Proyectos de ley › 90.ª Asamblea General
Prohibiting the use of remotely piloted aircraft flying over certain property, and providing penalties
Presentado por el comité Agriculture (companion To Sf 369 By Sweeney) de la Cámara
Dónde está ahora
- Hecho: Presentado22 de febrero de 2023
- Hecho: Subcomité23 de febrero de 2023
- Hecho: Comité de la Cámara28 de febrero de 2023
- Hecho: Lo aprueba la Cámara11 de abril de 202387–10
- Hecho: Comité del Senado6 de febrero de 2024
- Hecho: Lo aprueba el Senado2 de abril de 202449–0
- Hecho: A gobernador(a)23 de abril de 2024
- Hecho: Firmado como ley3 de mayo de 2024
Firmado como ley ¿Qué es el embudo (funnel)?
Qué contiene
Resumen con IA People would be banned from flying drones over someone's home or certain farm areas where animals are kept. It is against the law to fly a drone into these spaces or use one equipped with a camera to watch people or animals. If someone breaks these rules, they could face criminal charges or be ordered by a court to stop. (Todavía no está traducido al español.)1
Lea la explicación oficial (en inglés)
GENERAL. This bill prohibits the use of remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) flying over a homestead or that part of a farmstead where agricultural animals are kept (secured farmstead area). TERMS. An RPA refers to a self-propelled vehicle used for navigation and flight, is controlled by the use of an electronic system, and is not designed to carry a human. A homestead includes a dwelling owned or leased by a person that is used as the principal residence for a person and includes up to 400 feet of surrounding property owned or leased by that person. A secure farmstead area refers to an open feedlot, building, or other structure and includes up to 400 feet of surrounding property. A surveillance device refers to a camera or electronic equipment that transmits or records images, sounds, or data; and that is capable of reasonably identifying an individual, agricultural animal, or unique physical characteristics of land or an improvement. CRIMINAL OFFENSES. The bill creates two related criminal offenses. A person commits intrusion by the use of an RPA (intrusion) by knowingly controlling the flight of an RPA over a homestead or secure farmstead area and a person commits surveillance by the use of an RPA (surveillance) by controlling the flight of an RPA equipped with a surveillance device over those same locations. In each case, a criminal penalty is enhanced if a person has been previously convicted of either offense. In the case of a person committing intrusion, the penalty is a simple misdemeanor subject to an enhanced penalty of a serious misdemeanor and in the case of a person committing surveillance the penalty is a serious misdemeanor subject to an enhanced penalty of an aggravated misdemeanor. A simple misdemeanor is punishable by confinement for no more than days and a fine of at least $105 but not more than $855. A serious misdemeanor is punishable by confinement for no more than one year and a fine of at least $430 but not more than $2,560. An aggravated misdemeanor is punishable by confinement for no more than two years and a fine of at least $855 but not more than $8,540. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF —— HARASSMENT. An owner or lessee of a homestead or secure farmstead area may bring a case in district court as a petitioner in equity seeking to obtain a temporary injunction to prevent the other party as the respondent from harassing the petitioner by controlling the flight of an RPA over the petitioner’s homestead or secure farmstead area. The temporary injunction is for not more than two years but is subject to a court ordered continuance. A successful petitioner may be awarded court costs, attorney fees, and expenses. EXCEPTIONS. The bill’s provisions do not apply to a number of persons including a person acting with the consent of the owner of the homestead or secure farmstead area, a unit of government, a public utility, a person who controls the flight of an RPA more than 400 feet from the earth’s surface, or a person who controls the flight of an RPA for the purpose of collecting information regarding weather or climate conditions.
Cambiado después por las enmiendas H-1202, H-1159, H-1147; vea Enmiendas.
Texto completo del proyecto (en inglés) · Qué cambió antes de aprobarse2
Senate subcommittee
Named January 8, 2024. On February 1, 2024 it recommended passage. [].
Three legislators hear a bill first and recommend what the committee should do; it’s the best time to weigh in. How to take part
3 comentarios públicos por escrito a su subcomité: 31 de enero de 2024 (1), 28 de febrero de 2023 (1), 23 de febrero de 2023 (1) · en el sitio de la Legislatura
Nota fiscal
Can’t be estimated Compare con otros proyectos
Resumen con IA This bill creates new criminal offenses for using drones to intrude upon or surveil a person's homestead or secure farmstead area. The fiscal impact cannot be estimated because there is a lack of existing conviction data. The estimated impact to the State General Fund would include operating costs for the Judicial Branch, the Indigent Defense Fund, and the Department of Corrections. (en inglés)3
Lea la nota fiscal (en inglés)
Description
House File 572 establishes the following offenses, provides penalties, and provides for exceptions to the offenses:
- Intrusion by the use of a remotely piloted aircraft (RPA).
