AB 426 adds a civil prohibition against operating an unmanned aerial vehicle, remotely piloted aircraft, or drone at the scene of an emergency when that operation impedes emergency personnel carrying out fire suppression, law enforcement, medical, or other emergency-response duties. The bill lets local agencies impose civil penalties of up to $75,000 and authorizes the Attorney General, county counsel, or a city attorney to bring civil enforcement actions seeking penalties, injunctions, and attorney’s fees.
The bill creates a new civil enforcement regime adjacent to existing criminal statutes and state immunity rules. It also includes an express carve-out for operators holding a Federal Aviation Administration Part 107 operational waiver, creating a statutory tension between state-level public-safety enforcement and federally governed aircraft authorizations.
At a Glance
What It Does
Creates a civil prohibition on drone operations that impede emergency personnel at an emergency scene and permits local agencies to levy civil penalties up to $75,000. It also allows the Attorney General or local government attorneys to sue for penalties, injunctive relief, and fees.
Who It Affects
Applies to recreational and commercial drone operators who fly near emergency scenes, local governments that may deploy fines, and state or local prosecutors who will handle enforcement. Emergency responders and news-gathering organizations will see operational consequences.
Why It Matters
This is a statewide, civil enforcement tool aimed at deterring drone interference with emergency operations rather than expanding criminal liability. The high statutory penalty and a federal-waiver exception create practical and constitutional questions for operators, municipalities, and counsel.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 426 amends California law by adding two provisions that work together to create a civil remedy for drone operations that interfere with emergency response. One addition gives local agencies authority to impose civil penalties when an unmanned aircraft is operated at the scene of an emergency and “thereby impedes” emergency personnel.
The other addition spells out enforcement: the Attorney General, a county counsel, or a city attorney may bring a civil action to recover penalties, seek injunctions stopping the conduct, and obtain reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
The core prohibition is fact-specific: it targets operations "at the scene of an emergency" that impede firefighters, peace officers, medical personnel, military personnel, or other emergency personnel while they perform suppression, law enforcement, or emergency-response duties. The bill does not create a new criminal offense; instead it creates civil liability and administrative penalty authority.
A separate, explicit exemption preserves operations conducted under an FAA Part 107 operational waiver, so operators holding that federal authorization are not subject to this civil prohibition.Practically, the statute leaves several implementation questions to enforcement bodies and the courts. The bill attaches a substantial per-violation ceiling—$75,000—but does not define the penalty matrix, notice or hearing process for local agencies, or evidentiary standards for establishing that a drone "impeded" response.
Enforcement can proceed either through local administrative penalties or by civil suit brought by state or local attorneys, which means defendants may face parallel administrative and judicial processes. Evidence is likely to include dispatcher logs, responder testimony, video captured by agencies or bystanders, and aircraft telemetry if available.For regulated commercial operators, the Part 107 waiver carve-out provides a compliance path but not an easy one: waivers are specific, limited in scope, and require FAA approval.
Hobbyists and many small commercial operators are unlikely to hold an appropriate waiver, which raises questions about proportionality of the statutory penalty, the burden of proof for impeding conduct, and the statute’s interaction with federal aviation authority over navigable airspace.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill authorizes local agencies to impose a civil penalty of up to $75,000 for operating a drone at an emergency scene when that operation impedes emergency personnel.
The Attorney General, a county counsel, or a city attorney may bring civil actions to enforce the prohibition and recover penalties, injunctive relief, and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
The prohibition applies specifically when the drone operation "impedes" firefighters, peace officers, medical personnel, military personnel, or other emergency responders performing fire suppression, law enforcement, or emergency-response duties.
Persons holding a Federal Aviation Administration Part 107 operational waiver under 14 C.F.R. § 107.200 are exempt from the statute’s prohibition.
The new authority is codified at Government Code § 53069.65 (local penalty authority) and Civil Code § 1708.83 (substantive prohibition and enforcement remedies).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Local agency civil-penalty authority
This section gives a "local agency" (as defined in § 54951) the ability to impose civil penalties for prohibited drone operations at emergency scenes. The text sets the maximum penalty amount but does not provide an administrative procedure, notice, or hearing framework. That means local governments will need to adopt ordinances or administrative rules to operationalize levies, or rely on existing penalty procedures that may not align perfectly with the new offense.
