relative to the use of unmanned aerial systems.
SB 519 establishes a new chapter in the New Hampshire statutes governing the use of small unmanned aircraft systems, or drones, when they are equipped with imaging devices and used to conduct surveillance over private property. The bill prohibits the state, political subdivisions, and private persons from operating such systems to surveil private property without the property owner’s written consent when a reasonable expectation of privacy exists. The bill defines key terms such as “imaging device” and “surveillance,” and it creates a presumption of privacy in locations not visible from a public ground-level position.
The bill also creates a civil enforcement scheme. A person harmed by a violation may sue for compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, and attorney’s fees, and those remedies are in addition to any other available legal remedies. In addition, the bill amends the criminal code to make certain knowing violations a class B felony, including operating a drone to conduct prohibited surveillance and publishing or distributing surveillance obtained in violation of the law. The act is set to take effect on January 1, 2027.
SB 519 would add a new privacy-focused chapter to the RSA and amend the criminal code to create both civil liability and felony penalties for certain drone surveillance activities. It would affect private individuals, businesses, government entities, and law enforcement by restricting drone use over private property unless consent is obtained or a statutory exception applies. The bill also touches several existing statutory areas, including law enforcement authority, fire department inspections, critical infrastructure monitoring, tax appraisal practices, environmental emergency assessments, insurance investigations, and railroad operations.
The available record suggests the bill is aimed at protecting privacy while preserving a range of operational exceptions for public safety and regulated business uses. Its structure indicates an effort to balance privacy concerns with law enforcement, infrastructure, insurance, and appraisal needs. No committee transcript or recorded vote is provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or formal support/opposition in the supplied materials.
The main points of contention are likely to be the breadth of the privacy restriction and the severity of the enforcement provisions. Potential critics may focus on the felony penalty for drone surveillance and for publishing or distributing unlawfully obtained surveillance, as well as the presumption of privacy in areas not visible from public ground level. Supporters are likely to emphasize the written-consent requirement and the bill’s exceptions for warrants, exigent circumstances, missing persons, critical infrastructure, fire inspections, insurance work, tax appraisal, environmental emergencies, and railroad maintenance. The bill’s carveouts suggest an attempt to address operational concerns, but the scope of the criminal penalties and the definition of surveillance could still be disputed.