NE: LB693 would create new offenses, including “unmanned aircraft harassment by a registered sex offender”


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.

Read more


Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  19. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

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.