TX – Texas
Texas government website just for reference.
Texas Legislature in case more laws were written since this book was published.
Last updated on March 5, 2025
Airspace
In addition to checking the FAA UAS Facility Map or B4UFLY or SkyVector or Google Maps one should consider also FAA JO 7400.10F – Special Use Airspace which is an order, published yearly, providing a listing of all regulatory and non-regulatory special use airspace areas, as well as issued but not yet implemented amendments to those areas established by the FAA.
Special Use Airspace consists of airspace of defined dimensions identified by an area on the surface of the earth wherein activities must be confined because of their nature, or wherein limitations are imposed upon aircraft operations that are not a part of those activities, or both. The vertical limits of special use airspace are measured by designated altitude floors and ceilings expressed as flight levels or as feet above MSL. Unless otherwise specified, the word “to” (an altitude or flight level) means “to and including” (that altitude or flight level). The horizontal limits of special use airspace are measured by boundaries described by geographic coordinates or other appropriate references that clearly define their perimeter. The period of time during which a designation of special use airspace is in effect is stated in the designation. All bearings and radials in this part are true from point of origin. Unless otherwise specified, all mileages in this part are stated as statute miles.
Restricted Areas: No person may operate an aircraft within a restricted area between the designated altitudes and during the time of designation, unless they have the advance permission of:
(a) The using agency described in § 73.15; or
(b) The controlling agency described in § 73.17.
These using agencies may be the agency, organization, or military command whose activity within a restricted area necessitated the area being so designated. Upon the request of the FAA, the using agency shall execute a letter establishing procedures for joint use of a restricted area by the using agency and the controlling agency, under which the using agency would notify the controlling agency whenever the controlling agency may grant permission for transit through the restricted area in accordance with the terms of the letter. The using agency shall:
(1) Schedule activities within the restricted area;
(2) Authorize transit through, or flight within, the restricted area as feasible; and
(3) Contain within the restricted area all activities conducted therein in accordance with the purpose for which it was designated.
For the purposes of this part, the controlling agency is the FAA facility that may authorize transit through or flight within a restricted area in accordance with a joint-use letter issued under § 73.15.
Prohibited Areas: No person may operate an aircraft within a prohibited area unless authorization has been granted by the using agency. For the purpose of this subpart, the using agency is the agency, organization or military command that established the requirements for the prohibited area.
Military Operations Areas: A Military Operations Area (MOA) is airspace established outside of Class A airspace to separate/segregate certain nonhazardous military activities from IFR traffic and to identify for VFR traffic where these activities are conducted. Activities. MOA’s are established to contain certain military activities such as air combat maneuvers, air intercepts, acrobatics, etc.
Alert Areas: Airspace which may contain a high volume of pilot training activities or an unusual type of aerial activity, neither of which is hazardous to aircraft.
Warning Areas: A non regulatory warning area is airspace of defined dimensions designated over international waters that contains activity which may be hazardous to nonparticipating aircraft. The purpose of such warning areas is to warn nonparticipating pilots of the potential danger. Activities may be hazardous.
National Security Areas: A national security area (NSA) consists of airspace of defined vertical and lateral dimensions established at locations where there is a requirement for increased security of ground facilities. The purpose of such national security areas is to request pilot cooperation by voluntarily avoiding flight through the NSA. When circumstances dictate a need for a greater level of security, flight in an NSA may be temporarily prohibited by regulation under the provisions of 14 CFR Section 99.7, Special Security Instructions. Such prohibitions will be issued by FAA Headquarters and disseminated via the US NOTAM System.
Crewed Aircraft in your Airspace
CREWED AIRCRAFT
TXDOT
Start by checking
and also
Texas State Drone Statutes
RS 423.001 – Chapter 423 – Use of UA
Oct 23, 2023 – U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed a district court’s 2022 ruling on the constitutionality of Texas Chapter 423 law (i.e., the drone law) which restricts the actions of drones. Nat’l Press Photographers Ass’n v. McCraw, No. 22-50337 (Oct. 23, 2023)
The law reads:
A person commits an offense if the person uses an unmanned aircraft to capture an image of an individual or privately owned real property in this state with the intent to conduct surveillance on the individual or property captured in the image.
