Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Border Drone Interception topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee approves bill giving border officers limited immunity to disable drones within 15 miles
Summary
House Bill 2733, amended to narrow scope, received a due-pass recommendation after debate over public-safety benefits, federal preemption concerns and how immunity is defined for drone takedowns near the U.S.-Mexico border.
A House Special Committee on Public Safety and Law Enforcement on Feb. 18 approved House Bill 2733 as amended, a measure supporters said would give law enforcement limited immunity for disabling or intercepting drones operating within 15 miles of Arizona’s international border when officers have reasonable suspicion the aircraft are being used for serious crimes.
Chairman Brandon Marshall, the sponsor of the bill, said the measure responds to repeated drone incursions carrying narcotics along the border and gives law enforcement an additional tool to stop shipments. “This bill was brought to me by the attorney general's office. It's just another tool that we want to give law enforcement,” Marshall said during committee debate.
The bill originally set a 30-mile inland limit and broader liability language; Representative Gail Volk offered an amendment that narrowed the liability protection to personal property claims, limited the distance from 30 miles to 15 miles and required reasonable suspicion of organized-crime, terrorism or drug offenses. Representative Volk described the change as targeting the “worst offenders” while narrowing scope at the AG’s request.
Nick Debas of the Attorney General’s Office told the committee the state is seeing large quantities of fentanyl and other drugs streamed into Arizona and that law enforcement is reporting increased drone use by cartel actors. “We are literally the transportation superhighway for fentanyl,” Debas said, describing recent seizure totals the office has reported.
Opponents warned the bill risks federal preemption over airspace and could endanger journalists and citizens. Marilyn Rodriguez, representing the ACLU of Arizona, argued that the Federal Aviation Administration regulates aircraft and that 18 U.S.C. §32 makes damaging or disabling aircraft a federal offense: “The idea that anyone can look at a drone and instantly know its purpose is absurd,” Rodriguez said, warning of risk to journalists and the public.
Committee counsel and AG staff said the bill was drafted to limit liability to the unmanned-aircraft operator for personal-property claims while preserving existing qualified-immunity standards for other potential claims. Legal counsel from the AG’s office explained the immunity language was intended to blend with existing qualified-immunity principles, though several committee members expressed concern that the statutory wording established an absolute immunity when certain conditions were met.
The committee adopted the Volk amendment by voice vote and then approved the amended bill with a due-pass recommendation. The committee recorded the final outcome as a due-pass recommendation with 10 ayes and 3 members recorded as present. The transcript and testimony show disagreement among members about whether immunity in the statute functions as absolute or remains subject to negligence standards; several speakers urged future drafting clarifications and carve-outs for densely populated border towns.
If enacted, the measure would appropriate no state-level funding; committee discussion focused on legal scope and operational safeguards for law enforcement.
