An act to add Section 1714.57 to the Civil Code, relating to civil law.
Summary
AB 1749 would add a new Civil Code section prohibiting a person from using a drone, remote-piloted aircraft, or unmanned aerial vehicle to knowingly or recklessly interfere with wildfire suppression activities, including related law enforcement and emergency response efforts. The bill is aimed at preventing drone interference that can disrupt firefighting operations, endanger responders, and hinder emergency coordination during active wildfires.
The bill creates a civil enforcement mechanism rather than a criminal one. The Attorney General, a county counsel, or a city attorney could bring an action to enforce the prohibition, and a prevailing plaintiff could obtain civil penalties of up to $75,000 per violation, injunctive relief, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. The bill also exempts people operating under an FAA Part 107 Operational Waiver and people whose job duties include viewing the scene or activities in question.
Impact
AB 1749 would expand California law by creating a specific civil cause of action against drone interference with wildfire suppression and related emergency response efforts. It would supplement existing emergency-scene drone restrictions by focusing on wildfire incidents and by authorizing state and local prosecutors/counsel to seek penalties and injunctions in civil court. The bill would primarily affect drone operators, wildfire response agencies, and local and state legal authorities responsible for enforcement.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests broad support and little opposition. The bill passed committee votes unanimously, including a 6-0 vote and a 12-0 vote, and was recommended for the consent calendar. The committee action also indicates it was viewed as a relatively noncontroversial public-safety measure.
Contention
There is little evidence of substantive opposition in the available record. The main policy questions appear to be the scope of the prohibition and how it interacts with legitimate drone use during emergencies. The bill addresses that concern by carving out FAA-authorized operators and people whose employment requires them to observe the scene, which likely helped reduce contention. Any remaining concern would likely center on enforcement discretion, the size of the civil penalty, and whether the civil remedy overlaps with existing criminal or emergency-scene drone laws.