The ruling concluded that the law is not unconstitutional on its face, and that this decision “does not foreclose all First Amendment and due process challenges” and that a future challenge “may persuasively show that a particular enforcement of Chapter 423 runs afoul of free speech or fairness principles.”
The lawsuit was a pre-enforcement challenge to this Texas state law by the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA). While specific exemptions for certain government operations (e.g., land surveying, criminal investigations, educational research) were made, the law did not clarify or address whether the press could use drones. In its argument, the NPPA provided examples of drone use by the media: the capturing of aerial footage of a fatal fire or using a drone to track the construction of a publicly funded project. These examples, argued the NPPA, are not invasions of privacy, yet these actions would fall under the statute without a specific exemption for the media. Since the decision did not clarify whether the prohibition applies to media, this likely means that the statute could face further challenge if criminal penalties are sought against a reporter in the future. For now, journalists in Texas may need to weigh the risks related to the use of drones for reporting purposes, since the law imposes a criminal misdemeanor infraction on violators.
This statute stricken by Judge in THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION
NATIONAL PRESS PHOTOGRAPHERS ASSOCIATION, TEXAS PRESS ASSOCIATION, and JOSEPH PAPPALARDO, Plaintiffs,
v.
STEVEN MCCRAW, in his official capacity as Director of Texas Department of Public Safety; DWIGHT MATHIS, in his official capacity as Chief of the Texas Highway Patrol; and WES MAU, in his official capacity as District Attorney of Hays County, Texas, Defendants.
1:19-CV-946-RP
NONAPPLICABILITY.
(a) It is lawful to capture an image using an UA in this state:
(1) for the purpose of professional or scholarly research and development or for another academic purpose by a person acting on behalf of an institution of higher education or a private or independent institution of higher education, as those terms are defined by Section 61.003, Education Code, including a person who:
(A) is a professor, employee, or student of the institution; or
(B) is under contract with or otherwise acting under the direction or on behalf of the institution;
(2) in airspace designated as a test site or range authorized by the FAA for the purpose of integrating UAS into the NAS;
(3) as part of an operation, exercise, or mission of any branch of the US military;
(4) if the image is captured by a satellite for the purposes of mapping;
(5) if the image is captured by or for an electric or natural gas utility or a telecommunications provider:
(A) for operations and maintenance of utility or telecommunications facilities for the purpose of maintaining utility or telecommunications system reliability and integrity;
(B) for inspecting utility or telecommunications facilities to determine repair, maintenance, or replacement needs during and after construction of such facilities;
(C) for assessing vegetation growth for the purpose of maintaining clearances on utility or telecommunications easements; and
(D) for utility or telecommunications facility routing and siting for the purpose of providing utility or telecommunications service;
(6) with the consent of the individual who owns or lawfully occupies the real property captured in the image;
(7) pursuant to a valid search or arrest warrant;
(8) if the image is captured by a law enforcement authority or a person who is under contract with or otherwise acting under the direction or on behalf of a law enforcement authority:
(A) in immediate pursuit of a person law enforcement officers have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to suspect has committed an offense, not including misdemeanors or offenses punishable by a fine only;
(B) for the purpose of documenting a crime scene where an offense, not including misdemeanors or offenses punishable by a fine only, has been committed;
(C) for the purpose of investigating the scene of:
(i) a human fatality;
(ii) a motor vehicle accident causing death or serious bodily injury to a person; or
(iii) any motor vehicle accident on a state highway or federal interstate or highway;
(D) in connection with the search for a missing person;
(E) for the purpose of conducting a high-risk tactical operation that poses a threat to human life;
(F) of private property that is generally open to the public where the property owner consents to law enforcement public safety responsibilities; or
(G) of real property or a person on real property that is within 25 miles of the US border for the sole purpose of ensuring border security;
