Michigan House Bill HB5325

Michigan 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 12/2/25
• Refer: 12/2/25
• Report Pass: 3/10/26

Caption

Aeronautics: unmanned aircraft systems; destruction of drones flying in violation of critical infrastructure guidelines; allow. Amends 2016 PA 436 (MCL 259.301 - 259.331) by adding sec. 8a.

Impact

The implementation of HB5325 would significantly alter the legal landscape surrounding drone use in Michigan. By officially permitting law enforcement and certain security officers to take destructive actions against drones, this bill addresses growing concerns about privacy invasions, terrorism, and other unlawful acts perpetrated via drone technology. Moreover, it establishes legal protections for these officers, ensuring that they cannot be held liable for damage caused to the drones they disable or destroy while acting under the provisions of this law, so long as they are not acting in violation of federal regulations.

Summary

House Bill 5325 aims to amend the existing Unmanned Aircraft Systems Act (2016 PA 436) by adding a new provision that allows police officers and private security personnel to intercept, disable, or destroy unmanned aircraft, commonly referred to as drones, that operate in a manner that violates specific guidelines related to critical infrastructure. This bill is focused on enhancing security measures against unauthorized drone activity, particularly in sensitive areas where public safety could be at risk. By providing law enforcement and security personnel with clearer authority to act against drones, the bill seeks to prevent potential threats to critical infrastructure in Michigan.

Contention

While the bill receives support from those advocating for enhanced security measures, it also raises concerns among civil liberties groups and advocates for privacy rights. Critics argue that granting police and security personnel such extensive power to disable and destroy drones could lead to potential abuse and infringement on individual rights. Furthermore, there are apprehensions about the vague wording of what constitutes a violation and how it could affect legitimate drone operators who may inadvertently be in violation of these guidelines. The balance between ensuring security and protecting civil liberties presents a critical contention point for this legislation.