C-UAS Regulatory Authority Tracker

DoD's primary counter-UAS authority, lets the military detect, track, and mitigate drones threatening covered DoD facilities and assets. Originated in the FY2018 NDAA (Sec. 1692). A partial termination affecting certain covered-asset categories is set for December 31, 2026 (the President may extend it 180 days on a national-security certification before November 15, 2026). The FY2026 NDAA added a public annual-use reporting requirement and directed review of how the military departments interpret the authority.

FY2026 NDAA provision providing DOE's current counter-UAS authority for nuclear sites: detect, identify, monitor/track, intercept control communications, warn, and disrupt, seize, or disable a threatening drone; directs DOE and DOT to issue implementing regulations. Replaced the prior DOE authority at 50 U.S.C. § 2661, which the same FY2026 NDAA repealed. DOE is one of the four federal C-UAS agencies, alongside DoD (§ 130i) and DHS/DOJ (§ 124n).

The FAA's counter-UAS authority, but narrow: limited to FAA testing and evaluation of detection and mitigation systems at five airports (initial testing at Atlantic City, then Syracuse, Rickenbacker, Huntsville, and Seattle-Tacoma), and it cannot be delegated. Section 44810(a) requires the FAA to coordinate with DoD, DHS, and other agencies so C-UAS systems don't interfere with safe airport operations or the national airspace system. The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 (§ 904) extended this testing authority through September 30, 2028.

DOE's counter-UAS authority from 2016 to 2025, let the Secretary of Energy detect, track, and mitigate drones threatening covered nuclear facilities and assets (those owned by or contracted to the US to store or use special nuclear material). Repealed by the FY2026 NDAA (P.L. 119-60), which replaced it with new DOE nuclear-site authority (NDAA § 3111). Retained here as the predecessor authority for lineage.

The central US federal C-UAS authority, lets DHS and DOJ detect, track, and mitigate drones over covered facilities and assets despite other federal laws. Lapsed briefly during the October 2025 government shutdown, then reauthorized through the FY2026 NDAA; currently set to expire September 30, 2031.

The directly counter-UAS executive order. E.O. 14305 sets U.S. policy to protect the public, critical infrastructure, mass-gathering events, and military/sensitive sites from careless or unlawful UAS use, and establishes a Federal Task Force to Restore American Airspace Sovereignty (chaired by the National Security Advisor) to review operational, technical, and regulatory frameworks and propose solutions to UAS threats. It directs agencies to use existing authorities to detect, track, and identify drones and their signals (consistent with the Fourth Amendment); revise the August 2020 advisory guidance; have the FAA share real-time Remote ID data with SLTT agencies; let DOJ/DHS grant programs fund SLTT detection/tracking equipment; publish guidance for private critical-infrastructure owners; weigh designating borders, major airports, federal facilities, critical infrastructure, and military installations as covered assets; and explore folding counter-UAS responses into Joint Terrorism Task Forces for mass gatherings (with the 2026 World Cup and 2028 Olympics in view). An executive order directs agencies but does not itself grant new mitigation authority, that still flows from §§ 124n/130i. H.R. 4590 (119th) would codify it.

The industrial-base companion to E.O. 14305. E.O. 14307 directs fast-tracked federal action to build a 'strong and secure domestic drone sector', the FAA to enable routine Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) operations for commercial and public-safety missions and publish an updated UAS-integration roadmap, agencies to prioritize U.S.-manufactured drones over foreign-built ones, and Commerce to promote civil-drone exports. Less a counter-UAS measure than a supply-chain/airspace-integration order, but relevant to the tracker because it reshapes which systems agencies and operators may buy and how they may fly, and it pairs with the December 2025 FCC ban on new foreign-made drones. Directive only; no mitigation authority. Costs of publication borne by DOT.

Most recent reauthorization of §124n, extends DHS/DOJ C-UAS authority to September 30, 2031 and, for the first time, directs rulemaking to authorize state, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement and correctional agencies to conduct C-UAS activities.

Bipartisan standalone reauthorization and reform bill, approved by the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee. Sets C-UAS training standards and establishes the first-ever Counter-UAS Mitigation Law Enforcement Pilot Program. Its path is now uncertain because the FY2026 NDAA carried the reauthorization instead.

Alabama has no comprehensive statewide drone statute. Restrictions exist only at the local level (some cities limit drone use over municipal property or parks), with privacy/trespass under general law. No critical-infrastructure, correctional, surveillance, or mitigation statute. Documented gap.

