Know the rulesbefore you fly.

Alabama imposes no state drone registration, pilot license, or insurance mandate beyond FAA requirements, but it layers several targeted restrictions on top of federal rules: a severe felony scheme protecting correctional facilities from drone surveillance and contraband delivery, a critical-infrastructure trespass enhancement for armed drones, privacy/surveillance statutes that apply to drone-enabled voyeurism, and a 2026 restriction on flying near ticketed entertainment events. State law also limits municipalities to regulating drone takeoff and landing on property they own, reserving airspace regulation to the FAA. Coastal cities such as Gulf Shores and Orange Beach add beach- and venue-specific ordinances that go beyond that narrow local authority.

Alaska maintains a generally permissive stance toward civilian drone operations, with no state registration or licensing requirements beyond federal FAA rules. However, the state has enacted targeted restrictions on law enforcement drone use (requiring warrants), hunting with drones, commercial salmon fishing drone use, and operations in state parks and protected areas. Alaska also provides strong constitutional privacy protections against warrantless aerial surveillance.

Arizona maintains a generally permissive regulatory environment for drone operations with strong state preemption preventing local ordinances, creating a unified statewide regulatory map. Primary restrictions include critical infrastructure protection (intent-based, with felony penalties on first offense), prohibition of recreational drones in state parks, and general application of existing criminal statutes (voyeurism, surreptitious recording) to drone-enabled conduct. Arizona has no state-level drone registration, licensing, or commercial permit requirements beyond federal FAA regulations.

Arkansas maintains a permissive stance toward drone operations with no state registration, licensing, or insurance requirements beyond federal FAA rules. The state's primary focus is on privacy protection through the 2025 Arkansas Privacy Act, which criminalizes surveillance of people and property and adds civil remedies, combined with critical infrastructure protection, voyeurism statutes that explicitly name drones, and wildlife restrictions.

California maintains one of the most comprehensive state-level drone regulatory frameworks in the United States, with strong privacy protections through Civil Code § 1708.8 allowing civil penalties up to $50,000, strict emergency response interference laws, and extensive state park and wildlife area drone restrictions. The state layers federal FAA rules with privacy statutes, critical infrastructure protections, and numerous local city ordinances that vary significantly by jurisdiction.

Colorado maintains a mixed regulatory approach to drones. The state has enacted targeted legislation addressing emergency response obstruction, criminal invasion of privacy, and hunting applications, while delegating significant authority to local governments. The absence of state preemption creates a complex patchwork of municipal ordinances, particularly restrictive in Denver, Boulder, and mountain resort areas.

Connecticut maintains a moderate regulatory stance on drone operations with strong privacy protections and critical infrastructure restrictions. The state preempts local regulation of commercial drone flights under FAA Part 107 while allowing municipalities to regulate recreational use. Voyeurism carries felony penalties. A 2025 law added proximity and surveillance restrictions around critical infrastructure and banned weaponized drones.

Delaware maintains a streamlined, state-level drone regulatory framework with strong preemption against local ordinances. The primary state restriction is Title 11, Section 1334, which prohibits drone flights over events with 1,500+ people, critical infrastructure facilities, active first-responder scenes, and situations involving harassment or privacy invasion. State parks require special use permits with significant insurance requirements ($1 million per occurrence), and state wildlife areas prohibit drones outright. No state drone registration, licensing, or business permits are required beyond federal FAA rules.

The District of Columbia is highly restrictive for drone operations due to the National Capital Region Special Flight Rules Area (SFRA), a federal restriction around Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. DC itself has not enacted drone-specific state statutes; all operational restrictions are governed by FAA federal regulations. The 15-mile inner ring prohibits all drone operations without specific FAA authorization, and the 15-30 mile outer ring permits limited operations under strict conditions.

Florida maintains one of the most restrictive drone regulatory frameworks in the United States, particularly following the October 2025 enactment of HB 1121. The state imposes blanket prohibitions over K-12 school campuses (all hours, all days), enforces a 500-foot horizontal and 400-foot vertical buffer around critical infrastructure, and levies felony-level penalties for violations. State law presumes privacy expectations for drone surveillance even when subjects are observable from the air, and state parks are entirely closed to drone takeoffs and landings.

Georgia combines strong state preemption of local drone rules with a growing set of targeted restrictions rather than a single broad operational ban. O.C.G.A. § 6-1-4 (HB 481, 2017) reserves UAS regulation to the state, voiding most local ordinances except a handful grandfathered before April 1, 2017. On top of federal FAA rules, the state layers criminal privacy protections, hunting-with-drone restrictions, state park permit rules, a 2025 ticketed-event buffer, and a 2026 prohibition on flying over correctional facilities driven by a well-documented prison contraband crisis. No state drone registration, commercial license, or insurance mandate exists beyond federal requirements.

