Privacy Law Library

Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act (drones)

Florida Drone Surveillance Law

Government records · Other

Mainly limits police drone use, but it also bars any person from using a camera drone to record privately owned property or the people on it with intent to conduct surveillance in violation of their reasonable expectation of privacy, without written consent. People are presumed to have that expectation on private property when they cannot be seen from ground level.

Where
Florida
Citation
Fla. Stat. 934.50
Status
In force
Last amended
2026-07-01
Enforced by
Private civil actions (for private-property surveillance); courts
People can sue
Yes
Penalties
Owners, tenants, occupants, invitees, or licensees of private property may sue for compensatory damages and injunctive relief, with prevailing-party attorney's fees (934.50(5)(b)).
Applies to
  • Any person, state agency, or political subdivision using a drone with an imaging device over privately owned real property (934.50(3)(b))
  • Law enforcement agencies using drones to gather evidence (934.50(3)(a), (4))

Rights it gives people

  • Affected property owners and occupants may sue for compensatory damages and an injunction.Fla. Stat. 934.50(5)(b)

Practices it requires

  • Do not use an imaging drone to record privately owned real property, or its owner, tenant, occupant, invitee, or licensee, with intent to conduct surveillance in violation of their reasonable expectation of privacy, without written consent.Fla. Stat. 934.50(3)(b)

Other duties

  • A reasonable expectation of privacy on private property is presumed where the person cannot be observed from ground level by someone lawfully present, even if visible from the air.Fla. Stat. 934.50(3)(b)

Sources

Checked against these sources on 2026-09-25 by research agent (Claude), primary sources.

Unverified: Original enactment (2013) and the year the private-property surveillance ban was added were not confirmed from session laws. | The 2026 amendments concern law-enforcement warrants and a grant program, not the private-surveillance rule.

Research reference, not legal advice.