Connecticut Law About Drones

Connecticut Law About Drones
These links connect to resources available and are provided with the understanding
that they represent only a starting point for research.

This web page has many external links to valuable resources. Please view our Linkage Policy for more information.

Research Guides

Connecticut Public Acts

Department of Transportation:

CTDOT Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Standard Operating Procedures

Department of Energy and Environmental Protection:

Use of Remote Controlled Aircraft or "Drones" 2006-R-0390

OLR Research Reports - Office of Legislative Research:

Privacy Protections Implicated by The Domestic Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Or Drones 2014-R-0137
Information On The 2012 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Modernization and Reform Act 2014-R-0132
Drone Laws in Other States 2013-R-0387

Useful Websites

Federal Adviation Administration - Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)

Law Reviews

Jesse Woo et al., Urban Robotics: Achieving Autonomy in Design and Regulation of Robots and Cities, 52 Conn. L. Rev. 319 (2020).
A. Michael Froomkin and Zak Colangelo, Self-Defense Against Robots and Drones, 48 Conn. L. Rev. 1 (2015).

Library Materials

Check our catalog for availability or Contact us

Neighbor Law: Fences, Trees, Boundaries & Noise, 9th edition, by Emily Doskow & Lina Guillen (2017).
- Chapter 17. Other common neighbor issues.
  - Drones...............................295

Public Act No. 17-52 AN ACT CONCERNING MUNICIPALITIES AND UNMANNED AIRCRAFT

Connecticut General Statutes

Chapter 98. Municipal Powers.

Sec. 7-149B. Regulation of commercial unmanned aircraft.

Click on the link below to search the full-text of the statutes: https://search.cga.state.ct.us/r/statute/

U.S. Code

49 U.S.C. 44809 Exception for limited recreational operations of unmanned aircraft systems

Code of Federal Regulations

14 C.F.R. 48 - REGISTRATION AND MARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR SMALL UNMANNED AIRCRAFT
- 48.15. Requirement to Register
14 C.F.R. 107 Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems
14 C.F.R. 107.7 Inspection, Testing, and Compliance
14 C.F.R. 107.13 Registration
14 C.F.R. 107.29 Operation at Night
14 C.F.R. 107.37 Aircraft Right of Way
14 C.F.R. 107.39 Operations Over People
14 C.F.R. 107(D) Operations Over Human Beings
14 C.F.R. 107.41:45 Airspace Restrictions
14 C.F.R. 107.51 Operating Restrictions
14 C.F.R. 107(C) Remote Pilot Certification

Mohegan Tribal Code

Mohegan Tribal Unmanned Aircraft System Code

Cases

Huerta v. Haughwout, U.S. District Court, D. Conn., No. 3:16-cv-358 (JAM), 2016 WL 3919799.
Federal administrative agencies often have broad authority to investigate activity that may be subject to federal regulation. The FAA is no exception. Congress has authorized the FAA to conduct an investigation on its own initiative either if a "reasonable ground appears" to believe that a person is "violating" the Federal Aviation Act (or one of the FAA's regulations) or if a "reasonable ground appears" about "any question that may arise" under the Act or the FAA's regulations. 49 U.S.C. 46101(a)(2). As part of the FAA's investigative authority, Congress has empowered the FAA to subpoena witnesses and records related to a matter under investigation. See 49 U.S.C. 46104(a). If a recipient of an administrative subpoena declines to comply, then the agency may seek judicial enforcement of the subpoena. See 49 U.S.C. 46104(b).

United States V. Mapes, N.D. Cal. (Feb. 14, 2020), 2020 WL 759541, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26268.
Defendant Tracy Mapes is charged with two misdemeanor counts of violating national defense airspace by flying a drone over Levi's Stadium and the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum during National Football League games. Dkt. 8. Now before the Court is Defendant's motion to dismiss, which argues that the Information (1) fails to provide adequate information about the charges against Defendant, and (2) fails to state an offense even if additional information is added. Dkt. 18, 20. The Court held a hearing on February 11, 2020. Defense counsel advised the Court that Defendant waived appearance; Defendant listened to the hearing by telephone. Based on a review of the parties' filings, the case file, and applicable law, the Court DENIES the motion to dismiss for the reasons discussed below.

Brennan v. Dickson, 45 F.4th 48, 53 (2022).
In response to Congress's call to prioritize the development of capacities to increase airspace awareness and promptly mitigate threats as a means to protect the safety and security of U.S. airspace, the FAA promulgated the Remote Identification (Remote ID) Rule challenged here . . . Petitioners Tyler Brennan, a drone user, and RaceDayQuads, the drone retailer Brennan owns (referred to jointly as Brennan), want the Rule vacated. Brennan asserts that the Rule's Remote ID requirement amounts to constant, warrantless governmental surveillance in violation of the Fourth Amendment. His request for vacatur of the Rule, amounting to a facial challenge, must fail because drones are virtually always flown in public.

Connecticut Law by Subject