Buzz Off Act

The bill does not define “unmanned aerial vehicle” or “surveillance,” which could lead to interpretive disputes. For example, what counts as surveillance versus mere observation, or how low-altitude drone flights over curtilage (the home’s immediate surroundings) should be treated, are live legal questions. Supreme Court precedent around aerial observation from manned aircraft (e.g., California v. Ciraolo; Florida v. Riley) predates modern drones and does not directly resolve how persistent, low-cost drone surveillance intersects with expectations of privacy. H.R. 96 seeks to set a clear warrant rule for targeted drone surveillance notwithstanding that unsettled terrain.

The national security exception requires DHS to certify under oath the necessity to counter a high risk of terrorist attack by a specified person or group, adding a formality and accountability mechanism, but it does not create independent judicial oversight or reporting requirements to Congress. Nor does the bill specify duration limits on such authorizations, transparency measures, or after-the-fact audits. Likewise, the bill does not contain enforcement provisions: there are no specified penalties for violations, no explicit suppression rule for unlawfully obtained evidence, and no private right of action or damages. That practical enforcement gap could leave compliance to internal policies and courts’ general supervisory powers.

Operationally, the warrant requirement would constrain federal agents’ ability to rapidly deploy drones for targeted surveillance of U.S. persons, except under the DHS terrorism certification pathway. The bill does not include a specific exigent-circumstances exception; in fast-moving situations where life and limb are at risk but do not fit the terrorism rubric, agencies might need to rely on emergency warrant procedures rather than immediate drone deployment.

The scope is also citizen-centric: protections explicitly extend to “United States citizens” and the “private property of a United States citizen.” Surveillance targeting non-citizens, or mixed environments where the subject is not clearly a U.S. citizen, appears outside the statutory bar unless the activity otherwise triggers constitutional constraints or agency policies. This raises potential equity and civil-rights concerns, particularly near the border where DHS and CBP regularly deploy drones. At the same time, the bill leaves those border operations largely intact when they are not specifically targeting U.S. citizens.

In summary, H.R. 96 is a civil-liberties-oriented measure that codifies a warrant standard for targeted drone surveillance by federal law enforcement while preserving a national security off-ramp through DHS. It is narrow in coverage, leaves room for broad, non-targeted aerial monitoring, and omits detailed oversight, transparency, and remedies. Its simplicity may make it easy to implement, but it also invites questions about definitions, enforcement, and the practical line between targeted and non-targeted surveillance in the era of persistent, data-rich aerial sensors.