(9) if the image is captured by state or local law enforcement authorities, or a person who is under contract with or otherwise acting under the direction or on behalf of state authorities, for the purpose of:
(A) surveying the scene of a catastrophe or other damage to determine whether a state of emergency should be declared;
(B) preserving public safety, protecting property, or surveying damage or contamination during a lawfully declared state of emergency; or
(C) conducting routine air quality sampling and monitoring, as provided by state or local law;
(10) at the scene of a spill, or a suspected spill, of hazardous materials;
(11) for the purpose of fire suppression;
(12) for the purpose of rescuing a person whose life or well-being is in imminent danger;
(13) if the image is captured by a Texas licensed real estate broker in connection with the marketing, sale, or financing of real property, provided that no individual is identifiable in the image;
(14) from a height no more than eight feet above ground level in a public place, if the image was captured without using any electronic, mechanical, or other means to amplify the image beyond normal human perception;
(15) of public real property or a person on that property;
(16) if the image is captured by the owner or operator of an oil, gas, water, or other pipeline for the purpose of inspecting, maintaining, or repairing pipelines or other related facilities, and is captured without the intent to conduct surveillance on an individual or real property located in this state;
(17) in connection with oil pipeline safety and rig protection;
(18) in connection with port authority surveillance and security;
(19) if the image is captured by a registered professional land surveyor in connection with the practice of professional surveying, as those terms are defined by Section 1071.002, Occupations Code, provided that no individual is identifiable in the image;
(20) if the image is captured by a professional engineer licensed under Subchapter G, Chapter 1001, Occupations Code, in connection with the practice of engineering, as defined by Section 1001.003, Occupations Code, provided that no individual is identifiable in the image; or
(21) if:
(A) the image is captured by an employee of an insurance company or of an affiliate of the company in connection with the underwriting of an insurance policy, or the rating or adjusting of an insurance claim, regarding real property or a structure on real property; and
(B) the operator of the UA is authorized by the FAA to conduct operations within the airspace from which the image is captured.
(b) This chapter does not apply to the manufacture, assembly, distribution, or sale of an UA.
Oct 23, 2023 – U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed a district court’s 2022 ruling on the constitutionality of Texas Chapter 423 law (i.e., the drone law) which restricts the actions of drones. Nat’l Press Photographers Ass’n v. McCraw, No. 22-50337 (Oct. 23, 2023)
The law reads:
A person commits an offense if the person uses an unmanned aircraft to capture an image of an individual or privately owned real property in this state with the intent to conduct surveillance on the individual or property captured in the image.
The ruling concluded that the law is not unconstitutional on its face, and that this decision “does not foreclose all First Amendment and due process challenges” and that a future challenge “may persuasively show that a particular enforcement of Chapter 423 runs afoul of free speech or fairness principles.”
The lawsuit was a pre-enforcement challenge to this Texas state law by the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA). While specific exemptions for certain government operations (e.g., land surveying, criminal investigations, educational research) were made, the law did not clarify or address whether the press could use drones. In its argument, the NPPA provided examples of drone use by the media: the capturing of aerial footage of a fatal fire or using a drone to track the construction of a publicly funded project. These examples, argued the NPPA, are not invasions of privacy, yet these actions would fall under the statute without a specific exemption for the media. Since the decision did not clarify whether the prohibition applies to media, this likely means that the statute could face further challenge if criminal penalties are sought against a reporter in the future. For now, journalists in Texas may need to weigh the risks related to the use of drones for reporting purposes, since the law imposes a criminal misdemeanor infraction on violators.
This statute stricken by Judge in THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION
NATIONAL PRESS PHOTOGRAPHERS ASSOCIATION, TEXAS PRESS ASSOCIATION, and JOSEPH PAPPALARDO, Plaintiffs,
v.
