The Homeowner Privacy Protection Act (AB 239) aims to balance privacy protections and public safety related to unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs or drones) in Nevada. The bill defines key terms like aircraft, operator, and UAV. It prohibits weaponizing UAVs and operating them near critical facilities without consent. The bill also establishes that low-altitude UAV flights can be considered trespassing and requires warrants for UAV surveillance of homes. It creates exceptions for emergencies and allows public agencies to use UAVs with registration. The bill aims to provide clarity on UAV rights and responsibilities while protecting homeowners' privacy.

1. The Homeowner Privacy Protection Act
AB 239
Assemblyman Elliot Anderson
Source: Cumberlink.com Source: ivn.us
Source: Katu.com

2. Goals of The Homeowner Privacy
Protection Act
Balance our privacy with the economic and physical
security of our state by:
-Protecting the privacy of Nevadans;
-Providing clarity of rights and responsibilities to
businesses and hobbyists operating in our state;
-Allowing law enforcement to utilize this technology to
keep Nevadans safe;
-Making Nevadans comfortable with this technology.

3. Why Nevada Needs The Homeowner
Privacy Protection Act
UAVs can be a very
valuable technology
for our state.
Current law does not
address UAVs well.
Many states have
already regulated.
The public is
concerned about
abuse of this
technology.
Graphic Source:
Sakiyama, Mari et al., “Nevada vs. U.S. Residents’ Attitudes Toward
Surveillance Using Aerial Drones.” UNLV Center for Crime and Justice
Policy. December 2014. Web. 17 March 2015

4. With technology
developing at such a
rapid pace, it is
becoming more
affordable to own a
small UAV.
A small UAV can
actually be purchased
for about the price of
an Ipad 3 Mini at any
Apple Store.

5. Definitions
Section 23
TERM DEFINITION
Aircraft [Sub. 1] Includes an unmanned aerial vehicle under the definition of
“aircraft” alongside a balloon, airplane, hydroplane.
Critical Facility [Sub.2] Facilities involved in energy or chemical production,
transportation, storage, or processing, a power station, plant, or
transmission line, jail, and facilities and institutions under control
of the Department of Corrections.
Department [Sub. 3] The Department of Public Safety.
Law Enforcement Agency (LEA)
[Sub. 4]
An agency, office, bureau, board, commission, department or
division of this State, the primary duty of which is to enforce the
law.
Operator [Sub. 5] A person who operates an unmanned aerial vehicle.
Passenger [Sub. 6] A person riding in an aircraft having no part in its operation.
Public Agency [Sub. 7] An agency, office, bureau, board, commission, department or
division of this State, other than an LEA.
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)
[Sub. 8]
A powered aircraft of any size without a human operator aboard
the vehicle, that is operated remotely or autonomously

6. Provision Regarding Weapons
Section 18
• Section 18 prohibits the weaponizing of UAVs and operating a
weaponized UAV.
• Lethal or non-lethal weapons attached to a UAV are left for
combat zones, not a civilian environment.
• A person in violation of Section 18 will be guilty of a Category
D felony.
• If the weapon is discharged, it becomes a Category C felony.
• This has actually happened...

7. Provision Regarding Critical Facilities
Section 18.5
• Persons may not operate a UAV within 500 horizontal
distance, or 250 vertical distance, of a critical facility
without written consent of the facility owner
• A UAV cannot be operated within 5 miles of an airport
unless:
– the person has consent of the airport authority or operator
– the person has a waiver or exemption pursuant to FAA
regulations
• Violation of this section is punishable by a
misdemeanor

8. Provision Regarding Trespassing
Section 19
• A UAV flying less than 250 feet over a property may be
considered to be trespassing the over the property. The
owner or occupant may then file a cause of action for trespass
against the owner or operator of the UAV, only if they have
warned the trespasser.
• Exceptions: It will not be considered ‘trespass’ if (1) the UAV is
lawfully in the flight path for landing at an airport, airfield, or
runway, (2) the UAV is taking off or landing, or (3) the UAV
was under the lawful operation by a law enforcement agency
(4) FAA licensed business exception that does not interfere
with the reasonable use of real property

