Senate committee considers criminal penalties for unlawful drone use near prisons, airports and responders

A New Hampshire Senate committee heard testimony on SB 49, which would create criminal penalties for unlawful operation of small unmanned aircraft systems (UAS, commonly called drones) when pilots interfere with emergency operations, endanger manned aircraft, or deliver contraband into correctional facilities.

Sponsor remarks described the bill as a Department of Safety request to address a growing problem: "This bill establishes the crime and penalties of unlawful use of small unmanned, aircraft systems," the sponsor said, summarizing language that ranges from a misdemeanor for interference with emergency responders to a class A felony if a drone causes a crash resulting in death or serious bodily injury.

Federal, military and corrections witnesses described recent incursions and operational risk. Jeff Oja, director of emergency management at New Boston Space Force Station, said the installation runs satellite ground operations and that drones over restricted airspace have already caused mission impacts: "Any type of SUAS flying over... could really impact, degrade, or cause mission failure for anything that we're doing on-site." Commissioner Helen Hanks of the Department of Corrections said corrections facilities lack drone-detection capability, reported multiple sightings and described a rise in drone-delivered contraband: "Drone drop contraband sparks inmate gang turf wars, fuel drug epidemics...and they pose life threatening safety risks to correction staff."

Public testimony added perspectives about civil liberties and technical drafting. Lieutenant Chris Storm of the State Police backed criminal penalties but asked the committee to make the House and Senate versions consistent and to preserve references to the federal regulatory framework (14 CFR part 107), which governs commercial UAS operations and airspace. A member of the public argued for Second Amendment protections for certain nonlethal defensive drone capabilities; legislative staff and committee members noted that state law cannot conflict with federal airspace regulation and that media and commercial operators would still fall under FAA rules.

Committee members and witnesses discussed a House bill that the committee had considered in parallel; law-enforcement witnesses said a small number of technical differences in the drafts should be harmonized prior to final action. The committee did not vote; witnesses said further drafting to align the bills and preserve federal references would address enforcement and civil-liberties concerns.