Alaska is counted among the states requiring law enforcement to follow warrant/policy standards before using drones for surveillance, a framework set up through 2014 legislation (HB 255) directing the Department of Public Safety to adopt UAS procedures, alongside a legislative UAS task force. Wildlife-take-by-aircraft rules also restrict drone-assisted hunting. No critical-infrastructure or correctional restriction and no mitigation grant. Marked Reported pending a pinned primary citation.

Arizona's core drone statute. Using a drone to intentionally photograph or loiter over/near a critical facility in furtherance of a crime (§ 13-3729(B)) is a Class 6 felony (Class 5 on repeat); critical facilities expressly include power plants, refineries, jails/prisons, military installations, hospitals with air-ambulance service, and sports arenas/stadiums. Interfering with law enforcement or emergency services via drone is a Class 1 misdemeanor. The statute preempts local drone rules statewide (cities may only regulate takeoff/landing in their own parks). Restriction/criminal law; no mitigation-authority grant.

Arkansas's primary drone statute. Knowingly using a drone to surveil, gather information about, or record critical infrastructure without the owner's prior written consent (§ 5-60-103) is a criminal offense, plus civil liability (actual damages or $10,000, trebled for monetary gain, under § 16-118-111). Critical infrastructure includes electrical power generation/delivery and similar facilities. Exemptions cover the owner's own property, federal/state government use (after consultation with the Governor), FAA-authorized operations, and law-enforcement/emergency-management use. Restriction/surveillance law; no mitigation-authority grant.

California's prison/jail drone law. Knowingly operating a drone on or above the grounds of a state prison, jail, or juvenile hall/camp/ranch (Penal Code § 4577) is an infraction ($500 fine); using a wireless device such as a drone to deliver items to an inmate (§ 4576) is a separate offense. Unlike Texas/Florida/Arizona, California has no broad critical-infrastructure drone statute and is a non-preemption state, local governments can add their own drone ordinances. Privacy is handled via Civil Code § 1708.8; § 402 covers interfering with emergency personnel. Restriction/criminal law; no mitigation-authority grant.

Colorado has no comprehensive statewide drone statute. It has studied UAS through CDOT and a task force, and Colorado Parks & Wildlife/State Parks require permits for certain drone activity, but there is no statewide criminal restriction on critical-infrastructure or correctional overflight and no law-enforcement-use statute. General trespass and privacy law applies. Documented gap.

Connecticut studied drones via a state task force but has not enacted a comprehensive UAS statute. Proposals to ban weaponized drones and require law-enforcement warrants have repeatedly been introduced without becoming a broad operative law. Privacy and trespass are handled under general law. No enacted critical-infrastructure, correctional, surveillance, or mitigation statute. Documented gap.

Delaware's single primary drone statute. Knowingly operating a drone over (1) an event with more than 1,500 attendees, (2) critical infrastructure, or (3) a scene where first responders are actively engaged is unlawful (§ 1334), an unclassified misdemeanor for a first offense, class B for a repeat, class A if injury or property damage results. 'Critical infrastructure' is defined broadly: refineries, chemical/fuel storage, power plants, military facilities, ports, rail yards, water treatment, correctional facilities, and government buildings. Section 1334(e) is a strong preemption clause, only the State may regulate UAS operation, barring local ordinances. Restriction/criminal law; no mitigation-authority grant.

Florida's drone framework is notably strict. Operating a drone over a critical infrastructure facility (§ 330.41(4)) is a third-degree felony, tougher than Texas's misdemeanor. The state preempts local in-air drone rules (§ 330.411) and bans weaponized drones. The Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act (§ 934.50, since 2015) limits private and law-enforcement drone surveillance (warrant generally required). A 2025 rewrite (HB 1121 / SB 1422) revised the critical-infrastructure definition, raised penalties, and added authority for certain persons to use reasonable force against a drone conducting unlawful surveillance. Restriction/privacy law, not a general mitigation-authority grant.

Georgia's drone enforcement centers on prisons. Using a drone to deliver or attempt to deliver contraband to a place of incarceration is a felony (1–5 years); photographing a place of incarceration without the warden's written permission is a misdemeanor (O.C.G.A. §§ 42-5-18, 42-5-19). The state preempts local drone regulation (§ 6-1-4), and HB 58 restricts drones near ticketed events. Enforcement is heavy, Georgia has logged 1,000+ prison drone incidents since 2022. Restriction/criminal law; no mitigation-authority grant. (March 2026: Georgia's AG led a 21-state coalition urging federal authority for state/local prison drone interdiction.)

