Michigan Drone Laws (2026): Privacy Statute, Preemption, and Warrants

Michigan is unusual: it has both a genuine civilian drone-privacy statute and one of the country's broadest state laws barring cities and townships from regulating drones. A landmark 2024 Michigan Supreme Court ruling also narrowed what protection a warrant requirement actually provides against local government drone surveillance.

Jurisdiction scope: This article addresses drone law in Michigan under the state's Unmanned Aircraft Systems Act (MCL 259.301 et seq.), the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act's hunting provisions, and controlling Michigan case law on drone-obtained evidence, plus the federal FAA and shoot-down framework that applies nationwide. It does not cover FAA flight-operation rules in depth or drone law in other states; see the drone laws by state hub for other jurisdictions.

How the FAA and Michigan Law Divide Authority Over Drones

Federal law classifies every drone as an aircraft, which puts flight altitude, pilot certification, airspace authorization near airports, and Remote ID broadcast under the Federal Aviation Administration's exclusive authority (14 CFR Part 107 for commercial and government flights, 49 U.S.C. § 44809 for recreational flights). Michigan cannot and does not try to regulate where in the sky a drone may fly. What Michigan does regulate, more thoroughly than most states, is what an operator does with a drone once it is airborne: harassment, privacy invasion, restraining-order violations, hunting interference, and whether local government itself may deploy a drone without a warrant. The FAA's 2023 fact sheet on state and local UAS regulation draws this same line nationally; see the drone laws by state hub for how it plays out elsewhere.

Michigan's Civilian Drone Privacy Law: MCL 259.322

Michigan's Unmanned Aircraft Systems Act, enacted as Act 436 of 2016 and codified starting at MCL 259.301, goes further than most states' general trespass and nuisance law. MCL 259.322 prohibits four categories of conduct: operating a drone to harass an individual, as harassment is defined by Michigan's stalking statutes (MCL 750.411h and MCL 750.411i); operating a drone within a distance of a person that would violate a personal protection order if the operator did so in person; capturing photographs, video, or audio recordings of an individual in a manner that invades their reasonable expectation of privacy, a provision that cross-references Michigan's general surveillance-device statute, MCL 750.539j; and, for a registered sex offender, using a drone to follow, contact, or capture images of a person in violation of their sentencing conditions. A violation of these provisions is a misdemeanor under MCL 259.323, punishable by up to 90 days in jail, a $500 fine, or both. That is a real, enforceable civilian privacy statute, not just a law-enforcement warrant rule, which puts Michigan ahead of many neighboring states on paper.

Michigan Preempts Nearly All Local Drone Ordinances

Michigan takes the opposite approach from many states on local control: rather than letting cities and townships pass their own drone rules, MCL 259.305 flatly preempts them. The statute provides that, except as expressly authorized by statute, a political subdivision shall not enact or enforce an ordinance or resolution that regulates the ownership or operation of unmanned aircraft. The single narrow exception allows a political subdivision that already bans nonemergency motor vehicles in a given area to also prohibit drone operation that interferes with the safe use of a horse in a commercial activity there. A political subdivision may still set rules for its own drones, such as a police or fire department's fleet, since that is internal governance rather than regulation of private operators. In practice, this means a Michigan resident cannot look to a local ordinance for drone protection beyond what state law already provides; the fight over what conduct is restricted happens in Lansing, not city hall.

Does Police Need a Warrant to Fly a Drone Over My Property in Michigan?

Michigan has not enacted a law enforcement drone-warrant statute comparable to those in Minnesota, Illinois, or Virginia, so a warrantless drone flight by police is analyzed under ordinary Fourth Amendment case law, on a fact-specific basis. The Michigan Supreme Court's 2024 decision in Long Lake Township v. Maxon, 15 N.W.3d 118 (Mich. 2024), shows why that protection can be thinner than it sounds. Long Lake Township hired a drone operator to photograph a resident's property repeatedly over several years to support a zoning and nuisance enforcement action, without a warrant or the homeowners' permission. The Michigan Court of Appeals had held this was likely an unconstitutional warrantless search. The Michigan Supreme Court sidestepped that question: it assumed, without deciding, that a Fourth Amendment violation may have occurred, but held the exclusionary rule, the remedy that normally keeps illegally obtained evidence out of court, does not apply to civil code-enforcement and zoning proceedings, only to criminal and quasi-criminal cases like civil asset forfeiture. The drone photographs stayed admissible against the homeowners. Civil-liberties groups, including the Institute for Justice, criticized the ruling as leaving a gap: even where a drone search might be unconstitutional, a Michigan resident facing a zoning fine or injunction, rather than criminal charges, may have no practical remedy for the violation.

Hunting, Fishing, and Wildlife: Michigan's Drone Restrictions

Michigan bars using a drone in connection with hunting or fishing in two overlapping statutes. MCL 324.40111c prohibits taking game or fish using an unmanned vehicle or unmanned device that uses aerodynamic forces to achieve flight, a direct ban on drone-assisted hunting. MCL 324.40112 separately bars using a drone or other unmanned device to disturb or affect animal or fish behavior in order to hinder or prevent another person's lawful hunting or fishing, with escalating misdemeanor penalties: up to 93 days and $500 to $1,000 for a first offense, rising to a year and $1,000 to $2,500 for repeat violations. Michigan wildlife officials have applied a narrow exception permitting a drone to locate a downed deer, elk, or bear after a lawful kill, provided no one in the recovery party is actively hunting during the flight, but the scope of that exception is now being litigated in federal court after a drone-recovery company sued the Department of Natural Resources. Michigan residents should not assume the exception covers every recovery scenario until that case is resolved.

Shooting Down a Drone Is a Federal Crime

As in every state, shooting down or otherwise disabling a drone in Michigan is a federal felony, not a matter Michigan law can override. The FAA treats drones as aircraft within the National Airspace System, so 18 U.S.C. § 32 applies: willfully damaging, destroying, or disabling a drone carries up to 20 years in federal prison and a fine up to $250,000, plus loss of Second Amendment rights under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) upon conviction. This is true even for a drone hovering low over a Michigan homeowner's own yard, because the FAA, not the landowner, controls the airspace. No state has passed a law authorizing a landowner to shoot down a drone as a matter of right, and Michigan is no exception.