STEVEN MCCRAW, in his official capacity as Director of Texas Department of Public Safety; DWIGHT MATHIS, in his official capacity as Chief of the Texas Highway Patrol; and WES MAU, in his official capacity as District Attorney of Hays County, Texas, Defendants.
1:19-CV-946-RP
OFFENSE: ILLEGAL USE OF UA TO CAPTURE IMAGE.
(a) A person commits an offense if the person uses an UA to capture an image of an individual or privately owned real property in this state with the intent to conduct surveillance on the individual or property captured in the image.
(b) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor.
(c) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the person destroyed the image:
(1) as soon as the person had knowledge that the image was captured in violation of this section; and
(2) without disclosing, displaying, or distributing the image to a third party.
(d) In this section, “intent” has the meaning assigned by Section 6.03, Penal Code.
Oct 23, 2023 – U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed a district court’s 2022 ruling on the constitutionality of Texas Chapter 423 law (i.e., the drone law) which restricts the actions of drones. Nat’l Press Photographers Ass’n v. McCraw, No. 22-50337 (Oct. 23, 2023)
The law reads:
A person commits an offense if the person uses an unmanned aircraft to capture an image of an individual or privately owned real property in this state with the intent to conduct surveillance on the individual or property captured in the image.
The ruling concluded that the law is not unconstitutional on its face, and that this decision “does not foreclose all First Amendment and due process challenges” and that a future challenge “may persuasively show that a particular enforcement of Chapter 423 runs afoul of free speech or fairness principles.”
The lawsuit was a pre-enforcement challenge to this Texas state law by the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA). While specific exemptions for certain government operations (e.g., land surveying, criminal investigations, educational research) were made, the law did not clarify or address whether the press could use drones. In its argument, the NPPA provided examples of drone use by the media: the capturing of aerial footage of a fatal fire or using a drone to track the construction of a publicly funded project. These examples, argued the NPPA, are not invasions of privacy, yet these actions would fall under the statute without a specific exemption for the media. Since the decision did not clarify whether the prohibition applies to media, this likely means that the statute could face further challenge if criminal penalties are sought against a reporter in the future. For now, journalists in Texas may need to weigh the risks related to the use of drones for reporting purposes, since the law imposes a criminal misdemeanor infraction on violators.
This statute stricken by Judge in THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION
NATIONAL PRESS PHOTOGRAPHERS ASSOCIATION, TEXAS PRESS ASSOCIATION, and JOSEPH PAPPALARDO, Plaintiffs,
v.
STEVEN MCCRAW, in his official capacity as Director of Texas Department of Public Safety; DWIGHT MATHIS, in his official capacity as Chief of the Texas Highway Patrol; and WES MAU, in his official capacity as District Attorney of Hays County, Texas, Defendants.
1:19-CV-946-RP
OFFENSE: POSSESSION, DISCLOSURE, DISPLAY, DISTRIBUTION, OR USE OF IMAGE.
(a) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) captures an image in violation of Section 423.003; and
(2) possesses, discloses, displays, distributes, or otherwise uses that image.
(b) An offense under this section for the possession of an image is a Class C misdemeanor. An offense under this section for the disclosure, display, distribution, or other use of an image is a Class B misdemeanor.
(c) Each image a person possesses, discloses, displays, distributes, or otherwise uses in violation of this section is a separate offense.
(d) It is a defense to prosecution under this section for the possession of an image that the person destroyed the image as soon as the person had knowledge that the image was captured in violation of Section 423.003.
(e) It is a defense to prosecution under this section for the disclosure, display, distribution, or other use of an image that the person stopped disclosing, displaying, distributing, or otherwise using the image as soon as the person had knowledge that the image was captured in violation of Section 423.003.
Oct 23, 2023 – U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed a district court’s 2022 ruling on the constitutionality of Texas Chapter 423 law (i.e., the drone law) which restricts the actions of drones. Nat’l Press Photographers Ass’n v. McCraw, No. 22-50337 (Oct. 23, 2023)
The law reads:
A person commits an offense if the person uses an unmanned aircraft to capture an image of an individual or privately owned real property in this state with the intent to conduct surveillance on the individual or property captured in the image.