Substantive prohibition — impediment to emergency personnel
Subsection (a) defines the wrongful conduct: operating an unmanned aerial vehicle, remotely piloted aircraft, or drone at the scene of an emergency and thereby impeding designated emergency personnel in the performance of their duties. The operative language creates a causation requirement—an operation must have the effect of impeding responders—which focuses disputes on fact-finding (where, when, how, and whether response was actually impeded).
Enforcement authorities and remedies
Subsection (b) authorizes the Attorney General, county counsel, or a city attorney to bring civil suits enforcing the prohibition. Remedies listed include civil penalties (up to the statutory cap), injunctive relief to stop continuing interference, and recovery of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for the prevailing plaintiff. The combination of administrative penalty authority and court enforcement creates dual enforcement pathways.
Federal-waiver exception
Subdivision (c) (labelled in the bill as an exception) excludes persons who hold a Part 107 Operational Waiver issued by the FAA under 14 C.F.R. § 107.200 from the statute’s reach. The carve-out limits state exposure when the FAA has expressly authorized specific operations, but it does not address broader FAA preemption questions or waiver holders' obligations beyond the terms of their federal authorization.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government 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, police, EMS and other emergency personnel — The statute gives them a specific civil remedy and municipal enforcement tool to deter drones that slow, distract, or otherwise impair response operations.
- Local governments and public-safety agencies — Agencies gain a statutory lever to sanction disruptive drone flights and to pursue injunctions to keep airspace clear during incidents.
- Communities and affected residents — Reduced drone interference can lower safety risks at incidents (e.g., aerial collisions with firefighting aircraft) and improve speed and effectiveness of emergency response.
Who Bears the Cost
- Recreational drone operators and small commercial operators without FAA waivers — They face the greatest immediate exposure to six-figure civil penalties and legal costs for operating near emergency scenes.
- News organizations and independent journalists that use drones — New liability risk may chill on-scene newsgathering at emergencies unless they secure appropriate FAA waivers.
- Local governments and county counsels — Although they gain enforcement authority, municipalities may incur administrative costs to adopt enforcement procedures and may be asked to defend or prosecute civil suits related to penalties.
- Courts and litigants generally — The statute invites fact-intensive litigation over whether an operation "impeded" response, which could increase caseloads and litigation expenses for both plaintiffs and defendants.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill tries to square two legitimate aims—protecting emergency responders by keeping airspace clear and respecting federal authority and individual aviation freedoms—but it does so by imposing a powerful state-level civil sanction that can collide with federal regulation, create heavy penalties for ambiguous conduct, and shift expensive, fact-heavy enforcement burdens onto local governments, operators, and courts.
AB 426 raises several implementation and legal questions that enforcement bodies and courts will need to resolve. First, the operative phrase "at the scene of an emergency" is context-dependent: does it require proximity by distance, temporal overlap with active response, or some combination?
The bill’s causation language—"thereby impedes"—requires proof that the drone materially interfered with duties, which is fact-intensive and likely to turn on mixed evidence (responder testimony, radio logs, video, telemetry). AB 426 does not prescribe evidentiary standards or an administrative adjudication process, so enforcement could vary widely across localities.
Second, the statute sits alongside federal aviation regulation. The explicit Part 107 waiver exception narrows immediate conflict for persons with FAA approval, but it does not eliminate broader preemption risks.
The FAA regulates navigable airspace and aircraft operations; state or local measures that effectively regulate airspace or collision avoidance can invite federal preemption challenges. Courts will likely be asked to reconcile state public-safety objectives with federal primacy over airspace safety and aircraft operations.
Third, the penalty structure is blunt. A $75,000 ceiling per violation is substantial relative to the scale of many hobbyist or small-operator operations, and the bill does not require graduated penalties or remedial options short of six-figure fines.
That opens proportionality and due-process concerns, especially where situational ambiguity exists (e.g., an operator capturing news footage who does not realize they are impeding a response). Finally, the dual pathways—local administrative penalties and civil suits by state or local attorneys—could produce overlapping proceedings, inconsistent remedies, or forum-shopping unless local procedures are harmonized with the civil enforcement regime.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.