Hawaii has no comprehensive statewide drone statute. Restrictions are localized, drone use is limited at certain state parks and cultural sites, and the state has otherwise focused on UAS test-site and economic-development activity plus study efforts. No critical-infrastructure, correctional, surveillance, or mitigation statute. Documented gap.

Idaho enacted one of the earliest state drone laws (2013). Section 21-213 takes a privacy-and-civil-liability approach rather than a criminal one: it bars using a drone to conduct surveillance of, gather information about, or photograph 'specifically targeted' persons or private property without a warrant or written consent, and bars capturing images of people for the purpose of publication without consent. Enforcement is a private civil cause of action with damages. Exceptions cover emergency response, search and rescue, controlled-substance investigations, and routine government uses (traffic/accident documentation, event traffic management, disaster assessment, training); facility owners may inspect their own facilities. No critical-infrastructure criminal restriction and no mitigation grant.

Illinois regulates the government side, not private operators. The Freedom from Drone Surveillance Act bars a law-enforcement agency from using a drone to gather information except under enumerated exceptions: a § 108-3 search warrant (capped at 45 days, renewable), a 48-hour exigency for imminent harm or imminent escape/evidence destruction, missing-person/search-and-rescue, geographically confined crime- or crash-scene photography, declared-disaster response, or a DHS-certified terrorism risk. Information gathered must generally be destroyed within 30 days. A warrant/oversight model rather than a critical-infrastructure or correctional restriction.

Indiana's drone law centers on privacy and public-safety offenses. 'Remote aerial voyeurism', flying a UAV with intent to peep into another's occupied dwelling (§ 35-45-4-5), is a Class A misdemeanor, rising to a Level 6 felony for a repeat or if the operator publishes/shares the material. SB 299 added more Class A misdemeanors (Level 6 felony on repeat): a sex-offender UAV offense, public-safety remote aerial interference, and remote aerial harassment. Law-enforcement drone use requires a warrant (§ 35-33-5-9), with an accident-scene exception. Indiana also restricts flights near prisons and critical infrastructure and is a preemption state. Restriction/privacy law; no mitigation-authority grant.

Iowa's drone-specific criminal provision (§ 719.9) prohibits operating an unmanned aerial vehicle in, on, or above a 'facility', defined as a county jail, municipal holding facility, secure juvenile detention facility, community-based correctional facility, or any institution managed by the Department of Corrections. It is the state's primary UAS criminal statute, aimed at the contraband-and-surveillance threat to correctional facilities. Restriction/criminal law; no mitigation-authority grant.

Kansas has no dedicated drone-restriction statute; instead it folded drones into existing harassment law. The Protection from Stalking Act (K.S.A. § 60-31a02) defines 'harassment' to include a course of conduct carried out via a drone over or near a dwelling, occupied vehicle, or any place where a person reasonably expects to be safe from uninvited surveillance, letting victims seek a civil protective order. Separately, using a drone to hunt, scout, or locate wildlife is prohibited (K.S.A. § 32-1003 and related). No critical-infrastructure or correctional restriction and no mitigation grant, Kansas is otherwise one of the more drone-permissive states.

Kentucky pairs an infrastructure-trespass rule with an aviation-safety rule. Flying a drone over key infrastructure, power plants, correctional facilities, military bases, energy installations, with intent to cause harm/damage or to conduct surveillance without the owner's consent (§ 511.100) is a Class B misdemeanor on a first offense, Class A on a repeat. Separately, HB 540 lets commercial airports publish UAS facility maps and bars reckless operation that risks serious injury or property damage, a Class A misdemeanor, or a Class D felony if it seriously disrupts the safe travel of an aircraft. FAA-compliant commercial operators are exempt from the reckless-operation provision. Restriction/criminal law; no mitigation-authority grant.

First state to grant state and local law enforcement direct authority to take mitigation measures (detect, track, intercept, disable) against drones operating in a "nefarious manner." Passed both chambers unanimously, signed 2025-06-18, effective 2025-08-01. Notable because active mitigation by non-federal agencies historically sat in legal tension with federal law; Louisiana moved ahead of the federal state, local and tribal expansion later enacted in the FY2026 NDAA (SAFER SKIES Act).

