It remains to be seen if this bill will get off the ground. The Judiciary Committee heard testimony on LB693, introduced by Bellevue Sen. Carol Blood, which would regulate the use of unmanned aircraft (drones) in the state. Much of the bill’s language prohibits the use of drones to trespass or spy on another person.
Seems to be a theme for State Legislatures in 2018 “RSO’s and Drones”, this is what’s happening in Virginia.
http://restoringintegritytovirginiaregistry.blogspot.com/2018/02/hb638-delegates-chris-collins-and-mike.html
http://restoringintegritytovirginiaregistry.blogspot.com/2018/02/action-item-for-virginia-hb638_13.html
So the new law will make it a class 1 misdemeanor for anyone to tresspass onto private property air space with a drone to peep in windows or spy on the occupants.
And………it will be class 1 misdemeanor if a registrant does it.
I can see where this is all going now, because I’m seeing a lot of this lately. All future laws prohibiting certain activities/behavior must be written somehow to make clear that there is a distinction between registrants and non registrants. Registrants may be a sub-population now, but what happens when they reach parity?
Who exactly will be measuring the distance? I suppose everyone worried about the mass amounts of sex offenders using drones will just have to buy a laser measuring device. This is a law that is impossible to enforce. Hello Police, I just seen a drone fly 200 feet above my house controlled by a sex offender hiding in the bushes…..Lol, another law that will just waste the ink to print it. Can anyone report an instance of a sex offender doing this? It would be fun to have a drone as they really do take amazing Hollywood looking videos of landscape. However, like most registrants, I have no extra money to purchase one. They have made sure we all are as poor as possible, but yet they think we have extra money for toys? Idiots!
Somewhere there must be a focus group that does nothing but imagine objectionable things a registrant can do and then writes up proposed legislation to counter it.
I’m guessing that the original form of this came from some ‘think tank’ since it appears that many states are working on the same basic bill. Can’t help but wonder how this is something that suddenly rose to the top of the pile of things needing to be addressed through legislation. Is there money somewhere pushing the issue?
The Wisconsin Assembly and Senate have been working on nearly identical versions for most of the year. The Assembly just passed their version, and strangely the entire paragraph relating to sex offenders was REMOVED in the substitute amendment they passed.
Someone must have realized that it was unnecessary to include text stating it was illegal for sex offenders to do something they were already prohibited from doing in Wisconsin by statute. And then I imagine a staffer let them know a court has ruled in recent years that prohibiting sex offenders from taking photographs in a public place where it was otherwise legal was an unconstitutional restriction.