Hawaii maintains a restrictive regulatory stance toward drone operations. The state enacted a comprehensive three-tier felony framework in 2024 (Act 161) addressing drone misuse, supplements federal FAA rules with privacy and trespass statutes, imposes a blanket prohibition on drones in state parks and beaches statewide, and enforces strict federal marine mammal protection rules. Commercial operators must comply with FAA Part 107 plus extensive state land permitting and local county ordinances.

Idaho has no general drone registration, licensing, or broad flight restrictions beyond federal FAA rules, but the state has layered on several targeted laws: a 2013 privacy statute limiting covert surveillance and recording, a 2026 law banning drone operation near Department of Correction facilities (with counter-drone authority for officials), and a 2026 law sharply restricting drone use for hunting and scouting during much of the fall season. Fish and Game lands, state parks, and several counties and cities add their own permission-based or registration rules on top of state law. Taken together, Idaho's approach is best described as moderate — permissive for ordinary recreational and commercial flight, but with specific, enforceable restrictions around privacy, corrections facilities, wildlife, and hunting.

Illinois takes a moderate approach to drone regulation: the state imposes no drone-specific registration or licensing beyond federal FAA requirements, but general privacy (eavesdropping, unauthorized video recording), trespass, and hunting-interference statutes apply squarely to drone use, and law enforcement drone use is tightly restricted by the Freedom from Drone Surveillance Act. A 2018 preemption statute (620 ILCS 5/42.1) reserves UAS regulation to the state, with a narrow carve-out allowing only Chicago (the sole Illinois municipality over 1,000,000 residents) to enact its own rules — and Chicago and its Park District do so extensively, requiring permits, liability insurance, and Part 107 certification for most commercial flights on city and park property. Several bills addressing critical-infrastructure protection, foreign-manufacturer restrictions, and correctional-facility overflight remain pending in the General Assembly but have not yet been enacted.

Indiana has a moderate regulatory framework with targeted drone-specific criminal statutes addressing privacy, voyeurism, hunting, and state property access, rather than a single comprehensive drone code. The state does not require state-level registration or licensing beyond federal FAA requirements, but enforces strict rules around sensitive areas including state parks, correctional facilities, and hunting, and requires warrants for law-enforcement surveillance use. With no express preemption statute, cities such as Fort Wayne and Carmel layer additional notification and permitting requirements on top of state law.

Iowa maintains a moderate regulatory stance toward drone operations, with targeted restrictions on critical areas (correctional facilities, rural farmsteads) and strong privacy protections, while remaining permissive for FAA-compliant commercial and recreational flying. The state has no local drone ordinances and generally defers to federal FAA authority over airspace, making it exceptionally consistent statewide.

Kansas does not require state-level drone registration, commercial licensing, or insurance, but it is not purely hands-off: state law folds drone surveillance into its harassment and stalking statute, bans drone flights on all Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks land, prohibits drone-assisted hunting and fishing, and (as of 2025) restricts government purchase of drones from foreign adversary countries. A handful of cities, including Wichita and Prairie Village, add local airport-safety and nuisance-flight ordinances on top of these state rules. Taken together, these targeted restrictions in specific domains — privacy, public land, hunting, and procurement — place Kansas closer to a moderate regulatory posture than a purely permissive one.

Kentucky maintains a moderate regulatory posture with targeted restrictions on drone surveillance, key infrastructure protection, and wildlife use. The state has unusually strong privacy protections, including a requirement that law enforcement obtain warrants specifically authorizing drone use, with evidence from unauthorized searches being inadmissible in court. Private operators face civil liability for unauthorized surveillance.

Louisiana maintains a moderate regulatory posture toward drone operations with targeted restrictions on sensitive sites rather than blanket bans. The state has exclusive jurisdiction over drone regulation, preempting all local ordinances. Louisiana criminalizes drone surveillance of critical infrastructure, military installations, correctional facilities, schools, and parades, with substantial penalties including mandatory sex offender registration for voyeurism convictions. The 2025 'We Will Act' Act made Louisiana the first state to grant law enforcement explicit counter-drone authority. Commercial operations require only FAA Part 107; state licensing applies only to agricultural drones.

