An act to add Section 53069.65 to the Government Code, 1708.83 to the Civil Code, relating to local government. civil law.
AB 426 would create a new civil enforcement tool aimed at drone use at emergency scenes. The bill adds a Civil Code section authorizing a local agency to impose a civil penalty of up to $75,000 on a person who operates or uses a drone, unmanned aerial vehicle, or remote piloted aircraft at the scene of an emergency and thereby impedes firefighters, peace officers, medical personnel, military personnel, or other emergency personnel in carrying out fire suppression, law enforcement, or emergency response duties. It also exempts persons operating under a federal FAA Part 107 Operational Waiver.
The bill further authorizes the Attorney General, a county counsel, or a city attorney to bring a civil action to enforce the prohibition. In such an action, a prevailing plaintiff may recover civil penalties, injunctive relief, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. Although the digest references Government Code Section 53069.65, the operative text shown adds Civil Code Section 1708.83 and is focused on civil penalties and enforcement rather than criminal punishment.
AB 426 would expand California law by adding a civil penalty regime for drone interference at emergency scenes, supplementing existing criminal law that already prohibits operating a drone at an emergency scene in a way that impedes responders. It would give local agencies and specified public attorneys a direct civil enforcement mechanism, with penalties up to $75,000 per violation, plus injunctions and fees, while preserving an exception for FAA-authorized Part 107 operations. The bill would primarily affect drone operators, local governments, and emergency response agencies, and it would create a new state-law civil remedy in the area of public safety and local enforcement.
The available voting history suggests broad support for the bill, with unanimous committee and floor votes in the recorded actions and no recorded opposition in the provided materials. The bill advanced through multiple committees and the Assembly without any nays, indicating generally favorable sentiment toward stronger protections for emergency responders from drone interference. However, the later placement on the suspense file suggests there may be fiscal or implementation concerns even though those concerns are not detailed in the provided record.
The main policy issue appears to be whether a civil penalty of up to $75,000 is an appropriate and effective deterrent for drone interference at emergency scenes, and whether local agencies and public attorneys should have this enforcement authority in addition to existing criminal penalties. Another possible point of concern is the scope of the prohibition and how it will be applied in fast-moving emergency situations, especially where lawful drone operations or news-gathering activities may be nearby. The FAA waiver exception suggests an effort to avoid conflict with federal aviation rules, but the bill still raises questions about overlap between state civil enforcement, local discretion, and federal drone regulation.