When Kevin Purcell heard his dogs barking one quiet Sunday afternoon in Olga, he stepped outside to find something he wasn’t expecting: a drone.
“At first I was like, what the heck is it?” he said. “The lights on it were so bright.”
His curiosity quickly turned into confusion.
“You’re dumbfounded,” he said. “It's because they're so bright and there's so many of them and it kind of throws you off and it makes you go look out to, you know, what is it?"
Though the drone looked like a toy, it may not have been spying.
But what if it was?
That question is at the center of Senate Bill 1422, a proposal currently under consideration in the Florida Legislature. The bill seeks to add new restrictions, clarifying existing rules, and give homeowners the right to defend their privacy in the skies.
The most talked-about part of the bill is a section that would allow homeowners to use “reasonable force” to stop a drone conducting surveillance at an altitude of 500 feet or lower over their property.
Under Florida Statute 934.50, it is unlawful to use a drone to capture images of privately owned property or the people on it with the intent to conduct surveillance without written consent, only if there's a reasonable expectation of privacy.
However, Senate Bill 1422 aims to give homeowners more authority, not just to report, but to act, if they believe their privacy is being violated.
Critics say the “reasonable force” clause could be dangerous and misused, leading to unnecessary confrontations or shooting down drones, which is a federal offense.
Garret Heskett, who owns CG Media and uses drones for real estate photography, worries about how this law could impact drone operators who follow the rules.
“I think it’s very outlandish and very irresponsible,” Heskett said. “The vast majority of people don’t know the intentions of a drone overhead. That doesn’t mean we’re doing anything wrong.”
The House version of the bill currently does not include the “reasonable force” language, which could indicate that the phrase may be stripped or revised in final negotiations.
As for Purcell, whether the bill passes or not doesn’t change much. But he’s still got the drone that crash-landed near his property.
“If you want to stop by the house with the remote,” he said, “I’ll give it to him for sure.”