Maine takes a law-enforcement-oversight approach (LD 25, 2015). Police may not use a drone for a criminal investigation without a warrant or recognized exception, may not acquire one without governing-body approval, and must first adopt minimum standards set by the Maine Criminal Justice Academy; search-and-rescue and training are carved out. Weaponized police drones are flatly prohibited. The Commissioner of Public Safety reports drone deployments to the Legislature annually, and violations carry a private right of action (§ 4505). Warrant/oversight model with a weaponization ban; no critical-infrastructure restriction or mitigation grant.

Maryland is the cleanest example of pure preemption. The UAS Act of 2015 (Econ. Dev. § 14-301) reserves to the State alone the power to prohibit, restrict, or regulate the testing or operation of drones, and expressly preempts and supersedes any county or municipal drone ordinance. Maryland has no statewide criminal UAS-restriction statute and grants no mitigation authority, the operative effect is to centralize all drone regulation at the state level and void local rules. A preemption data point rather than a restriction or mitigation grant.

Massachusetts has no comprehensive statewide drone statute. Drone regulation occurs locally (municipal and agency rules, e.g., over certain public lands), with privacy/trespass under general law; repeated statewide bills have not produced an operative scheme. No critical-infrastructure, correctional, surveillance, or mitigation statute. Documented gap.

Bipartisan 15-bill package creating a statewide framework: designates power plants, correctional and law-enforcement facilities, and other critical infrastructure as no-drone zones; authorizes state detection and mitigation around government buildings; expands geofencing; bars state and local entities from buying drones with components from federally designated companies of concern; and creates a statewide drone registry. Reflects the state-level push to restrict drone operations around sensitive sites.

Minnesota's primary drone statute (§ 626.19) is a law-enforcement-use law rather than a critical-infrastructure/prison criminal statute. It requires a warrant for most law-enforcement UAV data collection, bars equipping a UAV with weapons, prohibits facial-recognition/biometric matching without a warrant, restricts surveillance of protests/demonstrations, and imposes documentation and case-tracking requirements. Other Minnesota provisions address drone use over correctional facilities. Regulatory/privacy law; no drone-mitigation authority granted.

Mississippi addresses drones primarily through its voyeurism law. Section 97-29-61 (the 'Peeping Tom' statute, amended by SB 2022) makes it a felony to use any instrumentality, drones expressly included, to view into a bedroom, bathroom, changing room, or any area where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, with intent to invade privacy: up to 5 years' imprisonment, or up to 10 years where the victim is a child under 16. A companion provision (§ 97-29-63) covers surreptitious photography. Separately, Mississippi's newer Title 61, ch. 21 framework authorizes recreational/commercial UAS operation and addresses civil liability, and § 97-47-7 authorizes law-enforcement and public-agency drone use for lawful purposes. Privacy/criminal model; no critical-infrastructure restriction or mitigation grant.

Missouri restricts drones over prisons and large venues, with payload-based felony tiers. Over a correctional center (§ 217.850), within 400 ft vertical of the secure perimeter fence or making contact, delivering a weapon is a Class B felony (5–15 yrs), facilitating escape a Class C felony, and delivering a controlled substance a Class D felony. Over an open-air facility seating 5,000+ (§ 577.800), a basic violation is an infraction but weapon delivery is a Class B felony. Law-enforcement surveillance requires a warrant (§ 542.525). Restriction/criminal law; no mitigation-authority grant.

Montana was an early mover (2013). Section 46-5-109 makes information from a drone inadmissible in any state prosecution or proceeding unless obtained under a search warrant, a judicially recognized warrant exception, or during investigation of a motor-vehicle crash on a public roadway, and bars using drone-derived information in a probable-cause affidavit outside those circumstances (a 2019 amendment added the crash-scene exception). A separate provision (§ 7-32-401) bars law enforcement from acquiring armored or weaponized drones through military surplus, and § 76-13-214 penalizes obstructing aerial wildfire suppression. A 2023 bill to restrict drones near critical infrastructure (HB 655) died in process, so Montana has no critical-infrastructure drone statute. Warrant/evidence-suppression model; no mitigation grant.

Nebraska has no comprehensive statewide drone statute. Drone misuse is addressed through general trespass and privacy law, and operators are advised to avoid correctional facilities and check local park rules, but there is no drone-specific critical-infrastructure, correctional, surveillance, or mitigation statute. Documented gap.

