Why? Because when seen by a pilot from hundreds or thousands of feet in the air, a laser’s beam expands and can temporarily blind a pilot or cause serious distraction they cannot see past.There are two statutes that deal with this unlawful conduct: 18 U.S.C., Sec. 32(a)(5) and (8), Attempting to Interfere with the Safe Operation of an Aircraft With Reckless Disregard for Human Life; and 18 U.S.C., Sec. 39A, Aiming a Laser Pointer at an Aircraft. Section 32 was established by Congress to deal with terrorists or hijackers who try to bring down an aircraft with an intent to harm others while Section 39 was established to deal with irresponsible individuals who think it is cute or prankish to aim a laser at an aircraft.

Under federal law, it is a felony to willfully damage or destroy aircraft. 18 U.S.C. § 32. In Boggs v. Meredith, the judge found that the federal criminal statute did not give Boggs the right to bring a civil lawsuit in federal court.

00 toy laser at a helicopter that was more than 1,000 feet up in the air. Mr. Rodriguez was convicted under both 18 U.S.C. § 39A, which prohibits intentionally aiming a laser at an aircraft, and 18 U.S.C. § 32(a)(5), which prohibits intentionally or recklessly attempting to interfere with the safe operation of an aircraft. Last week, the Ninth Circuit reversed Rodriguez’s § 32(a)(5) conviction, finding insufficient evidence to support it.

The answer lies in the statute he is charged with violating and the way in which the definition of unmanned aircraft has developed.In 1956, Congress enacted 18 U.S.C. § 32(a)(1), which made it a felony to “willfully . . . destroy, disable or wreck any aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States . . . .” The “special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States” is defined in 49 U.S.C. § 46501(2) as including “a civil aircraft of the United States . . . .” A “civil aircraft of the United States” is defined under 49 U.S.C. § 40102(17) as “an aircraft registered under chapter 441 of this title.”

These include the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. Section 1030); Interference with the Operation of a Satellite (18 U.S.C. Section 1367); and Communication Lines, Stations or Systems (18 U.S.C. Section 1362). Physical destruction, seizure or control of the UAS may implicate the Aircraft Sabotage Act (18 U.S.C. Section 32(a)) or the Aircraft Privacy Act (49 U.S.C. Section 46502).The advisory also notes that UAS detection or mitigation technologies also may implicate laws and regulations administered by the FAA, the FCC and the TSA.

Florida adopted Criminal Code § 934.50, which forbids a person or state agency from equipping drones with imaging devices to record privately owned real property to conduct surveillance in violation of a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy.Some people might be tempted to take the law into their own hands and shoot down an “invading” drone, but such an approach carries a high level of risk for the property owner and may lead to civil and criminal liability. Under federal law, willfully shooting down an aircraft (including drones) is a felony that may lead to imprisonment (18 U.S.C. § 32)—not to mention other potential liability tied to discharging a firearm into the sky. Furthermore, the drone operator could sue the property owner under state tort law and claim damages for the value of the drone and its payload.

Outside a self-defense situation, shooting a drone is usually a cure worse than the problem. Shooting the drone is a federal crime punishable by fines and lengthy imprisonment (18 U.S.C. 32), but the federal authorities may not want a jury trial against a homeowner alleging privacy concerns with possible state law defenses. On a state level, this Ohio homeowner may well be charged criminally, like the Drone Slayer of Kentucky.

However, UASs are still considered “aircraft” by the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”), and it is a federal offense to damage, destroy, or disable an aircraft operating in U.S. airspace. 18 U.S.C. § 32. On the more high-tech side, some companies have developed “drone guns,” which operate on varying principles, but are typically based on “jamming,” interfering with, or intercepting the radio signal between the UAS and its remote pilot.

It has no interest if the only damage, as in Boggs, is to the UAS itself or to damages not involving or caused by operation of the UAS. While there have been additional incidents of drones being downed with guns, and the FAA considers doing so a crime under 18 U.S.C. § 32, the FAA has no criminal enforcement powers and does not appear to have pursued any civil enforcement actions in these incidents. In short, if FAA involvement and federal jurisdiction are prerequisites to consideration of the issues raised in Boggs, it may be a long wait for meaningful guidance.

As it stands today, it is a federal crime to attempt to destroy or disable an aircraft, including an unmanned aircraft, even if federal prosecutors have yet to enforce that provision against the Drone Slayer. See 18 U.S.C. § 32. [View source.]