Adds federal and state military installations and facilities to the locations over which the use of an unmanned aircraft system is prohibited. (8/1/25)
SB 9 expands Louisiana’s unlawful use of an unmanned aircraft system statute to specifically prohibit intentional drone use over federal or state military installations and facilities. The bill makes it unlawful to use a drone to conduct surveillance, gather evidence or information, interfere with operations, or photograph or electronically record military installations, aircraft, ships, vehicles, or weapon systems located there, unless prior written consent is obtained from the commander of the installation or facility.
The bill also adds definitions for “federal or state military installation or facility” and clarifies the meaning of “unmanned aircraft system,” while preserving existing exclusions for certain government, utility, and communications-related uses. For violations of the new military-installation provision, SB 9 establishes a penalty of a $2,000 to $5,000 fine and up to five years at hard labor, and requires forfeiture of the drone used in the offense, with the court authorized to order its destruction, sale, or other disposition.
SB 9 amends R.S. 14:337, Louisiana’s unlawful use of an unmanned aircraft system statute, by adding military installations and facilities to the protected locations and creating a specific offense tied to drone surveillance or interference at those sites. It increases criminal exposure for unauthorized drone activity near military assets and adds mandatory forfeiture consequences, affecting drone operators, hobbyists, and anyone using unmanned aircraft near state or federal defense facilities. The bill also leaves intact existing statutory exceptions for certain government, law enforcement, fire department, utility, and communications-related operations.
The bill appears to have broad bipartisan support and little visible opposition. It passed the Senate 36-0 and the House 92-0, indicating strong consensus that military installations should receive explicit drone-use protections. The absence of committee transcript debate suggests the measure was viewed as a straightforward security and public-safety update rather than a controversial policy change.
No major points of contention are reflected in the available record. The only issues likely to draw attention are the scope of the prohibition, the breadth of the definition of military installation or facility, and the criminal penalties and forfeiture provisions for drone operators. Any concern would likely come from drone users, privacy advocates, or commercial operators worried about overbreadth, while supporters would emphasize defense security, operational safety, and preventing surveillance of sensitive military assets.