The ruling concluded that the law is not unconstitutional on its face, and that this decision “does not foreclose all First Amendment and due process challenges” and that a future challenge “may persuasively show that a particular enforcement of Chapter 423 runs afoul of free speech or fairness principles.”
The lawsuit was a pre-enforcement challenge to this Texas state law by the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA). While specific exemptions for certain government operations (e.g., land surveying, criminal investigations, educational research) were made, the law did not clarify or address whether the press could use drones. In its argument, the NPPA provided examples of drone use by the media: the capturing of aerial footage of a fatal fire or using a drone to track the construction of a publicly funded project. These examples, argued the NPPA, are not invasions of privacy, yet these actions would fall under the statute without a specific exemption for the media. Since the decision did not clarify whether the prohibition applies to media, this likely means that the statute could face further challenge if criminal penalties are sought against a reporter in the future. For now, journalists in Texas may need to weigh the risks related to the use of drones for reporting purposes, since the law imposes a criminal misdemeanor infraction on violators.
This statute stricken by Judge in THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION
NATIONAL PRESS PHOTOGRAPHERS ASSOCIATION, TEXAS PRESS ASSOCIATION, and JOSEPH PAPPALARDO, Plaintiffs,
v.
STEVEN MCCRAW, in his official capacity as Director of Texas Department of Public Safety; DWIGHT MATHIS, in his official capacity as Chief of the Texas Highway Patrol; and WES MAU, in his official capacity as District Attorney of Hays County, Texas, Defendants.
1:19-CV-946-RP
OFFENSE: OPERATION OF UA OVER CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, DETENTION FACILITY, OR CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY.
(a) In this section:
(1) “Correctional facility” means:
(A) a confinement facility operated by or under contract with any division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice;
(B) a municipal or county jail;
(C) a confinement facility operated by or under contract with the Federal Bureau of Prisons; or
(D) a secure correctional facility or secure detention facility, as defined by Section 51.02, Family Code.
(1-a) “Critical infrastructure facility” means:
(A) one of the following, if completely enclosed by a fence or other physical barrier that is obviously designed to exclude intruders, or if clearly marked with a sign or signs that are posted on the property, are reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders, and indicate that entry is forbidden:
(i) a petroleum or alumina refinery;
(ii) an electrical power generating facility, substation, switching station, or electrical control center;
(iii) a chemical, polymer, or rubber manufacturing facility;
(iv) a water intake structure, water treatment facility, wastewater treatment plant, or pump station;
(v) a natural gas compressor station;
(vi) a liquid natural gas terminal or storage facility;
(vii) a telecommunications central switching office or any structure used as part of a system to provide wired or wireless telecommunications services;
(viii) a port, a public or private airport depicted in any current aeronautical chart published by the FAA, a railroad switching yard, a trucking terminal, or any other freight transportation facility;
(ix) a gas processing plant, including a plant used in the processing, treatment, or fractionation of natural gas;
(x) a transmission facility used by a federally licensed radio or television station;
(xi) a steelmaking facility that uses an electric arc furnace to make steel;
(xii) a dam that is classified as a high hazard by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality;
(xiii) a concentrated animal feeding operation, as defined by Section 26.048, Water Code; or
(xiv) a military installation owned or operated by or for the federal government, the state, or another governmental entity; or
(B) if enclosed by a fence or other physical barrier obviously designed to exclude intruders:
(i) any portion of an aboveground oil, gas, or chemical pipeline;
(ii) an oil or gas drilling site;
(iii) a group of tanks used to store crude oil, such as a tank battery;
(iv) an oil, gas, or chemical production facility;
(v) an oil or gas wellhead; or
(vi) any oil and gas facility that has an active flare.
(2) “Dam” means any barrier, including any appurtenant structures, that is constructed for the purpose of permanently or temporarily impounding water.
