Pennsylvania House Bill HB2239

Pennsylvania 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/25/26
• Refer: 2/25/26

Caption

In burglary and other criminal intrusion, further providing for the offense of unlawful use of unmanned aircraft.

Summary

HB2239 amends Pennsylvania’s criminal code provision on the unlawful use of unmanned aircraft (drones) to add a new prohibited act: intentionally or knowingly operating a drone on the grounds or in the aerial space of a school entity without written permission from that school entity. The bill places this new school-related violation in the same summary-offense category as certain existing drone offenses, making it punishable by a fine of up to $300. The bill also creates a specific exception for school security personnel acting within the scope of their official duties, and it defines “school entity” broadly to include public school districts, intermediate units, area career and technical schools, charter and cyber charter schools, regional charter schools, private schools, and nonpublic schools. The measure would take effect 60 days after enactment.

Impact

HB2239 would amend Title 18 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, specifically the section governing unlawful use of unmanned aircraft, by expanding the list of prohibited drone conduct to cover unauthorized operation over or on school property. It would also clarify who is exempt from the restriction by adding school security personnel to the law-enforcement-related exceptions and by defining the school entities covered by the new rule. The practical effect is to give schools and law enforcement an additional tool to deter and penalize unauthorized drone activity near educational facilities.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials, the available evidence suggests a straightforward, safety-oriented proposal with no documented opposition in the record provided. The bill appears to be framed as a protective measure for schools, and its narrow scope and low-level penalty suggest a generally pragmatic approach rather than a controversial expansion of criminal liability.

Contention

The main potential point of contention is the balance between school safety and the use of unmanned aircraft, including whether the prohibition is broad enough to cover legitimate uses or whether written permission requirements could create administrative burdens. Another possible issue is the scope of the term “school entity,” which extends to private and nonpublic schools as well as public institutions, and whether the fine-only summary offense is sufficient to deter unauthorized drone use around schools. No specific objections, amendments, or recorded disagreements were provided in the supplied history.