- Surveillance by the use of an RPA.
A person commits intrusion by the use of an RPA if the person knowingly controls the flight of an RPA over a homestead or a secure farmstead area, if the homestead or secure farmstead area is not owned or leased by the person, and the RPA remains over the homestead or secure farmstead area. The penalty is a simple misdemeanor, or a serious misdemeanor if the person has previously been convicted of this offense or surveillance by the use of an RPA. A person commits surveillance by the use of an RPA if the person knowingly controls the flight of an RPA equipped with a surveillance device over a homestead or secure farmstead area, if the homestead or secure farmstead area is not owned or leased by the person, and the RPA remains over the homestead or secure farmstead area. The penalty is a serious misdemeanor, or an aggravated misdemeanor if the person has previously been convicted of this offense or intrusion by the use of an RPA.
The Bill also provides for injunctive relief for a person being harassed by another person who is controlling the flight of an RPA equipped with a surveillance device over the person’s homestead or secure farmstead area.
Background
An aggravated misdemeanor is punishable by confinement for up to two years and a fine of at least $855 but not more than $8,540. A serious misdemeanor is punishable by confinement for up to one year and a fine of at least $430 but not more than $2,560. A simple misdemeanor is punishable by confinement for up to 30 days and a fine of at least $105 but not more than $855.
Assumptions
- The following will not change over the projection period: charge, conviction, and sentencing patterns and trends; prisoner length of stay (LOS); revocation rates; plea bargaining; and other criminal justice system policies and practices.
- A lag effect of six months is assumed from the effective date of this Bill to the date of first entry of affected offenders into the correctional system.
- Marginal costs for county jails cannot be estimated due to a lack of data. For purposes of this analysis, the marginal cost for county jails is assumed to be $50 per day.
Correctional Impact
House File 572 creates new criminal offenses, and the correctional impact cannot be estimated for the Bill due to a lack of existing conviction data. Figure 1 shows estimates for sentencing to State prison, parole, probation, or Community-Based Corrections (CBC) residential facilities; LOS under those supervisions; and supervision marginal costs per day for all convictions of aggravated misdemeanors and serious misdemeanors. A conviction for a simple misdemeanor does not result in a prison sentence but carries the possibility of confinement for up to 30 days. Marginal county jail costs are estimated to be $50 per day. Refer to the Legislative Services Agency (LSA) memo addressed to the General Assembly, Cost Estimates Used for Correctional Impact Statements, dated January 16, 2024, for information related to the correctional system. Figure 1 — Sentencing Estimates and LOS
Minority Impact
House File 572 establishes new offenses. As a result, Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning (CJJP) of the Department of Management cannot use existing data to estimate the minority impact of the Bill. Refer to the LSA memo addressed to the General Assembly, Minority Impact Statement, dated January 16, 2024, for information related to minorities in the criminal justice system.
Fiscal Impact
House File 572 establishes new offenses, and the fiscal impact cannot be estimated due to a lack of existing conviction data. Figure 2 below shows the average State cost per offense for an aggravated misdemeanor, serious misdemeanor, and simple misdemeanor. The estimated impact to the State General Fund includes operating costs incurred by the Judicial Branch, the Indigent Defense Fund, and the Department of Corrections (DOC). The cost would be incurred across multiple fiscal years for prison and parole supervision.
Figure 2 — Average State Cost Per Offense
Sources
- Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning, Department of Management
- Department of Corrections
- Legislative Services Agency
- Final Fiscal Note — Trespassing by Drone, Agricultural Buildings, Feedlots, and Homes · 3 de mayo de 2024
- Trespassing by Drone, Agricultural Buildings, Feedlots, and Homes · 13 de abril de 2023
- Trespassing by Drone, Agricultural Buildings, Feedlots, and Homes · 14 de marzo de 2023
- Trespassing by Drone, Agricultural Buildings, Feedlots, and Homes · 13 de marzo de 2023
Lo que cambia del Código de Iowa (Iowa Code)
Cabildeo
3 a favor · 5 en contra · 32 indecisos · Quiénes →