(3) “Detention facility” means a facility operated by or under contract with United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement for the purpose of detaining aliens and placing them in removal proceedings.
(b) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally or knowingly:
(1) operates an UA over a correctional facility, detention facility, or critical infrastructure facility and the UA is not higher than 400 feet above ground level;
(2) allows an UA to make contact with a correctional facility, detention facility, or critical infrastructure facility, including any person or object on the premises of or within the facility; or
(3) allows an UA to come within a distance of a correctional facility, detention facility, or critical infrastructure facility that is close enough to interfere with the operations of or cause a disturbance to the facility.
(c) This section does not apply to:
(1) conduct described by Subsection (b) that involves a correctional facility, detention facility, or critical infrastructure facility and is committed by:
(A) the federal government, the state, or a governmental entity;
(B) a person under contract with or otherwise acting under the direction or on behalf of the federal government, the state, or a governmental entity;
(C) a law enforcement agency;
(D) a person under contract with or otherwise acting under the direction or on behalf of a law enforcement agency; or
(E) an operator of an UA that is being used for a commercial purpose, if the operation is conducted in compliance with:
(i) each applicable FAA rule, restriction, or exemption; and
(ii) all required FAA authorizations; or
(2) conduct described by Subsection (b) that involves a critical infrastructure facility and is committed by:
(A) an owner or operator of the critical infrastructure facility;
(B) a person under contract with or otherwise acting under the direction or on behalf of an owner or operator of the critical infrastructure facility;
(C) a person who has the prior written consent of the owner or operator of the critical infrastructure facility; or
(D) the owner or occupant of the property on which the critical infrastructure facility is located or a person who has the prior written consent of the owner or occupant of that property.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor, except that the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if the actor has previously been convicted under this section or Section 423.0046.
Oct 23, 2023 – U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed a district court’s 2022 ruling on the constitutionality of Texas Chapter 423 law (i.e., the drone law) which restricts the actions of drones. Nat’l Press Photographers Ass’n v. McCraw, No. 22-50337 (Oct. 23, 2023)
The law reads:
A person commits an offense if the person uses an unmanned aircraft to capture an image of an individual or privately owned real property in this state with the intent to conduct surveillance on the individual or property captured in the image.
The ruling concluded that the law is not unconstitutional on its face, and that this decision “does not foreclose all First Amendment and due process challenges” and that a future challenge “may persuasively show that a particular enforcement of Chapter 423 runs afoul of free speech or fairness principles.”
The lawsuit was a pre-enforcement challenge to this Texas state law by the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA). While specific exemptions for certain government operations (e.g., land surveying, criminal investigations, educational research) were made, the law did not clarify or address whether the press could use drones. In its argument, the NPPA provided examples of drone use by the media: the capturing of aerial footage of a fatal fire or using a drone to track the construction of a publicly funded project. These examples, argued the NPPA, are not invasions of privacy, yet these actions would fall under the statute without a specific exemption for the media. Since the decision did not clarify whether the prohibition applies to media, this likely means that the statute could face further challenge if criminal penalties are sought against a reporter in the future. For now, journalists in Texas may need to weigh the risks related to the use of drones for reporting purposes, since the law imposes a criminal misdemeanor infraction on violators.
This statute stricken by Judge in THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION
NATIONAL PRESS PHOTOGRAPHERS ASSOCIATION, TEXAS PRESS ASSOCIATION, and JOSEPH PAPPALARDO, Plaintiffs,
v.
STEVEN MCCRAW, in his official capacity as Director of Texas Department of Public Safety; DWIGHT MATHIS, in his official capacity as Chief of the Texas Highway Patrol; and WES MAU, in his official capacity as District Attorney of Hays County, Texas, Defendants.
1:19-CV-946-RP
OFFENSE: OPERATION OF UA OVER SPORTS VENUE.
