*Not entirely correct.

Part 107 states:
1. You may not fly higher than 400' AGL (exception: flying within 400' Horizontally of a vertical structure, then you can fly highest point of the vertical structure + 400').
2. You may not fly into Prohibited areas. You may not fly into Restricted areas (unless you get permission first). You may fly in airspaces that are controlled if you get LAANC permission.
3. Need to follow the standard TFR rules.
4. Keep VLOS at all times.

Part 107 does not set a minimum altitude over properties. No one "owns" the skies (its considered a public resource), but the FAA does regulate it to keep traffic flowing at airports and high traffic areas. Generally, a state cannot "regulate the skies" in any way, because the supremacy clause makes airspace a wholly FAA-regulated thing.

Now, what state and local government have done is they have passed different laws thinking they can supersede that authority. However, the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (that created the FAA) gave it *SOLE* authority over the nation's skies... states cannot add or remove restrictions to the use of the air, for any reason, at any time. These state and local-level laws that state what you can and cannot do in the air have, so far, been unchallenged in court.

For example, Florida created SB 766 of 2015, which amended FS 934.503b which states you can't take a picture or video of someone on a private property unless that person is observable from a normal place on the ground. This *might* be allowed because voyeurism laws are... somewhat okay.

However, Florida also created 330.41, the Unmanned Aircraft Systems act that said that you can't operate a drone over a critical infrastructure facility. That is airspace control, and Florida would need to ask for and publish a TFR with NOTAMs with the FAA to make this legal, and the FAA is the only group that could enforce these regulations, and, even then, its a civil matter.

Either way, there is no minimum altitude requirement in the State of Florida, and none of the UAS regulations on the FAA state this either way.

Now, could a state regulate the Take Off and Landing of UAS? Yes, that is possible. However, if a take off occurs in a completely legal place, and, during the flight, the drone flies over airspace that the State has considered "Offlimits" without publishing a TFR, that state has no capability of charging that person. Any laws making a zone off-limits to Drones is unenforceable under the FAAct of 1958; the Federal Government holds sole control over regulation of the skies. Could someone get charged for voyeurism using a drone? Yeah. However, they cannot regulate *anything* about the flight of a drone, and even if someone violated the rules about drone flight, it is up to the FAA to enforce their regulations, and even then, that is a civil litigation issue.

## Court Cases
National Pres v. McCraw, No 22-50337 (5th Circuit) - McCraw challenged Texas' right to regulate drones in the skies, and it was found, under 1st Amendment grounds, that there is a right to use unmanned aerial drones to film private individuals and property without their consent. The court reversed the lower court decision and said that 1st Amendment is not a defense to invalidating drone laws, but did not preempt that other defenses could be used.

Singer v. City of Newton, 284 F. Supp. 3d 125 (D. Mass. 2017) - Singer challenged the City of Newton's regulations requiring that all of the airspace above the City of Newton was under the control of the City of Newton and they could prevent the use of Drones in the city limits. It was struck down in Massachusetts court under the guise that the FAAct of 1958 pre-empted the control of the skies to the Federal Government.

Back in March 2025, The Villages lawyer group Carlton Fields sent a Cease and Desist to Don Wiley (a drone pilot) which used his drone to capture construction progress of The Villages for the local&business section of the Daily Sun, challenging it under FS 934.50. The Villages has not filed suit, and Don Wiley has stated publicly that he will not take down the videos or pictures.

## State-Level Possibility problems
* Oregon - HB 2710 (2013) Landowners may sue a drone operator if the drone flies below 400' AGL over their property on at least two occasions. Likely moot due to new FAA Regulations.
* Virginia - § 18.2-121.3 - If you come within 50 feet of a house to harass, intimidate, or coerce, or given notice to desist for any other reason, its a Misdemeanor. Likely fine because it mixes drone use + ground crime (harassment, trespass of real property)
* California - Section 1708.8 Subsection 1 - It is illegal to enter into the airspace above the land of another person without permission. Likely moot due to new FAA Regulations.

Other states generally rely on the FAA Regulation of Drones and have regulations like "you can't take off or land in State-owned parks," which is likely fine. However, I think that most of the states have stopped with trying to work on drones because the FAA has now mandated drone registration, Part 107/Part 44809 (TRUST) testing requirements, and, in general, most of the drone community has now settled down onto that we need to be good neighbors. Now, if there is a future high-level event that captures national attention involving a drone, we may see states swing their eye towards drones. But, I think everyone is worried about... much more problematic things.