New UAV Regulations, Effective January 1, 2025
Nevada Senate Bill 11 (SB11), effective January 1, 2025, places new restrictions on the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) by public agencies and law enforcement. The law prohibits the purchase or operation of drones and related equipment from certain entities, including those flagged by the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) for national security reasons. This includes drones manufactured by the world’s largest drone manufacturer, DJI, identified by the DoD as a Chinese military company. DJI denies any ties to the Chinese military.
Key Regulations in SB11
Prohibited Sources for Drones and Equipment
The law mandates that Nevada’s Department of Public Safety (DPS) establish lists of countries, businesses, and entities from which public safety agencies cannot purchase or operate drones or related equipment. These lists must include:
- Entities identified by the DoD under Section 1260H of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which currently includes DJI.
- Any vendors or services prohibited by Nevada’s IT security policies.
Designed to align with federal guidelines aimed at addressing cybersecurity and national security risks, the law could have a significant impact on public safety agencies.
Law Enforcement and Public Agency Use
SB11 sets strict limits on when and how drones can be used:
- Law enforcement must obtain a court warrant to use drones for evidence collection in areas where privacy is expected. Warrants are valid for 10 days and can be renewed upon showing probable cause.
- Drones can be used without a warrant in emergencies, such as search and rescue operations, imminent threats to safety, or during state-declared emergencies.
Public agencies may operate drones only for specific purposes like fire services, emergency medical services, and protecting critical facilities. Agencies must register their drones with the DPS and cannot use them for law enforcement investigations or criminal prosecutions. The text of SB11 explicitly states: “A public agency … must not operate an unmanned aerial vehicle for the purposes of assisting a law enforcement agency with law enforcement or conducting a criminal prosecution.” While it’s unclear what “assisting a law enforcement agency with law enforcement” includes, it would appear to limit the use of drones in Drone as First Responder (DFR) programs.
Privacy and Evidence Restrictions
SB11 includes multiple privacy provisions that could limit law enforcement use of drones. Drones operated during inspections must not collect photographs, recordings, or other data. If such data is collected, it cannot be used in legal or administrative proceedings unless it pertains directly to the inspection.
Additionally, any information obtained unlawfully by drones is inadmissible and cannot serve as the basis for further investigations.
Impact on DJI and Other Manufacturers
The inclusion of DJI drones on the prohibited list aligns Nevada with federal concerns about the security risks of using foreign-manufactured drones in sensitive operations. The DoD’s designation of DJI as a Chinese military company has prompted similar restrictions in other states and agencies. While DJI disputes this designation, Nevada’s law reflects growing caution in the US regarding foreign drone technology. However, DJI drones are still a majority in public safety programs around the country. Some stakeholders fear that limiting DJI use could lead to fewer public safety agencies utilizing drone technology.
On the other hand, US-based manufacturers are working to close the gap in functionality – and proponents of limiting Chinese-manufactured drones say that in addition to security concerns, the move will create a more level playing field for US drone makers to compete.
SB11 represents a significant shift in how Nevada’s public agencies and law enforcement use drones, and public safety agencies will have to adapt both their procurement and operational practices to comply with the new law.
Want DRONELIFE news delivered to your inbox every weekday? Sign up here.
Read more:
- DJI Sues Pentagon Over Chinese Military Listing: Ongoing Tensions Impact Drone Industry
- Texas Police Secure Drone Data, Aim to Preserve Fleets Despite Ban Attempts
- What is the Countering CCP Drones Act, and What Does it Mean for DJI Drones?
Miriam McNabb is the Editor-in-Chief of DRONELIFE and CEO of JobForDrones, a professional drone services marketplace, and a fascinated observer of the emerging drone industry and the regulatory environment for drones. Miriam has penned over 3,000 articles focused on the commercial drone space and is an international speaker and recognized figure in the industry. Miriam has a degree from the University of Chicago and over 20 years of experience in high tech sales and marketing for new technologies.
For drone industry consulting or writing, Email Miriam.
TWITTER:@spaldingbarker
Subscribe to DroneLife here.
A prime example of government listening to American based 10x the price technology companies, First rule to be adopted:
1. Do not remove unless you have an equal or better replacement for same budget.
2 Do not rely on Wikipedia
3. Many of your mail order brides came from abroad have you replaced them yet
4 watch the taxes skyrocket now
I read in horror the new law on the books in Nevada: <>> Specifically, “Operation of drones”
I am hoping that if in fact as it reads, all DJI drones are not to be used that the same people who came up with this bill has allotted replacement money for all the grounded unmanned tools Public Agencies now cannot use. As is widely known, a large majority of drones used by Public Agencies for the past 6-8 years on a regular basis have been manufactured by DJI. I can only hope that those same bill makers and those who have backed this move without(?) a substitution and support(?) do not need the services of those entities who could have helped them i.e. Search and Rescue, catastrophic events that need rapid monitoring, devastation after a natural disaster etc. because they no longer have the unmanned tools that are sitting in storage. Please tell me, replacement money is already in the bank waiting to be spent on approved equipment. Good luck Nevada, may your judges be lenient.