(a) In this section, “sports venue” means an arena, automobile racetrack, coliseum, stadium, or other type of area or facility that:
(1) has a seating capacity of 30,000 or more people; and
(2) is primarily used for one or more professional or amateur sports or athletics events.
(b) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally or knowingly operates an UA over a sports venue and the UA is not higher than 400 feet above ground level.
(c) This section does not apply to conduct described by Subsection (b) that is committed by:
(1) the federal government, the state, or a governmental entity;
(2) a person under contract with or otherwise acting under the direction or on behalf of the federal government, the state, or a governmental entity;
(3) a law enforcement agency;
(4) a person under contract with or otherwise acting under the direction or on behalf of a law enforcement agency;
(5) an operator of an UA that is being used for a commercial purpose, if the operation is conducted in compliance with:
(A) each applicable FAA rule, restriction, or exemption; and
(B) all required FAA authorizations;
(6) an owner or operator of the sports venue;
(7) a person under contract with or otherwise acting under the direction or on behalf of an owner or operator of the sports venue; or
(8) a person who has the prior written consent of the owner or operator of the sports venue.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor, except that the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if the actor has previously been convicted under this section or Section 423.0045.
ILLEGALLY OR INCIDENTALLY CAPTURED IMAGES NOT SUBJECT TO DISCLOSURE.
Oct 23, 2023 – U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed a district court’s 2022 ruling on the constitutionality of Texas Chapter 423 law (i.e., the drone law) which restricts the actions of drones. Nat’l Press Photographers Ass’n v. McCraw, No. 22-50337 (Oct. 23, 2023)
The law reads:
A person commits an offense if the person uses an unmanned aircraft to capture an image of an individual or privately owned real property in this state with the intent to conduct surveillance on the individual or property captured in the image.
The ruling concluded that the law is not unconstitutional on its face, and that this decision “does not foreclose all First Amendment and due process challenges” and that a future challenge “may persuasively show that a particular enforcement of Chapter 423 runs afoul of free speech or fairness principles.”
The lawsuit was a pre-enforcement challenge to this Texas state law by the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA). While specific exemptions for certain government operations (e.g., land surveying, criminal investigations, educational research) were made, the law did not clarify or address whether the press could use drones. In its argument, the NPPA provided examples of drone use by the media: the capturing of aerial footage of a fatal fire or using a drone to track the construction of a publicly funded project. These examples, argued the NPPA, are not invasions of privacy, yet these actions would fall under the statute without a specific exemption for the media. Since the decision did not clarify whether the prohibition applies to media, this likely means that the statute could face further challenge if criminal penalties are sought against a reporter in the future. For now, journalists in Texas may need to weigh the risks related to the use of drones for reporting purposes, since the law imposes a criminal misdemeanor infraction on violators.
This statute stricken by Judge in THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION
NATIONAL PRESS PHOTOGRAPHERS ASSOCIATION, TEXAS PRESS ASSOCIATION, and JOSEPH PAPPALARDO, Plaintiffs,
v.
STEVEN MCCRAW, in his official capacity as Director of Texas Department of Public Safety; DWIGHT MATHIS, in his official capacity as Chief of the Texas Highway Patrol; and WES MAU, in his official capacity as District Attorney of Hays County, Texas, Defendants.
1:19-CV-946-RP
CIVIL ACTION.
(a) An owner or tenant of privately owned real property located in this state may bring against a person who, in violation of Section 423.003, captured an image of the property or the owner or tenant while on the property an action to:
(1) enjoin a violation or imminent violation of Section 423.003 or 423.004;
(2) recover a civil penalty of:
(A) $5,000 for all images captured in a single episode in violation of Section 423.003; or
(B) $10,000 for disclosure, display, distribution, or other use of any images captured in a single episode in violation of Section 423.004; or
(3) recover actual damages if the person who captured the image in violation of Section 423.003 discloses, displays, or distributes the image with malice.
(b) For purposes of recovering the civil penalty or actual damages under Subsection (a), all owners of a parcel of real property are considered to be a single owner and all tenants of a parcel of real property are considered to be a single tenant.
