Arizona Police Drone-Shooting Immunity Bill Gains Momentum

A proposal to grant local law enforcement immunity for shooting down drones near the southern border advanced from committee on Thursday, despite raising concerns about the potential for excessive immunity. House Bill 2733, introduced by Rep. David Marshall, R-Snowflake, aims to protect officers from liability for property damage resulting from the destruction of drones believed to be engaged in criminal activities.

This legislation emerges amid a surge in drone activity linked to drug cartels operating near the state’s southern border. Both Republican lawmakers and the Democratic attorney general argue that local police need the ability to neutralize potential threats from drones without the fear of being sued. However, the bill’s passage raises significant questions, particularly since federal law prohibits shooting at any aircraft, including drones.

The airspace surrounding U.S. borders is under stringent oversight from the U.S. military and the Federal Aviation Administration. Reports from NORAD highlight a marked increase in drone incursions at the southern border, particularly as affordable consumer drones have become commonplace.

Rep. Alexander Kolodin, R-Scottsdale, expressed concerns about the broad applications of immunity in urban areas like Nogales, suggesting that it could lead to reckless behavior by law enforcement. “All I need is reasonable suspicion… and I could go skeet shooting,” he warned during a House Public Safety and Law Enforcement Committee meeting.

Kolodin contended that officers could potentially shoot down a drone over a resident’s property, resulting in damage without any accountability. “It is an absolute immunity, as long as the conditions are satisfied. It just seems like an oversight to me,” he added.

Marshall countered Kolodin’s concerns by stating that the drones law enforcement intends to target are typically located near the border rather than in populated areas. He further downplayed the risks associated with collateral damage, suggesting that law enforcement would utilize non-lethal options to disable the drones. “If you’re out in the desert and you’re flying these drones, you’re probably up to no good,” he remarked.

Initially, the bill allowed law enforcement to act within a 30-mile radius of the border, but an amendment by Rep. Kevin Volk, D-Tucson, reduced this distance to 15 miles at the request of the Attorney General’s Office.

Nick Debus, a lobbyist for Attorney General Kris Mayes, emphasized the severity of the fentanyl crisis, stating, “We are literally the transportation superhighway for fentanyl that comes into the country.” Both Debus and Cochise County Sheriff Robert Watkins supported the bill as a necessary measure to combat drug smuggling, despite Watkins acknowledging that drones recovered by his deputies had not been directly implicated in drug transport.

Watkins downplayed any concerns regarding police discharging firearms inappropriately, asserting that law enforcement use-of-force protocols would mitigate such risks. However, Kolodin remained skeptical, reiterating that giving law enforcement broad immunity could permit dangerous conduct with minimal oversight.

The ACLU of Arizona sided with Kolodin’s perspective, warning that the bill could endanger journalistic activities and hinder the ability of watchdog groups to monitor government operations at the border. “You can certainly shoot drones down over Nogales in this bill,” said Marilyn Rodriguez, a lobbyist for the ACLU, questioning how law enforcement could effectively distinguish between illegal and legal drone operations.

Drones have increasingly become a focal point of concern for law enforcement at the border, with specialized “drone jammers” being deployed by Customs and Border Protection to disable unauthorized drones. The technology has also become crucial at sensitive installations, as evidenced by a 2019 incident involving a drone swarm at the Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant.

The bill received bipartisan support in the committee, although Kolodin and two Democrats, Reps. Lorena Austin and Quantá Crews, chose to vote present. The next step for the legislation is a review by the full House of Representatives.