To amend section 4561.50 and to enact section 4561.54 of the Revised Code to prohibit trespass and types of unauthorized recording with an unmanned aerial vehicle system.
HB425 would create a new criminal offense related to the use of unmanned aerial vehicle systems, commonly known as drones, and would expand the state’s drone-related trespass and privacy restrictions. The bill defines “critical facility” broadly to include critical infrastructure, commercial distribution centers, courts, law enforcement facilities, correctional facilities, military installations, and hospitals that receive air ambulance services. It then prohibits knowingly operating a drone over another person’s land or premises without privilege, and also prohibits reckless or negligent continued operation after notice to leave the airspace in certain circumstances.
The bill also bars the use of drones to record another person in a place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, to record another person’s private property, or to deploy any substance, material, projectile, or object. Violations would be a fourth-degree misdemeanor. In effect, HB425 would add a new section to the Revised Code and amend existing drone-related law to strengthen protections for property owners, privacy, and sensitive facilities.
HB425 would amend Revised Code section 4561.50 and enact new section 4561.54, expanding Ohio’s statutory framework governing unmanned aerial vehicles. It would create new prohibitions on drone trespass, unauthorized surveillance, and drone-based delivery or deployment of objects or substances, while also defining a wider set of protected “critical facilities.” The bill would affect drone operators, property owners, law enforcement, courts, correctional institutions, military sites, hospitals, and businesses such as commercial distribution centers.
The available context suggests the bill was introduced and referred to the House Transportation Committee, but there were no recorded votes or committee transcripts provided. Based on the bill’s structure and purpose, the general posture appears to be protective and regulatory, aiming to address privacy, trespass, and security concerns associated with drones. Because no debate record is available, there is no documented support or opposition in the supplied materials.
The main points of potential contention are the breadth of the prohibited conduct and the scope of the protected locations. The bill reaches not only intentional drone trespass but also reckless and negligent conduct after notice, and it criminalizes recording both people in privacy-protected settings and private property itself. It may also raise questions about how broadly “critical facility” is defined, how notice requirements would be applied in practice, and whether the misdemeanor penalties are appropriate for drone-related conduct that could overlap with lawful commercial, journalistic, recreational, or security uses.