(c) In this section, “malice” has the meaning assigned by Section 41.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
(d) In addition to any civil penalties authorized under this section, the court shall award court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing party.
(e) Venue for an action under this section is governed by Chapter 15, Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
(f) An action brought under this section must be commenced within two years from the date the image was:
(1) captured in violation of Section 423.003; or
(2) initially disclosed, displayed, distributed, or otherwise used in violation of Section 423.004.
RULES FOR USE BY LAW ENFORCEMENT.
REPORTING BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.
State Preemption Law
LAW ENFORCEMENT AND SECURITY AUTHORITY.
LAW ENFORCEMENT POLICY ON USE OF FORCE BY DRONE.
Local Ordinances and Policies
Big Spring
Sec. 32-263. Limitation of permit.
City of Temple Parks
Harker Heights
Harker Heights Ordinances – 105.02 DEFINITIONS.
§ 105.07 RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES.
Harris County
Longview
Sec. 81-14. Recreational activities.
Parker
Parker Code 97.11 – § 97.11 UNLAWFUL ACTS.
Texas City
Texas City Code 97.03 – § 97.03 APPLICATION PROCEDURE.
University Drone Policies
University of Texas at El Paso UAV Policy
Note: This list is just a sample… many more could be added.
Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) Regulations & Policies
SB 2144 – Relating to advanced air mobility technology.
Status: 2023-05-13 – Effective on 9/1/23
Urban Air Mobility Advisory Committee
North Central Texas Council of Governments
Texas DOT REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UAM Advisory Committee
Dallas
SEC. 5-1. DEFINITIONS. – vertiport
Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) News
2025 – Wisk Aero unveils air taxi prototype, promising faster commutes under $10 per mile
2025
Video courtesy of Advanced Air Mobility Institute from the January 2025 Global AAM Forum. Complete session for Day 1 of this Forum is available on the Advanced Air Mobility Institute YouTube Channel
2024 – Texas publishes AAM Advisory Committee report
2024 – Lilium debuts jet in US at Houston Hobby Airport
2024 – Lilium Signs eVTOL Aircraft Infrastructure Deal in Houston
2024 – FAA makes drone history in Dallas area
2024 – Wisk Aero, Houston Airports partner to bring autonomous air taxis to region
2024 – Port San Antonio to build vertiport for eVTOL aircraft
2024 – The Integration & Commercialization of Advanced Air Mobility Aircraft and Logistics Systems
2024 – Pilotless air taxis may come to Houston by 2030, with new partnership between Sugar Land, Wisk
2024 – Houston hopes to have air taxis flying to the airport by 2026
2023 – NASA and JOBY complete air taxi simulation exercise around DFW
2023 – Volatus to build vertiport at Greenport airport development project
2023 – Helicopter Institute executes agreement with Dallas CBD Vertiport
Short Essay Questions
Question 1
You have been hired by a Drone Startup Company. Your boss has immediately assigned this job to you.
They need you to prepare a one-page memo detailing the legalities of using your drone to search for two missing hikers in the vicinity of Palo Duro Canyon, pictured above.
They need you to mention any state laws and local ordinances.
They specifically want to know what airspace (insert pictures) you will be operating in, and whether or not you need an airspace authorization, with or without LAANC capability.
Lastly, there is a bonus for you if, as you scroll through this chapter, you find any typos or broken links!
Question 2
Do the state drone laws implicate the First Amendment? If so, describe, citing the exact law.
Question 3
Do the state drone laws implicate the Fourth Amendment? Or involve law enforcement officers obtaining warrants? If so, describe, citing the exact law.
Question 4
Do the state drone laws contain a preemption clause? If so, describe, citing the exact law.
Question 5
Does the state have UAM/AAM laws? If so, describe, citing the exact law.
Question 6
Are you aware of any new laws or policies not mentioned above? If so, describe, citing the exact law or policy.
