AB 1749 adds two provisions to the Civil Code that target unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) flown in ways that impede emergency personnel. One provision prohibits operating a drone at an emergency scene if it inhibits firefighters, peace officers, medical staff, military personnel, or other responders from performing fire suppression, law enforcement, or emergency response duties by referencing the conduct described in Penal Code section 402.
A second provision specifically bars knowingly or recklessly interfering with wildfire suppression or related law enforcement and emergency response efforts.
Enforcement is civil: the Attorney General, a county counsel, or a city attorney may sue to obtain injunctive relief, recover reasonable attorney fees and costs, and seek civil penalties up to $75,000 per violation. The bill exempts operators holding an FAA Part 107 Operational Waiver and people whose employment duties require them to observe the scene.
The statute creates a high-dollar civil remedy that will change how drone operators, media, and emergency managers interact near wildfires and other emergency scenes.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill prohibits drone operations that impede emergency personnel at an emergency scene and makes it unlawful to knowingly or recklessly interfere with wildfire suppression efforts. It creates a civil enforcement mechanism allowing the Attorney General or local government attorneys to sue for injunctions, fees, costs, and penalties up to $75,000 per violation.
Who It Affects
Recreational drone pilots, commercial UAV operators, news helicopters and aerial newsgathering teams, emergency-management contractors, and local fire and law-enforcement agencies dealing with airspace conflicts will be directly affected. FAA-regulated operators with a Part 107 waiver and employees acting within job duties are carved out.
Why It Matters
This bill shifts enforcement on drone interference from criminal statutes and ad-hoc operational responses to a civil regime with steep monetary penalties, raising compliance stakes for operators and increasing enforcement tools for public prosecutors. It also intersects with federal aviation rules and could create friction over airspace authority and First Amendment considerations for aerial newsgathering.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 1749 places two parallel civil prohibitions on drone conduct near emergencies. One new Civil Code section forbids operating a drone at an emergency scene when the flight inhibits firefighters, police, medical teams, military personnel, or other responders from doing their jobs.
The bill anchors the meaning of that prohibition to the situation described in Penal Code section 402 — essentially, when emergency vehicles or personnel are at or en route to a scene to protect lives or property.
A separate Civil Code section targets wildfire-specific conduct: it prohibits a person from knowingly or recklessly interfering with wildfire suppression or with law enforcement and emergency response related to wildfire suppression. That provision is enforceable civilly by the Attorney General, county counsel, or city attorney.
The statute authorizes injunctions, awards of reasonable attorney fees and costs, and civil penalties capped at $75,000 per violation.The bill includes two express exemptions. First, it does not apply to operators who hold a Part 107 Operational Waiver issued by the Federal Aviation Administration under 14 C.F.R. §107.200; second, it exempts persons whose employment duties require them to observe the scene.
The combination of criminal-law cross-references, a civil enforcement path, and narrow exemptions creates a regulatory regime that relies on government lawyers to police harmful aerial conduct without opening a private right of action to individual citizens.Practically, operators who cannot show they hold the stated FAA waiver or whose observation is not part of employment duties face exposure to civil suits and large penalties if prosecutors find their flights knowingly or recklessly interfered with suppression or emergency response. Fire and police agencies gain a statutory tool to seek court orders to stop disruptive flights and recover enforcement costs.
The bill leaves open operational details — for example, how interference will be proved in close cases and how state enforcement will coordinate with federal airspace management.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds Civil Code section 1708.83, banning drone operation at emergency scenes when the flight impedes emergency personnel as defined by reference to Penal Code §402.
Civil Code section 1714.57 makes it unlawful to knowingly or recklessly interfere with wildfire suppression or related law enforcement and emergency response efforts.
Only the Attorney General, a county counsel, or a city attorney can bring enforcement actions; prevailing public plaintiffs may obtain injunctive relief and recover attorney fees and costs.
The statute authorizes civil penalties up to $75,000 for each violation.
Two exemptions apply: operators with an FAA Part 107 Operational Waiver (per 14 C.F.R. §107.200) and persons whose employment duties require them to view the scene.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Prohibition on drone operations that impede emergency personnel
This section bars operating a UAV, remote-piloted aircraft, or drone at an emergency scene in a way that impedes firefighters, peace officers, medical personnel, military personnel, or other responders carrying out fire suppression, law enforcement, or emergency-response duties. The bill does not invent a new statutory definition of ‘‘impede’’; instead it points to the conduct described in Penal Code §402 (which covers protecting lives or property while emergency vehicles or personnel are at or en route to a scene). Practically, enforcement will require linking a particular flight to a demonstrable inhibition of response activity.
