Drones, federalism and the First Amendment

If you've got a spare 18 minutes to spend on the subject, Margot Kaminski has an excellent podcast up at DroneU.org on "Drone Federalism." She succinctly lays out the First Amendment implications of private drone regulation, as opposed to regulating their use by the government, as well as anyone I've seen. She describes five axes of drone use around which lawmakers must craft drone regulation, only one of which (use by law enforcement to monitor the public) lends itself to a clean, obvious solution (a warrant requirement).

Around the 11:30 mark she points out that Texas' new drone law as written would likely criminalize the drone photographer who captured pig blood being dumped into the Trinity River by a meat packing plant in Dallas which has since faced a crackdown from the EPA. Margot, who your correspondent was privileged to meet at a conference on electronic privacy at the Yale Law School earlier this year, is perhaps the sharpest thinker I've run across on the subject of drone regulation. I still wish our friends at the Texas Lege had consulted her and the other experts at DroneU.org before passing Texas' ill-considered "drone bill," HB 912. Given Texas' mess of a statute, I couldn't agree more with Kaminski's point about drone federalism. Prosecutors have said our homegrown bill is unenforceable and the Texas Lege would definitely benefit from allochthonous approaches.

See related Grits posts:

• Texas policymakers need to up their game on drone regulation
• Rick Perry, drones, and an odd endorsement of the exclusionary rule
• Does this count as a drone? If cell-phone towers can  fly, why not a Stingray?
• National expert laments Texas' drone bill
• Top Five Things Wrong With Texas' Drone Bill
• A path forward for state drone regulation