:

“AN ORDINANCE RESTRICTING THE USE OF UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES (ALSO KNOWN AS “DRONES”) BY INDIVIDUALS AND BUSINESSES OVER THE AIRSPACE ABOVE ANY CITY-OWNED PROPERTY , ABOVE ANY CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND ABOVE ANY EASEMENT GRANTED IN FAVOR OF THE CITY; EXEMPTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS THEREOF; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.”
Draft of Ordinance 52-15-O

Status–Pending

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

File 2015-2053:

Ordinance amending and supplementing the City of Pittsburgh Code, Title Four (“Public Places and Property”), Article XI (“Parks and Playgrounds”) by amending Chapter 473 with respect to the operation of drones and other activities involving airborne objects or persons located within, above or in the vicinity of City parks and playgrounds.”

No. 2053Follow No. 2053’s Progress

Charlottesville, Virginia

Anti-drone Resolution:

“NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of Charlottesville, Virginia, calls on the United States Congress and the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, to adopt legislation prohibiting the use of drones for surveillance, and prohibiting information obtained from the domestic use of drones from being introduced into a Federal or State court, and precluding the domestic use of drones equipped with anti-personnel devices, meaning any projectile, chemical, electrical, directed-energy (visible or invisible), or other device designed to harm, incapacitate, or otherwise negatively impact a human being.”

Submitted by: David Swanson

Anti-drone Resolution

*Passed 02/04/2013

Pierce County, Washington

Proposed Ordinance No. 2013-28:

Full Title: An Ordinance of the Pierce County Council Adopting a New Chapter 1.30 of the Pierce County Code, “Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance”

Sponsors: Councilmembers Dan Roach, Stan Flemming

Status: June 18, 2013–Referred to the Public Safety and Human Services Committee

Proposed Ordinance No. 2013-28 Follow 2013-28’s Progress

Seattle, Washington

Council Bill Number 117707:

“AN ORDINANCE relating to the regulation of unmanned aircraft systems operated by the Seattle Police Department; adopting City policies regarding the acquisition and operation of unmanned aircraft systems; and establishing a new Chapter 14.18 in the Seattle Municipal Code.”

Sponsor: HARRELL; CO-SPONSOR CLARK

Council Bill Number 117707

*Proposal Died after Mayor Cancelled Police Drone Program

Green Bay, Wisconsin

Ordinance 27.310 DRONE USE AT SPECIAL EVENTS:

Section 27.310