Crimes and offenses; unmanned aircraft systems; operation near public schools prohibited
HB201 expands Alabama’s restrictions on unmanned aircraft systems (drones) by adding new protections for public schools and private privacy interests, while also revising existing rules around correctional facilities. The bill would make it unlawful to operate a drone within 500 horizontal feet or 400 vertical feet of a public school without the school administrator’s consent, and separately prohibit using a drone to photograph or electronically record a public school from within that restricted zone. It also creates a new offense for knowingly using a drone to photograph, record, or otherwise observe a person in a place where that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, with the bill defining that concept to include places like a dwelling or fenced yard.
The bill also amends Alabama’s existing drone law for correctional facilities. It increases the vertical buffer around correctional facilities from 200 feet to 400 feet, keeps the 500-foot horizontal restriction, and continues to prohibit drone surveillance or imaging of correctional facilities. The bill preserves exceptions for the Department of Corrections, authorized federal operators, the Armed Forces, the National Guard, and certain contractors, emergency responders, and utilities with written permission. It also continues and clarifies criminal penalties, including Class C felony treatment for certain correctional-facility violations and misdemeanor penalties for the new school and privacy-related offenses.
HB201 would therefore broaden the state’s criminal code provisions governing drone use, adding new sections to Title 13A and amending the existing 2024 drone statute to include public schools in the protected locations and to conform related definitions and penalties. It also authorizes seizure and civil forfeiture of drones and related equipment used in violations involving correctional facilities, and directs the Department of Corrections to adopt implementing regulations. The act is set to take effect on October 1, 2025.
The available context shows no recorded committee debate or votes, so there is no documented public sentiment from hearings or floor action. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to be framed as a public-safety and privacy bill, with likely support from school and corrections stakeholders concerned about surveillance, contraband drops, and unauthorized drone activity. Because it also creates a new privacy offense and expands criminal penalties, potential concerns may center on enforcement scope, the breadth of the privacy definition, and whether the school and correctional-facility restrictions are too expansive for lawful drone operations.
HB201 would add new criminal provisions to the Code of Alabama governing unmanned aircraft systems, including new sections 13A-7-91.1, 13A-7-91.2, and 13A-7-91.3, and would amend the state’s existing drone restrictions near correctional facilities. It would expand the protected zone around correctional facilities, create new offenses related to drone use near public schools and to invasion of privacy by drone, and establish penalties ranging from Class C misdemeanors to Class C felonies, along with mandatory minimum fines and jail time for certain correctional-facility violations. It would also authorize confiscation and civil forfeiture of drones and related contraband used in violations and require the Department of Corrections to adopt rules implementing the article.
There is no committee transcript or vote record available, so the formal legislative sentiment cannot be measured from debate or roll call. The bill’s structure suggests a generally protective posture toward school safety, prison security, and personal privacy, which often draws support from law enforcement and public-safety advocates. At the same time, the creation of new criminal offenses and the expansion of drone restrictions could prompt caution from drone operators, privacy-law observers, and technology stakeholders concerned about overbreadth or enforcement burdens.
The main points of contention are likely to be the expanded no-fly buffers around public schools and correctional facilities, the new prohibition on drone-based observation of people in places with a reasonable expectation of privacy, and the severity of the penalties. Supporters would likely emphasize safety, anti-surveillance, and anti-contraband goals, while opponents may question whether the 400-foot vertical restriction and the privacy offense are too broad or difficult to enforce. The bill’s exceptions for government, emergency, and utility uses may also be scrutinized for whether they are sufficiently clear and whether they create uneven treatment among drone users.