Adds to existing law to establish provisions regarding unmanned aircraft systems near Department of Correction facilities.
Summary
House Bill 522 creates a new section of Idaho Code governing unmanned aircraft systems, or drones, near Idaho Department of Correction facilities. It defines key terms such as “correctional facility,” “mitigation measures,” “nefarious manner,” and “restricted airspace,” with restricted airspace defined as the area from the ground up to 400 feet above ground level within the perimeter of a correctional facility. The bill authorizes the Department of Correction, as well as law enforcement officers and agencies, to use reasonable and necessary mitigation measures against drones operating in a nefarious manner in that airspace, so long as the action does not conflict with federal law and is based on reasonable suspicion.
The bill also makes it unlawful to operate a drone within the restricted airspace of a correctional facility. A violation is a misdemeanor punishable by up to a $1,000 fine, up to six months in county jail, or both, and the court may order forfeiture of the drone used in the offense. The bill places responsibility on drone operators to know airspace restrictions and the locations of correctional facilities, and it removes lack of knowledge as a defense. It also requires the Department of Correction to post “Drone No Fly Zone” notices near correctional facilities. The act is declared an emergency and takes effect July 1, 2026.
Impact
This bill adds a new criminal and enforcement framework to Title 20 of the Idaho Code focused on drone activity near state correctional facilities. It expands the authority of the Department of Correction and law enforcement to respond to suspected drone threats, while also creating a specific misdemeanor offense, possible forfeiture, and notice requirements. The bill affects drone operators, correctional institutions, and law enforcement agencies, and it is limited by the requirement that any mitigation measures must not conflict with federal law.
Sentiment
The voting history suggests the bill received broad support in both chambers, with strong House and Senate third-reading majorities and only a relatively small number of dissenting votes. The absence of committee transcript discussion limits insight into detailed debate, but the overall pattern indicates the bill was generally viewed favorably as a public safety and prison-security measure. The emergency clause and effective date also suggest legislators considered the issue urgent.
Contention
The main points of potential contention are the scope of authority given to the Department of Correction and law enforcement to use “mitigation measures,” including electronic interference such as jamming, and whether those actions could raise federal preemption or safety concerns. Another possible issue is the criminalization of drone use in the restricted airspace even when the operator may not know a correctional facility is present, since the bill expressly removes lack of knowledge as a defense. Supporters likely emphasized preventing contraband drops, spying, and other threats, while any opposition would likely focus on enforcement breadth, drone operator notice, and compatibility with federal aviation law.
AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 67, Chapter 6, Part 3, relative to exemption from sales and use tax on aircraft repair services and parts.