Maine maintains a moderate regulatory framework built around targeted restrictions rather than broad civilian licensing. State law imposes detailed accountability requirements on law enforcement drone use (governing-body approval, warrant requirements, and annual reporting), bans drone-assisted hunting of bear, deer, and moose, restricts drone operation in state parks and historic sites to permit holders, and now bars unauthorized drone operation over correctional facilities under LD 2157 (effective April 2026). Maine does not require state-level registration, licensing, or insurance for civilian or commercial operators beyond federal FAA requirements, and general privacy law covers surveillance-type drone misuse.

Maryland maintains strong state preemption of drone regulation through Economic Development Article § 14-301, preventing local governments from creating their own drone rules. The state has enacted targeted criminal statutes addressing privacy surveillance, drone trespass, correctional facility proximity, and hunting restrictions, but avoids broad operational bans beyond federal FAA requirements.

Massachusetts maintains a moderate regulatory stance with no omnibus drone statute. The state's primary restriction is a blanket ban on drone operations across 450,000 acres of Department of Conservation and Recreation land without a Special Use Permit. Existing criminal statutes—particularly the strict all-party-consent wiretap law, harassment, and stalking laws—apply to drone surveillance. Federal FAA rules form the baseline; municipalities cannot regulate airspace after Singer v. City of Newton (2017).

Michigan maintains a moderate regulatory approach to drone operations, with comprehensive state-level statutes addressing privacy, harassment, critical infrastructure protection, and hunting restrictions. The state notably preempts local drone ordinances, reserving all UAS regulation to the state and federal levels. Michigan does not require separate state-level drone registration or licensing beyond federal FAA requirements, and permits both commercial and recreational operations. State parks require permits and observe a 100-yard buffer from facilities.

Minnesota maintains a moderate regulatory stance on drone operations with three distinct legal layers: federal FAA rules, state-level commercial licensing and surveillance restrictions through MnDOT and law enforcement statutes, and local municipal ordinances. Most notably, Minnesota requires commercial operators to register with the state, obtain a separate Commercial Operations License, and maintain annual liability insurance—requirements that set it apart from most other states. The state also has strong law enforcement drone restrictions under Minn. Stat. § 626.19, requiring search warrants for police use with specific exceptions.

Mississippi maintains a permissive regulatory environment for drone operations with strong local preemption and explicit affirmation of drone rights. The state's primary regulations target specific illegal uses: drone surveillance of critical infrastructure or correctional facilities, voyeurism, and delivery of contraband to prisons. No state pilot licensing, registration, or insurance requirements exist beyond federal FAA rules.

Missouri maintains a permissive stance toward drone operations, with no state registration, licensing, or insurance requirements beyond federal FAA standards. The state has enacted targeted criminal statutes addressing drones near correctional facilities, large entertainment venues, and critical infrastructure, plus wildlife protections on conservation areas, but imposes few restrictions on routine commercial or recreational flights.

Montana layers targeted drone restrictions on top of the federal baseline: a 2025 criminal trespass law creating a 200-foot no-fly buffer over private property, a 2025 hunting-use restriction, wildfire-suppression interference penalties, and a state-park permit requirement. Montana does not impose state-level drone registration, licensing, insurance, or sales-tax treatment beyond FAA requirements, so operators otherwise follow standard federal rules. The result is a moderate posture: no broad statewide restrictions, but several specific, well-defined prohibitions in privacy, hunting, and wildfire contexts.

Nebraska has no state-level drone registration, licensing, or insurance requirements beyond federal FAA rules, but it does impose several targeted regulations: an intent-based criminal trespass and voyeurism statute covering drone surveillance (with felony exposure for recording intimate areas), a longstanding law against using aircraft to harass or hunt wildlife, a 2025 law restricting state and local government drone purchases to a secure-vendor list starting in 2027, and a requirement that drone-based pesticide spraying be performed under a state aerial applicator license. Omaha and Lincoln each impose their own permit rules for drone takeoff and landing in city parks and rights-of-way, and Nebraska has no statute preempting these local ordinances. Taken together, this is a moderate regulatory environment — narrow but real restrictions layered on top of federal rules, concentrated in privacy, wildlife, procurement, and agricultural-licensing categories rather than a broad statewide UAS code.

Nevada maintains a restrictive regulatory posture toward drone operations, characterized by specific distance prohibitions (5 miles from airports, 500 feet horizontal/250 feet vertical from critical infrastructure), a category D felony for weaponization, law enforcement warrant requirements for surveillance, and robust civil trespass remedies with treble damages. State parks are generally off-limits without permits. Recreational and commercial operations are permitted with appropriate FAA credentials and strict compliance with state restrictions.