Wildfire-specific prohibition: knowingly or recklessly interfering
Subdivision (a) focuses on wildfires and related response efforts and raises the culpability standard to ‘‘knowingly or recklessly’’ interfering with suppression or associated law enforcement/emergency operations. By using that mental-state language, the bill targets more culpable conduct than mere inadvertent presence, but it stops short of criminal penalties and instead builds a civil remedy around those mental states.
Civil enforcement: who can sue and available remedies
Subdivision (b) vests enforcement authority in the Attorney General, county counsels, and city attorneys — private parties do not get a direct cause of action. Courts may issue injunctions, and a prevailing public plaintiff can recover reasonable attorney fees and costs. The most consequential remedy is the statutory civil penalty: up to $75,000 per violation, which creates a strong deterrent and a high-stakes enforcement tool for prosecutors.
Exemptions: FAA waivers and employment duties
Subdivision (c) narrows the statute by exempting two classes of operators. First, it exempts persons who hold an FAA Part 107 Operational Waiver under 14 C.F.R. §107.200, signaling deference to FAA-authorized operations. Second, it exempts people whose employment duties include observing the scene — a broad carve-out that will require fact-specific analysis (for example, distinguishing credentialed public safety contractors from independent journalists or volunteers).
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Firefighters and emergency responders — the statute gives them a clear civil remedy to stop disruptive drone flights and reduces the safety risks and operational delays that drones can cause during suppression or rescue operations.
- State and local prosecutors (Attorney General, county counsels, city attorneys) — the bill supplies a statutory cause of action, injunctive authority, and sizable civil penalties to enforce compliance without relying solely on criminal prosecutions.
- Communities threatened by wildfires — quicker removal of interfering aircraft may reduce delays in suppression, lowering risks to life and property during active incidents.
- Public safety agencies — the law strengthens legal leverage to obtain court orders and recoup enforcement costs when aerial interference jeopardizes operations.
Who Bears the Cost
- Recreational drone operators and hobbyists — they risk civil enforcement (including up to $75,000 penalties) if their flights are found to knowingly or recklessly interfere with wildfire or emergency response activities.
- Commercial drone operators and freelance aerial journalists — absent a Part 107 waiver or clear employment nexus, they face increased compliance burdens and enforcement exposure, which could disrupt business practices for aerial newsgathering and surveying.
- Local governments and courts — while prosecutors gain an enforcement tool, bringing and litigating civil suits imposes workload and fiscal costs on county counsels, city attorneys, and the court system.
- Insurers and operators providing public-safety drone services — ambiguous exemption boundaries and coordination with FAA waivers could increase contract and insurance complexity as providers document lawful operations.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is protecting responder safety and preserving unencumbered emergency airspace versus imposing broad civil liability that can sweep up hobbyists, journalists, and commercial operators — all while navigating federal airspace authority and ambiguous exemption boundaries. Reasonable priorities (responder safety) thus collide with concerns about overbroad enforcement, federal preemption, and collateral impacts on legitimate aerial activities.
Several implementation and legal questions could complicate enforcement. First, the statute cross-references Penal Code §402 to define ‘‘impede,’’ but it does not specify evidentiary standards or time windows for measuring interference (e.g., altitude, distance, number of flights, or duration).
Prosecutors will need operational incident reports, witness testimony, and possibly telemetry data to prove that a given flight inhibited response activity, which can be technically demanding and resource-intensive. Second, the civil penalty is stated as up to $75,000 per violation, but the bill does not define what constitutes a separate violation (per flight, per minute, per incident), leaving room for inconsistent assessments and substantial exposure in multi-flight scenarios.
The bill also creates interagency friction points with federal aviation authority. By exempting Part 107 waiver holders, the statute defers to FAA authorization in some cases, yet it leaves unresolved how state civil enforcement should coordinate with federal airspace management, Notices to Air Missions (NOTAMs), and FAA enforcement of airspace safety.
Additionally, the employment-duty exemption is fact-specific and could generate disputes over who qualifies (e.g., independent journalists, contract pilots, insurance adjusters). Finally, the restriction on private causes of action concentrates enforcement authority in public prosecutors; that reduces multiplicative private litigation but may leave some injured parties without a direct civil remedy, producing political and administrative pressure on local offices to act.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.