An Act to Prohibit the Unauthorized Use of Drones on or over the Premises of Correctional Facilities and Jails
Summary
LD 2157 creates a new criminal and civil offense aimed at preventing unauthorized drone activity over or on the premises of Maine correctional facilities and jails. The bill makes it a violation for a person to intentionally or knowingly fly a drone at or below 400 feet over those premises, land a drone there, or launch a drone from there. A first violation is a civil violation punishable by a fine of at least $500, while a repeat violation, or a prior substantially similar violation from another jurisdiction, is a Class D crime.
The bill includes exceptions for law enforcement officers, corrections officers, and corrections supervisors acting in the performance of their duties, as well as other persons acting within the course and scope of employment when approved by the facility’s chief administrative officer or jail administrator. It also defines key terms such as “drone,” “correctional facility,” “jail,” “premises,” and related aviation terms, and it recognizes federal FAA authorization as part of the regulatory framework.
Impact
This bill adds a new section to Title 17-A of Maine law, creating a specific offense related to drone use near correctional facilities and jails. It expands the state’s criminal and civil enforcement tools by authorizing fines for first-time conduct and misdemeanor-level criminal liability for repeat conduct, while carving out official and approved operational exceptions. The measure directly affects drone operators, correctional institutions, county and regional jails, and law enforcement agencies, and it is structured to operate alongside federal FAA rules governing drone operation.
Sentiment
The voting history suggests the bill moved forward despite some division, with an initial split on competing reports and later stronger support for the amended version and final enactment. The final House vote to recede and concur was decisive, indicating broad agreement on the need to address drone incursions at correctional facilities. Overall, the sentiment appears generally supportive, with the legislature ultimately coalescing around a targeted public safety measure.
Contention
The main point of contention appears to have been how the issue should be addressed procedurally and substantively, as reflected in the competing report votes and the earlier narrow split on report acceptance. Likely concerns included the scope of the prohibition, the balance between security and lawful drone use, and whether the penalties were appropriately calibrated for first-time versus repeat conduct. Supporters appear to have favored a clear deterrent for security risks at jails and prisons, while any opposition likely centered on enforcement breadth, aviation-related overlap, or the potential impact on lawful drone operators.