An act to amend Section 402 of the Penal Code, relating to crimes.
AB 11 would amend Penal Code Section 402, which already makes it a misdemeanor to go to or stop at the scene of an emergency in order to view the scene and thereby impede emergency personnel. The bill expands that existing anti-impeding rule to explicitly cover unmanned aerial vehicles, remote piloted aircraft, and drones, regardless of the operator’s physical location, when the drone is at the scene of an emergency.
The bill’s main policy change is to create a new felony offense for operating a drone during a fire-related emergency in violation of Section 402. That felony would be punishable by 16 months, or 2 or 3 years, in county jail, plus a fine of up to $10,000. The bill also states that it creates a state-mandated local program, while simultaneously declaring that no state reimbursement is required for the costs local agencies or school districts may incur.
In practical terms, AB 11 would strengthen California’s criminal penalties for drone activity that interferes with emergency response at fire scenes. It would leave the existing misdemeanor framework in place for other forms of emergency-scene interference, while elevating drone-related conduct during fire emergencies to a more serious offense. The bill also retains the statute’s broader definition of emergency, which includes fires, explosions, crashes, floods, storms, hazardous spills, and other natural or human-caused events.
The available context shows little recorded debate or formal voting activity: there are no committee transcripts or votes listed, and the bill died at desk on the day it was introduced. As a result, there is no documented legislative sentiment beyond the bill’s text itself. The measure appears to reflect a public-safety emphasis on preventing drones from disrupting firefighting and emergency operations.
The main point of contention implied by the bill is the decision to treat drone interference during fire-related emergencies as a felony rather than a misdemeanor. That escalation could raise concerns about proportionality, enforcement, and whether the new penalty is necessary given existing misdemeanor penalties for impeding emergency personnel. Supporters would likely view the change as a targeted response to the risks drones pose to firefighters and emergency aircraft during active fires.
AB 11 would amend Penal Code Section 402 to add a felony penalty for operating a drone during a fire-related emergency in a way that impedes emergency personnel at the scene. It would also clarify that the statute applies to drone operators regardless of their physical location if the drone is at the emergency scene. The bill would not change the existing misdemeanor rule for other forms of scene interference, but it would create a new, more serious offense tied specifically to fire emergencies, with penalties under Penal Code Section 1170(h) and a fine of up to $10,000. Because it creates a new crime, it would affect local criminal justice enforcement and is described as a state-mandated local program, though the bill states no reimbursement is required.
The bill text suggests a strong public-safety orientation, with the Legislature seeking to deter drone interference at emergency scenes, especially during fires. However, the available legislative history is sparse: there are no recorded committee hearings, no votes, and the bill died at desk on the date of introduction. That means there is no documented floor or committee sentiment to gauge support or opposition beyond the bill’s framing as an emergency-response protection measure.
The likely area of contention is the bill’s penalty structure. By making drone interference during fire-related emergencies a felony, AB 11 goes beyond the existing misdemeanor penalty for impeding emergency personnel, which may prompt concerns about overcriminalization or whether the conduct is sufficiently distinct to justify felony treatment. Another possible issue is enforcement, since the bill applies to drone operators regardless of location, which may raise questions about identifying operators and proving intent. No formal opposition or support is documented in the provided record, so these concerns are inferred from the bill’s structure rather than from recorded debate.