New Hampshire has no state-level drone registration, licensing, or permit requirements beyond federal FAA standards, but it layers targeted state criminal law on top of the federal framework. RSA 644:23, effective January 1, 2026, criminalizes Part 107 violations, interference with emergency responders, privacy violations, airport interference, correctional-facility overflights, and armed or projectile-capable drones. Additional targeted rules protect hunters, trappers, and anglers from drone surveillance (RSA 207:57), restrict drone use for locating game (Fish and Game rules Fis 312.01/312.02), and ban drone launch and landing in state parks. This combination of federal-baseline operating rules with several category-specific criminal and administrative restrictions places New Hampshire closer to a moderate regulatory posture than a purely permissive one.

New Jersey maintains a moderate regulatory posture toward drone operations. The state enacted comprehensive criminal statutes addressing privacy, correctional facility security, interference with first responders, and intoxicated operation, but does not impose broad restrictions beyond federal FAA requirements. New Jersey has not enacted a statute preempting local drone ordinances, so municipalities and counties across the state's 564 jurisdictions have adopted a patchwork of additional restrictions on launch, landing, and altitude that operators must research independently before flying.

New Mexico maintains a permissive stance toward drone operations with minimal state-level regulations. The state has no drone registration, licensing, or insurance requirements beyond federal FAA rules. The sole enacted state law restricts using drones to locate or harass wildlife. Contrary to widespread online claims, New Mexico has no enacted surveillance warrant law or critical infrastructure drone crimes—several proposed bills, including 2026's SB 136, have failed to pass.

New York operates a fragmented drone regulatory system with no omnibus state statute. General criminal statutes apply to drone operations statewide, with additional restrictions on state parks and wilderness areas. New York City imposes the most restrictive regulations in the country, effectively banning civilian drone takeoff and landing without an NYPD permit and commercial liability insurance. Commercial operators need FAA Part 107 but no separate state license.

North Carolina maintains moderate drone regulations with strong privacy protections and critical infrastructure safeguards, but repealed its unique state-level drone operator permit requirement in December 2024. The state's primary restrictions focus on surveillance consent, launch/recovery site permissions, and correctional facility buffers, with federal Part 107 certification now serving as the sole commercial licensing requirement.

North Dakota maintains a permissive regulatory environment for drone operations, with no state-level drone registration beyond FAA requirements and no local ordinances restricting civilian flight. The state has enacted targeted protections: a warrant requirement for law enforcement drone surveillance (NDCC 29-29.4), restrictions on hunting with drones, and prohibitions on drone use in wildlife management areas. Aerial crop spraying requires a separate state applicator license. North Dakota operates the nation's most advanced statewide BVLOS infrastructure (Vantis network) and is home to the Northern Plains UAS Test Site.

Ohio enacted House Bill 77 in 2025, establishing criminal penalties for reckless drone operation, interference with emergency services, and flying near critical infrastructure with criminal intent. The state permits recreational and commercial drone operations under FAA rules, with state-level restrictions applying to state parks, wildlife operations, and critical facilities. Ohio does not require state-level drone registration, licensing, or insurance beyond federal requirements.

Oklahoma maintains targeted drone regulations focused on protecting critical infrastructure and privacy, with significant petroleum and utility infrastructure subject to strict operational restrictions. Recreational and commercial Part 107 operations are generally permitted, but operators must comply with state privacy laws, critical infrastructure buffers, state park permit requirements, and must affix physical identification labels to their drones. Oklahoma has no statewide preemption statute, so cities including Oklahoma City, Tulsa, Stillwater, Norman, Edmond, and El Reno retain authority to impose additional local restrictions.

Oregon has enacted comprehensive drone regulations covering law enforcement use, critical infrastructure protection, emergency services interference, private property rights, and wildlife protection, with felony-level penalties for serious violations. The state allows most recreational and commercial drone operations subject to federal FAA rules and specific state restrictions, particularly in critical infrastructure areas and during emergency response operations.

Pennsylvania's drone regulations focus on land-access restrictions rather than broad operational prohibitions: only 6 of 121 state parks permit drones, and all state game lands (1.5 million acres) are prohibited. Act 78 (2018) criminalized drone surveillance in private places and contraband delivery to prisons (the latter carries felony penalties up to 10 years imprisonment), while Pennsylvania's two-party consent wiretap law creates felony exposure for drone audio recording without consent. State-wide preemption of municipal ordinances simplifies compliance but does not extend to restrictions on city-owned property.