Nevada's drone framework (NRS Ch. 493). Operating a UAV within 500 ft horizontally or 250 ft vertically of a critical facility without the owner's written consent, or within 5 miles of an airport without consent/FAA authorization, is a misdemeanor (§ 493.109). Weaponizing a drone is prohibited, and discharging a weaponized drone is a category C felony (§ 493.106). Law-enforcement drone use requires a warrant in certain circumstances (§ 493.112). Restriction/criminal/privacy law; no mitigation-authority grant.

New Hampshire has no broad drone statute. Its only enacted UAS-specific provision, RSA 207:57, prohibits using a drone to surveil people who are lawfully hunting, fishing, or trapping, and a Fish & Game regulation (Fis 312) bars using a drone to locate game. No critical-infrastructure, correctional, or law-enforcement-use framework, and no mitigation authority. Included for completeness; wildlife-only.

New Jersey has some of the country's most aggressive drone-and-corrections penalties, plus an unusual 'drunk droning' rule. Endangering a correctional facility's security with a drone is a 4th-degree crime (up to 18 months, $10,000); conducting surveillance of a correctional facility escalates to a 3rd-degree crime (3–5 years, up to $15,000) under N.J.S.A. 2C:40-28. Operating a drone with a blood-alcohol content of 0.08%+, the same threshold as DUI, is a disorderly persons offense (2C:40-28(e)). The state has also banned drones in all state parks since 2015. Restriction/criminal law; no mitigation-authority grant.

New Mexico's enacted drone rule is on the wildlife side. Under State Game Commission regulation (NMAC § 19.31.10), it is unlawful to pursue, harass, drive, or rally a protected species with a drone, or to use a drone to locate, take, or relay the location of protected species, enforced via criminal sentencing and possible revocation of hunting licenses/permits. A 2026 bill, SB 136, would go much further by creating two new crimes: unlawful drone surveillance of a person, private property, or critical infrastructure (misdemeanor), and unlawful use near a critical-infrastructure facility, interfering with or contacting pipelines, power plants, prisons, military installations, or municipal airports (fourth-degree felony, up to 18 months). As of this entry SB 136 is pending, not enacted. No drone-mitigation authority granted.

New York has no comprehensive statewide drone statute; regulation is overwhelmingly local, New York City and many localities and agencies impose their own drone rules, with privacy, trespass, and reckless-endangerment handled under general law. No statewide critical-infrastructure, correctional, surveillance, or mitigation statute. Documented gap.

North Carolina's UAS framework. Interfering with a manned aircraft via drone (§ 14-280.3) is a Class H felony, the statute that applies if a drone disrupts a medevac helicopter or first-responder aircraft. Operating within 500 ft horizontally or 250 ft vertically of a confinement/correctional facility is prohibited (§ 15A-300.3), and delivering contraband to such a facility by drone is a Class I felony; a weaponized drone (§ 14-401.24) is a Class E felony. NC is a preemption state, state law governs UAS crimes in its airspace. Restriction/criminal law; no mitigation-authority grant.

North Dakota is the notable outlier on weaponization. Chapter 29-29.4, enacted by HB 1328 (2015), set a Fourth-Amendment warrant framework for law-enforcement drone surveillance, but during committee the all-weapons ban was narrowed to lethal weapons only, making North Dakota the first state to codify language that permits 'less than lethal' weapons (Tasers, rubber bullets, tear gas) on police drones. Law enforcement must generally obtain a warrant to use drone information in a proceeding, with exceptions for patrols within 25 miles of an international border, exigent circumstances, declared disasters, and training/research. Unique data point: the only state whose statute affirmatively leaves the door open to weaponized (non-lethal) police drones.

Ohio has no comprehensive statewide drone statute. The state has emphasized UAS research and airspace integration (through its UAS Center and related efforts) rather than restriction, and privacy/trespass are handled under general law. No critical-infrastructure, correctional, surveillance, or mitigation statute. Documented gap.

Oklahoma's critical-infrastructure drone law. Prohibits operating a drone over a critical-infrastructure facility below 400 ft AGL, making contact with it, or coming close enough to interfere with or cause a disturbance to the facility. 'Critical infrastructure' covers fenced or marked facilities: refineries, electric power generation, gas processing, water treatment plants, dams. Exemptions for government, law enforcement, the facility owner, and FAA-authorized commercial operators. Restriction/criminal law; no mitigation-authority grant.