9. Homeowner Protections from the
Government
Section 20
• Abrogates the plain-view doctrine for the curtilage of a residence
for aerial observation by a UAV. A warrant is required for any UAV
surveillance of place a person has a reasonable expectation of
privacy (current 4th Amendment law) or curtilage of a residence
(stronger than 4th Amendment law).
• This generally will only apply to a residence or the backyard of a
residence.
• Warrants may NOT be authorized for more than 10 days.
• Images, photos, or recordings taken by an LEA, public agency, or
Federal Government agency in violation of Section 20 will NOT be
admissible as evidence in state court and may NOT be used to
establish suspicion or probable cause.

10. Exceptions (no warrant required)
Section 20 Subsection 3
Section 20 is designed to prevent abusive dragnet surveillance operations. It is not meant to
allow criminals to escape liability on mere technicalities:
EXCEPTION DESCRIPTION
(a) Probable Cause No warrant required if LEA has probable cause that a person has
committed, is committing, or about to commit a crime.
(b) Written Consent No warrant required if person gives written consent to LEA, specifying time,
place, manner, and information that may be gathered.
(c) Search and Rescue No warrant required if persons or property are in distress, operations may
be conducted without a warrant.
(d) Imminent Threat to Life
or Safety
No warrant required if LEA believes imminent threat exists (including act of
terrorism). LEA must file sworn statement to a judge with the basis for the
imminent threat within 2 business days of beginning the operation.
(e) State of Emergency or
Disaster
No warrant required if the Governor declares state of emergency or
disaster. LEA may only use within the designated area for the purposes of
public safety, protection of property, or assessment of disaster.

11. Provisions Regarding Public Agencies
Sections 21-22
Section 21
• A public agency may
operate a UAV after
registering it with the
Department of Public
Safety (DPS). The UAV
must be operated
according to the
regulations adopted by
the Department.
• Public agencies may NOT
use UAV's for the purpose
of law enforcement
Section 22
• To the extent resources are available,
The DPS shall maintain a registry of
UAVs being operated by public
agencies. The registry must be made
available on its public website.
• Transparency.
• The DPS shall adopt regulations for UAV
operation by public agencies including:
– fire services
– emergency medical services
– protection of critical facilities
– search & rescue operations

12. Conforming Sections
Sections 22.5, 24.2, & 24.6
• Section 22.5 - Adds Sections 18-22 of this act
to NRS 493.010, or Uniform State Law for
Aeronautics
• Section 24.2 - Flight of an aircraft, including a
UAV, is lawful unless specifically prohibited by
Sections 18-22
• Section 24.6 - Provisions of this bill defer to
federal laws and regulations, within the scope
of federal constitutional authority

13. Provisions Regarding Responsible Use
Sections 24.4 & 24.8
• Section 24.4 - prohibits trick/acrobatic flying, low-level
flying, or dropping an object over a heavily populated area
or public gathering with willful indifference and reckless
disregard for safety
– Punishable by a misdemeanor
– Exception for Hobbyists: Provision does NOT apply to parks
unless reckless disregard for safety of other persons
– Exception for Businesses: Dropping only problematic if done in a
reckless manner
• Section 24.8 - prohibits operation of an aircraft while
intoxicated or in a reckless manner which endangers life or
property of another
– Punishable by a gross misdemeanor

14. New Rules for New Technology
• “Modern [forms of] technology are making it easier and easier
for both government and private entities to amass a wealth of
information about the lives of ordinary Americans...”
• “In light of these developments, it would be very unfortunate if
privacy protection in the 21st century were left primarily to the
federal courts using the blunt instrument of the Fourth
Amendment. Legislatures, elected by the people, are in a
better position than we are to assess and respond to the
changes that have already occurred and those that almost
certainly will take place in the future. ” (emphasis added)
-Justice Samuel Alito, George W. Bush Appointee to the Supreme
Court of the United States. Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473, 2497-98, (2014)