Rhode Island regulates drones primarily at the state level: R.I. Gen. Laws § 1-8-1.2 grants the state and the Rhode Island Airport Corporation exclusive UAS regulatory authority and bars municipalities from enacting their own drone ordinances. Beyond deferring to FAA rules, the state's own drone-specific restriction is narrow — written DEM permission is required to fly in state parks, beaches, and management areas, and permits are currently issued only to film and news organizations. Rhode Island has no drone-specific privacy statute, but its general video voyeurism law has been used to prosecute drone-based surveillance.

South Carolina imposes targeted drone restrictions rather than broad operational limits: buffers around correctional and detention facilities, a longstanding privacy/voyeurism statute that reaches drone-based surveillance, and wildlife-management rules restricting drone use to a permitted feral hog and coyote program. Effective January 1, 2027, the Drone Regulation and Public Safety Act (H4679/Act 150) expands facility buffers to 1,500 feet, adds military installation protections, and creates felony penalties for weaponized drones and contraband delivery, while also partially preempting local ordinances that conflict with state or FAA rules.

South Dakota maintains one of the most permissive drone regulatory environments in the US. The state imposes no state-level registration, licensing, or business permits beyond FAA requirements. A 2024 preemption law (SDCL 50-15-7 and 50-15-10) reserves operational rules to the state and FAA, preventing cities and counties from layering on their own flight restrictions. State law addresses specific concerns through targeted statutes: privacy violations, operations over correctional facilities and military installations, careless operation, unauthorized landing on private property, and hunting with drones.

Tennessee maintains strict drone regulations, particularly around critical infrastructure and surveillance. The state imposes a Class E felony for drone operations within 250 feet of critical infrastructure facilities, and treats each unlawfully captured image as a separate misdemeanor offense. Recent amendments (2026) add 400-foot restrictions around ticketed entertainment events and prohibit drone use over school grounds.

Texas maintains a generally permissive stance toward drone operations with targeted restrictions on surveillance and critical infrastructure. The state has one of the most detailed drone privacy statutes in the country, but no state-level registration or licensing requirements beyond federal FAA rules. Texas preempts most local drone regulation, providing a consistent statewide framework.

Utah maintains a well-organized, moderately regulated drone framework with specific statutes governing safe operation, critical infrastructure protection, wildfire zones, and law enforcement oversight. The state uniquely preempts all local drone ordinances, creating uniform statewide rules rather than city-by-city patchwork. Utah requires commercial operators to register with UDOT in addition to FAA registration. Utah's wildfire drone law is among the nation's most aggressive, with penalties escalating to a second-degree felony if a drone causes a manned aircraft collision.

Vermont enacted one of the nation's first dedicated drone laws in 2016 and has continued to build out its regulatory framework with privacy protections and wildlife restrictions. The state imposes strict warrant requirements for law enforcement drone use, civil penalties for recreational flights below 100 feet over private property (effective June 2024), and criminal penalties for weaponized drones, voyeurism, and hunting-related uses. Commercial operations follow standard FAA Part 107 rules with no additional state licensing, and there is no statewide preemption of local drone ordinances.

Virginia maintains moderate drone restrictions focused on critical infrastructure protection, law enforcement oversight, and privacy safeguards. The state has strong statutory preemption against local regulation but imposes felony-level penalties for unauthorized drone operations near military installations and defense facilities. Commercial Part 107 operations face no state-specific licensing requirements beyond federal rules.

Washington maintains a permissive general stance toward recreational drone operations but imposes targeted restrictions through privacy statutes, wildlife protection rules, state park permit requirements, and commercial registration fees. The state has no comprehensive drone act; drone regulation derives from voyeurism, recording consent, wildlife, and aviation statutes applied to UAS operations.

West Virginia maintains a permissive stance toward drone operations, with no state registration, licensing, or insurance requirements. The state enacted comprehensive criminal statutes addressing privacy invasion, surveillance, critical infrastructure protection, and weaponized drones, while explicitly allowing FAA Part 107 commercial pilots to operate. State parks permit recreational flying with superintendent registration.

Wisconsin maintains a moderate regulatory stance toward drone operations with well-defined state-specific statutes addressing privacy, correctional facilities, schools, and utility infrastructure. The state has no separate registration or commercial licensing requirements beyond federal FAA rules, but enforces civil and criminal penalties for violations including Class A misdemeanors for privacy invasion and Class H felonies for weaponized drones.

Wyoming maintains a generally permissive stance toward recreational and commercial drone operations subject to FAA regulations. The state has enacted targeted legislation protecting critical infrastructure, regulating aircraft use for hunting, and restricting drone operations over correctional facilities, with limited statutory restrictions on low-altitude flight. Wyoming does not impose state-level drone registration or licensing requirements beyond federal FAA mandates.