Oregon has one of the deepest state drone codes. Weaponizing a UAS (§ 837.365), operating one capable of firing a projectile or acting as a dangerous weapon, is a felony (Class B or C depending on injury). Reckless interference with aircraft or first responders (§ 837.374) is a Class A misdemeanor, rising to a Class A felony if death or serious injury results. A 2016 law (HB 4066 § 13) prohibits operating a drone over enclosed critical-infrastructure facilities, including correctional facilities. Public-agency drone use is separately regulated, with registration required. Restriction/criminal law; no mitigation-authority grant.

Pennsylvania's drone statute (18 Pa.C.S. § 3505, Act 78 of 2018). Using a drone to surveil someone in a private place, or to operate in a manner placing another in reasonable fear of bodily injury, are summary offenses ($300); delivering contraband to a correctional facility by drone is a second-degree felony. Law enforcement and Department of Corrections/jail personnel are exempt. A companion preemption provision (53 Pa.C.S. § 305) bars municipalities from regulating drone ownership or operation as of October 12, 2018. Restriction/criminal law; no mitigation-authority grant.

Rhode Island, like Maryland, is a preemption state. A 2016 law (HB 7511) gives the State and the Rhode Island Airport Corporation exclusive authority, subject to federal law, to regulate drones, preempting municipal ordinances (a point tested when Narragansett adopted a local beach-season rule anyway). No statewide criminal UAS restriction and no mitigation authority. Preemption data point. Marked Reported pending a pinned primary citation.

South Carolina's current drone law targets correctional facilities, §§ 24-1-300 and 24-5-175 prohibit unlawful UAS operation near state correctional facilities and local detention facilities. A pending 2025-2026 bill (H.4679, the 'South Carolina Drone Regulation and Public Safety Act') would consolidate the state's drone rules into a new Article 3 of Title 55 and repeal the existing §§ 24-1-300 / 24-5-175, worth tracking as it moves. Restriction/criminal law; no mitigation-authority grant.

South Dakota's drone framework. Operating a drone over the grounds of a prison, correctional facility, jail, juvenile detention facility, or any military facility, without the administrator's authorization, is a Class 1 misdemeanor (§ 50-15-3); using a drone to deliver contraband or controlled substances to a correctional facility is a Class 6 felony (§ 50-15-4). SB 80 also extended the unlawful-surveillance crime (§ 22-21-1) to drones used to observe/record people in private places, and a sub-55 lb registration exemption applies (§ 50-11-9.1). Restriction/criminal/privacy law; no mitigation-authority grant.

Tennessee's drone law is unusually strict on proximity. The critical-infrastructure rule (§ 39-13-903(a)(6)) triggers on proximity plus surveillance purpose, using a drone within 250 ft of the perimeter of a critical-infrastructure facility (power generation/transmission, hazardous-substance plants, gas/propane pipelines, railroad yards, etc.) without the operator's written consent, and it's a Class E felony, higher than Florida's or Texas's analogous rules. Other § 39-13-903 offenses (surveillance imaging, open-air events of 100+) are Class C misdemeanors. The Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act (§ 39-13-609) requires a warrant for most law-enforcement drone use. Preemption state. Restriction/privacy law; no mitigation-authority grant.

Texas's core drone-restriction law. Criminal offense (Class B misdemeanor; Class A on repeat) to operate a drone below 400 ft AGL over a correctional/detention facility, a critical-infrastructure facility (19+ defined categories, refineries, pipelines, power plants, water/wastewater, chemical plants, dams, feedlots, etc.), or a sports venue seating 30,000+. Weaponizing a drone is a state-jail felony (§ 423.0075). These are restriction/criminal provisions, Texas does not grant drone-mitigation authority. The Fifth Circuit upheld Ch. 423 against a First Amendment facial challenge; a 2025 amendment (SB 1197) added spaceports to protected sites.

Utah's drone code (Title 72, Ch. 14) stands out for an aggressive tiered wildfire-interference scheme, causing a firefighting aircraft to divert, dump, or collide escalates up to a second-degree felony (§ 65A-3-2.5; up to 15 years), and full local preemption (SB 111) creating one statewide rule set. Causing a drone to enter/remain unlawfully over property with criminal intent is criminal trespass (§ 76-6-206); law-enforcement drone use requires a warrant where privacy is expected (§§ 72-14-201 to -205); weaponized drones and livestock harassment (§ 76-9-308) are barred. Restriction/criminal law; no mitigation-authority grant.

