Trespass with an unmanned aircraft system; contracted defense facility, penalty.
SB757 amends Virginia’s trespass law for unmanned aircraft systems (drones). It 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 to continue such entry after being told to stop for any other reason. The bill also keeps existing prohibitions on drone takeoff or landing in violation of FAA Special Security Instructions or UAS Security Sensitive Airspace Restrictions, and on dropping items or capturing images of identifiable inmates or residents at state or local correctional facilities or juvenile correctional centers.
A major new provision creates a Class 4 felony for knowingly and intentionally, without authorization, using a drone to enter a contracted defense facility and obtain or attempt to obtain videographic or still images containing or revealing controlled technical information. The bill defines “contracted defense facility” broadly to include facilities doing Department of Defense-related work 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 reasonable actions to prevent, stop, deter, interrupt, or repel a drone, so long as no injury results.
The bill’s legal effect is to expand Virginia’s drone-trespass statute and increase penalties for certain drone intrusions, especially those involving defense-related facilities. It also creates a new statutory protection for defense contractors and their employees who intervene against unauthorized drones. The fiscal note states the measure may increase incarceration or juvenile commitment periods, with an indeterminate appropriation impact and a minimum fiscal impact assignment of $50,000 under Virginia sentencing rules.
The overall sentiment reflected in the voting history is strongly supportive and noncontroversial. The bill advanced unanimously through Senate committees, passed the Senate 38-0, and passed the House 95-0. No committee transcript excerpts were provided, but the unanimous votes suggest broad bipartisan agreement on strengthening drone-related trespass protections and security around sensitive facilities.
The main point of contention, based on the text rather than recorded debate, would likely be the balance between security and drone use rights: the bill broadens criminal liability for drone operators and gives defense-facility personnel legal immunity when responding to intrusions. However, the unanimous votes indicate that any such concerns did not generate visible opposition in the legislative process.
SB757 amends § 18.2-121.3 of the Code of Virginia to add a felony offense for unauthorized drone entry into contracted defense facilities to capture or attempt to capture controlled technical information, while preserving and clarifying existing misdemeanor trespass provisions involving dwellings, correctional facilities, and restricted airspace. It also creates immunity from criminal and civil liability for defense-facility owners, operators, and employees who take non-injurious steps to repel drones. The bill may increase criminal justice costs and incarceration commitments, and the fiscal note assigns a minimum fiscal impact of $50,000.
The bill appears to have enjoyed broad, bipartisan support and little visible opposition. It was reported unanimously from Senate committees, passed the Senate 38-0, and passed the House 95-0. The vote pattern suggests legislators viewed the measure as a targeted public-safety and security update rather than a controversial policy change.
No recorded committee transcript was provided, and the unanimous votes suggest no major public disagreement during consideration. The most likely areas of concern are the expanded criminal penalties for drone operators, the broad definition of contracted defense facility, and the immunity granted to facility personnel who interfere with drones. Those issues could raise questions about enforcement boundaries, privacy, and the scope of authorized defensive action, but they did not appear to divide lawmakers in the available record.