HB1726 amends Virginia’s trespass statute for unmanned aircraft systems (drones) to expand criminal penalties for certain unauthorized drone activity. The bill makes it a Class 1 misdemeanor to knowingly and intentionally use a drone to enter another person’s property and come within 50 feet of a dwelling house to coerce, intimidate, or harass, or after notice to desist for any other reason. It also continues to prohibit drone takeoffs or landings that violate FAA Special Security Instructions or UAS Security Sensitive Airspace Restrictions, and it covers drone activity involving correctional facilities by criminalizing the dropping of items or capturing images of identifiable inmates or residents at state or local correctional facilities or juvenile correctional centers.
The bill adds a new, more serious offense for drone intrusions involving defense-related sites. A person who knowingly, intentionally, and without authorization causes a drone to enter a contracted defense facility and obtains or attempts to obtain images containing or revealing controlled technical information commits a Class 4 felony. The bill defines “contracted defense facility” broadly to include manufacturing, engineering, and related facilities performing work on U.S. Department of Defense assets under federal contract, and it defines “controlled technical information” by reference to federal defense acquisition rules. It also grants immunity from criminal prosecution and civil liability to owners, operators, and employees of such facilities when they take non-injurious steps to prevent, stop, deter, interrupt, or repel a drone intrusion.
In practical terms, the bill amends § 18.2-121.3 of the Code of Virginia and strengthens the state’s drone trespass law by adding a defense-facility-specific felony provision and clarifying protections for facility personnel who respond to drone incursions. It also carries a fiscal note indicating the measure may increase incarceration or juvenile commitment periods, with an estimated minimum fiscal impact assigned because the exact cost cannot be determined.
The overall sentiment around the bill appears strongly supportive and noncontroversial. It advanced through subcommittee, committee, and floor votes in both chambers with unanimous or near-unanimous support, including 97-0 and 99-0 votes in the House and 36-0 in the Senate, and the Senate substitute was agreed to by the House. The voting record suggests broad bipartisan agreement that the bill addresses privacy, security, and facility-protection concerns associated with drone use.
The main policy focus and likely point of concern is balancing drone security enforcement with lawful drone operations and federal aviation rules. The bill preserves exceptions for consent and for federally authorized lawful operations, which helps limit its reach, but it also expands criminal liability and grants broad immunity to defense-facility personnel responding to drones. The inclusion of contracted defense facilities and controlled technical information indicates a particular concern about industrial espionage, sensitive military-related information, and protection of critical defense infrastructure.
HB1726 amends Code of Virginia § 18.2-121.3 to expand the state’s drone trespass law. It creates a new Class 4 felony for unauthorized drone entry into a contracted defense facility when the operator obtains or attempts to obtain images revealing controlled technical information, while retaining existing Class 1 misdemeanor penalties for certain drone trespass, harassment, correctional-facility, and airspace-violation conduct. The bill also provides immunity from criminal and civil liability for defense-facility owners, operators, and employees who take non-injurious steps to stop or repel drone intrusions. It may increase incarceration or juvenile commitment costs.
The bill appears to have enjoyed broad, bipartisan support throughout the legislative process. Committee and floor votes were unanimous or nearly unanimous in both chambers, and the House agreed to the Senate substitute without opposition. The voting pattern suggests the measure was viewed as a targeted public-safety and security update rather than a controversial expansion of criminal law.
There is little evidence of major opposition in the available record, but the bill’s most notable policy tension is between security enforcement and lawful drone use. The statute preserves exceptions for consent and federally authorized operations, indicating concern about not overreaching into legitimate aviation activity. The new felony provision and immunity for defense-facility personnel could raise questions about the scope of protected facilities, what counts as controlled technical information, and how broadly facility operators may act to repel drones without causing injury.