General Assembly and governor (NCSL, 2015a). Virginia HB2125 and SB1301 require that a law enforcement agency obtain a warrant before using a UAS for any purpose, except in limited circumstances. Virginia’s governor also issued an executive order establishing a commission on UAS (NCSL, 2015c).
West Virginia HB2515 prohibits hunting with UAS (NCSL, 2015c).
Wisconsin SB196 requires law enforcement to obtain a warrant before using UAS in a place where an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy. The law also created two new crimes. The first crime, a class H felony, is possession of a weaponized UAS. The second crime, a class A misdemeanor, is the crime of use of a UAS for a person who, with intent, observes another individual in a place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy (NCSL, 2015b).
While on the topic of invasion of privacy it is important to mention an exception to the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution. Typically the Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. Several exceptions do exist however, and one in particular, the open fields doctrine, should be discussed in this context (US Const. Amend. IV). The Court in Hester v. United States, held that the Fourth Amendment did not protect “open fields” and as such police searches in such areas as pastures, wooded areas, open water, and vacant lots need not comply with the requirements of warrants and probable cause (Hester v. US, 1924). Furthermore, the Court in Oliver v. United States (1984) ruled that the open fields exception applies to fields that are fenced and posted. This means that an individual may not legitimately demand privacy for activities conducted out of doors in fields, except in the area immediately surrounding the home, which is termed curtilage. Nor may an individual demand privacy for activities conducted within outbuildings and visible by trespassers peering into the buildings from just outside. Finally, it has been held that even within the curtilage and notwithstanding a ten-foot high fence around the property, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy from naked-eye inspection from fixed-wing aircraft flying in navigable airspace (US v. Dunn, 1987).