Vermont has one of the strictest law-enforcement drone-use regimes. Under 20 V.S.A. ch. 205 (Act 169 of 2016), police may not use a drone to investigate, detect, or prosecute crime without a warrant or a recognized exception, may not surveil First Amendment activity, and must minimize data collection to the surveillance target, with facial recognition and biometric matching barred on any non-target data. Police drones may not be weaponized. Agencies must report all drone use annually to the Department of Public Safety (§ 4624), and evidence gathered in violation is inadmissible. Operating a drone over private property without consent carries a civil penalty (§ 4626). Warrant/oversight model with a weaponization ban; no critical-infrastructure restriction or mitigation grant.

Virginia regulates the government side heavily. Under § 19.2-60.1, no state or local criminal-law-enforcement or regulatory body, including the State Police, may operate a drone except under a warrant, subject to emergency exceptions (Amber/Senior/Blue Alerts, clear and present danger to life, crash-scene reconstruction, consent, training, and non-law-enforcement uses such as damage/traffic/flood/wildfire assessment); evidence gathered in violation is inadmissible. Weaponized drones are banned for state and local agencies except at the Wallops Island Space Port and Naval/Aegis facilities. Private-side rules include drone trespass within 50 ft of a dwelling (§ 18.2-121.3, Class 1 misdemeanor) and stalking/protective-order restrictions (§ 18.2-324.2). The state preempts local regulation of privately owned drones (§ 15.2-926.3). Warrant/oversight model; no critical-infrastructure restriction or mitigation grant.

Washington has no comprehensive statewide drone statute, a 2014 bill to regulate law-enforcement drone use was vetoed, and later efforts stalled. Operative restrictions are narrow: using a drone to hunt is prohibited, Washington State Parks and some agencies limit drone use on their lands, and individual agencies maintain their own UAS policies. Privacy and trespass are handled under general law. No critical-infrastructure, correctional, or mitigation framework. Documented gap.

West Virginia's drone article (W. Va. Code ch. 61, art. 16, as amended by HB 3479 in 2023) is squarely C-UAS-relevant. It creates the crime of operating a drone over the property of a 'targeted facility', defined as a critical-infrastructure facility under § 61-10-34, with exceptions for law enforcement, FAA-authorized commercial operators, and landowners surveilling their own land. Equipping or operating a drone with a deadly weapon is a felony (1–5 years, $1,000–$5,000), as is operating a drone with intent to damage or disrupt a manned aircraft. Using a drone to hunt or harass wildlife is separately barred (§ 20-2-5). Critical-infrastructure + weaponization model; no mitigation grant.

Introduced bill modeled on Louisiana's approach; would let a law enforcement officer intercept, disable, or destroy a drone when they "reasonably suspect it poses an imminent threat to public safety," and would define a weaponized drone. Requested by the Police Chief Association of Waukesha County. Part of the post-Louisiana wave of states authorizing drone mitigation, and sits in tension with federal law (18 U.S.C. § 32).

Wisconsin's enacted drone laws span three angles. Possessing or operating a weaponized drone is a Class H felony (§ 941.292, up to 6 years), exempting only U.S. armed forces and the national guard. Using a drone to photograph, record, or observe someone where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy is a Class A misdemeanor, rising to a Class I felony on a repeat (§ 942.10). And law enforcement may not use a drone to gather evidence or surveil in privacy-protected areas without a warrant, except in emergencies (§ 175.55). Hunting/fishing/trapping interference is separately barred (§ 29.083). This is the enacted layer; Wisconsin's separate AB 629 mitigation bill (police authority to disable threatening drones) is tracked as a pending item.

Wyoming takes a light-touch, property-and-takeoff/landing approach. SF 170 (the Aeronautics Act) lets the Wyoming Aeronautics Commission set reasonable rules on where drones may take off and land, but expressly not in navigable airspace (reserved to the FAA), and makes it unlawful to land a drone on another person's property without consent, with liability for forced-landing damage; you may fly over your own property. Using a drone to hunt or harass wildlife is separately prohibited. No surveillance, critical-infrastructure, correctional, or law-enforcement-use statute, and no mitigation authority. Reported pending a pinned codified citation.