An Act to renumber and amend 114.045 (1) and 114.045 (3); to amend 114.045 (2); to create 114.045 (1b), 114.045 (1m) (b) and 114.045 (3) (b) of the statutes; Relating to: the operation of drones over school property and providing a penalty.
AB530 revises Wisconsin’s drone-restriction statute to add specific limits on operating drones over school property, while also renumbering and updating existing provisions that already prohibit drone flights over correctional institutions. The bill defines key terms such as public school, private school, tribal school, and public protective services agency, and it generally bars drone operation over school property when the school is open for instruction or when the property is being used for a school-approved event.
The bill creates exceptions allowing drone use with express authorization from the school’s governing authority, or at the direction of law enforcement or emergency responders for specified public-safety purposes. Those purposes include active search and rescue, locating escaped prisoners, surveillance for executing an arrest warrant, and situations involving imminent danger to a person or imminent destruction of evidence. It also requires school boards or other governing bodies to respond to authorization requests within five business days and maintains a forfeiture penalty of up to $5,000 for violations.
AB530 amends Wisconsin Statutes section 114.045 by expanding the state’s drone-no-fly restrictions from correctional institutions to school property and by adding procedures for authorization and evidence handling. It affects drone operators, school districts, private schools, tribal schools, law enforcement, sheriffs, fire and EMS agencies, and the Department of Corrections or other correctional authorities. The bill also clarifies how seized drone-captured images or data are to be transferred or retained depending on whether the violation involves a correctional institution or school property.
The available record shows no committee transcript and no recorded votes, so there is no direct evidence of debate or opposition in the provided materials. Based on the bill text, the measure appears to be framed as a public-safety and school-security bill, with a practical carveout for emergency and law-enforcement uses. The absence of recorded controversy suggests the bill may have moved without documented public disagreement in the materials provided.
The main potential points of contention are the scope of the drone ban over school property, the breadth of the exceptions for law enforcement and emergency use, and the requirement that school governing bodies respond to authorization requests within five business days. Supporters would likely emphasize student privacy, school safety, and preventing disruptive surveillance, while critics could raise concerns about operational burdens on schools, ambiguity in emergency exceptions, or limits on lawful drone use for journalism, research, or other noncriminal purposes. Because no transcripts or votes are included, these are inferred issues rather than documented objections.