Bill Description: House Bill 522 would criminalize flying a drone near a correctional facility, even unknowingly.
Rating: -1
NOTE: House Bill 522 is similar to (and likely a replacement for) House Bill 499 (2026).
Amendment Note: The Senate Amendment to the bill removed some language providing a non-exhaustive list of mitigation measures that could be taken against drones, added language requiring mitigation measures to comply with federal law, and reduced the penalties for a criminal violation of the law. The analysis has been updated, but the rating has not changed.
Does it directly or indirectly create or increase penalties for victimless crimes or non-restorative penalties for non-violent crimes? Conversely, does it eliminate or decrease penalties for victimless crimes or non-restorative penalties for non-violent crimes?
House Bill 522 would create Section 20-251, Idaho Code, to declare “the airspace from the surface to a height of four hundred (400) feet above ground level within the defined perimeter of a correctional facility” as “restricted airspace” in which unmanned aircraft systems (drones) may not fly.
The bill would also give the Department of Correction and law enforcement officers authority to "take reasonable and necessary mitigation measures" against a drone “operating in a nefarious manner within restricted airspace within this state.” (The Senate Amendment to the bill removedsome language providing a non-exhaustive list of mitigation measures that could be taken against drones, including detection, tracking, identification, interception, disabling, jamming, hacking, and physical capture.)
The mitigation measures would be required not to conflict with federal law.
Unlike House Bill 499, which defined “proximity” as “within two (2) nautical miles from the farthest defined perimeter of a correctional facility,” House Bill 522 does not include the word “proximity,” relying instead on the phrase “defined perimeter,” which it paradoxically, does not define.
The bill would criminalize “the use of an unmanned aircraft system within the restricted airspace of a correctional facility” and impose a penalty of up to a $1,000 fine and up to six months of incarceration. The bill also says, “the court may order the forfeiture of the unmanned aircraft system used in connection with the unlawful act.”
As with House Bill 499, House Bill 522 takes the extraordinary step of removing the requirement that the offense be committed knowingly, saying instead, “Lack of knowledge that the prohibited act occurred within the restricted airspace of the correctional facility shall not be a defense.”
It should also be noted here that while the authority to intercept and capture drones is tied to their being operated in a “nefarious manner,” no similar limitation applies to the criminalization or penalty.
Rather than limit its prohibition to the intentional commission of a nefarious act, this bill would criminalize the unintentional, non-nefarious use of a drone within the ironically undefined “defined perimeter of a correctional facility.”
(-1)
