Michigan
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, 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's Department of Natural Resources takes the position that recovering an already-downed deer, elk, or bear by drone is itself a prohibited 'take' under MCL 324.40111c, not a permitted exception; DNR Law Enforcement Division chief Dave Shaw has publicly described the statute's ban on taking game by unmanned device as reaching post-kill recovery, not just the hunt itself. That interpretation is being challenged in a federal lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan by drone-recovery company Drone Deer Recovery and its founder, Mike Yoder, who argues the ban improperly restricts his business. The case remained in discovery as of the most recent reporting, with no ruling yet on whether DNR's no-exception reading survives. Michigan residents should not assume any recovery exception exists 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 (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.
More Michigan Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Does Michigan have a drone privacy law?
Yes. MCL 259.322 makes it a misdemeanor to use a drone to harass someone, violate a restraining order, or capture images or audio that invade a person's reasonable expectation of privacy.
Can my city or township pass its own drone ordinance in Michigan?
Almost never. MCL 259.305 preempts local drone ordinances statewide, with only a narrow exception for drone interference with horses in areas that already ban nonemergency motor vehicles.
Do Michigan police need a warrant to fly a drone over my property?
Michigan has no statute requiring a drone warrant, so ordinary Fourth Amendment law applies, and Long Lake Township v. Maxon, 15 N.W.3d 118 (Mich. 2024), shows that even a possible violation may not keep drone evidence out of civil zoning or nuisance cases.
Can I use a drone to recover a deer I shot in Michigan?
No recognized exception exists. Michigan's DNR treats using a drone to locate or recover an already-downed deer, elk, or bear as a prohibited 'take' under MCL 324.40111c. A drone-recovery company is challenging that position in a pending federal lawsuit in the Western District of Michigan, but until that case changes the law, DNR's enforcement position is that the conduct is illegal.
What is the penalty for violating Michigan's drone privacy law?
A violation of MCL 259.322 is a misdemeanor under MCL 259.323, punishable by up to 90 days in jail, a $500 fine, or both.
Can I fly a drone over my neighbor's property in Michigan?
Overflight alone is not directly addressed by MCL 259.322, but using the drone to harass, stalk, or capture images that invade a reasonable expectation of privacy is prohibited, and general trespass and nuisance law may also apply.
Can I legally shoot down a drone flying over my house in Michigan?
No. Disabling or destroying a drone is a federal felony under 18 U.S.C. § 32 regardless of Michigan law or where the drone is flying.
Updates
Corrected the description of Michigan's drone-based deer, elk, and bear recovery rule: the Department of Natural Resources treats recovering already-downed game by drone as a prohibited 'take,' not as a permitted narrow exception, which is why a drone-recovery company's federal lawsuit against DNR exists.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on 11 statutory provisions held in our own legal record, each retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
United States Code Title 18
§ 922Unlawful actsIn forcecited in 59 of our articles
It shall be unlawful— for any person— except a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer, to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms, or in the course of such business to ship, transport, or receive any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce; or except a licensed importer or licensed manufacturer, to engage in the business of importing or manufacturing ammunition, or in the course of such business, to ship, transport, or receive any ammunition in interstate or foreign commerce; for any importer, manufacturer, dealer, or collector licensed under the provisions of this chapter to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce any firearm to any person other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, except that— this paragraph and subsection (b)(3) shall not be held to preclude a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector from returning a firearm or replacement firearm of the same kind and type to a person from whom it was received; and this paragraph shall not be held to preclude an individual from mailing a firearm owned in compliance…
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-28 · Read the full section at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 40,024 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
Leading cases: United States v. Booker (Supreme Court of the United States 2004, 543 U.S. 220) · Almendarez-Torres v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1998, 523 U.S. 224) · Taylor v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1990, 495 U.S. 575)
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Can You Become an ICE Agent with a Criminal Record? (2026 Guide), How Long Does a Felony Stay on Your Record? (2026), Supreme Court Limits the Federal Gun Ban on Marijuana Users (Hemani, 2026)
United States Code Title 49
§ 44809Exception for limited recreational operations of unmanned aircraftIn forcecited in 12 of our articles
Except as provided in subsection (e), and notwithstanding chapter 447 of title 49, United States Code, a person may operate a small unmanned aircraft without specific certification or operating authority from the Federal Aviation Administration if the operation adheres to all of the following limitations: The aircraft is flown strictly for recreational purposes. The aircraft is operated in accordance with or within the programming of a community-based organization’s set of safety guidelines that are developed in coordination with the Federal Aviation Administration. The aircraft is flown within the visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft or a visual observer co-located and in direct communication with the operator. The aircraft is operated in a manner that does not interfere with and gives way to any manned aircraft. In Class B, Class C, or Class D airspace or within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport, the operator obtains prior authorization from the Administrator or designee before operating and complies with all airspace restrictions and prohibitions.
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-28 · Read the full section at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 1 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2022
Leading cases: Tyler Brennan v. Stephen Dickson (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 2022, 45 F.4th 48)
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Florida Drone Laws 2026: Privacy, Warrants & Penalties, Georgia Drone Laws 2026: Privacy, Prisons & Preemption, Hawaii Drone Laws 2026: Trespass, Privacy & Warrants
Michigan Compiled Laws
§ 259.301Short titleIn force
This act shall be known and may be cited as the "unmanned aircraft systems act".
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-30 · Read the full section at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 1 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2022
Leading cases: 20221117_C359831_36_359831.Opn.Pdf (Michigan Court of Appeals 2022)
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 259.305Political subdivision; ordinance, regulation, or resolution limitations; powers; federal preemption; conflict with other sections of law; petition for fixed site facility designation; applicabilityIn force
(1) 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 or otherwise engage in the regulation of the ownership or operation of unmanned aircraft. (2) Subject to subsection (6), a political subdivision that prohibits by ordinance, regulation, or resolution the operation of nonemergency motor vehicles in the political subdivision may enact and enforce an ordinance, regulation, or resolution that is necessary and proper to prohibit the knowing and intentional operation of an unmanned aircraft in a manner that interferes with the safe use of a horse in a commercial activity, including, but not limited to, the use of horse-drawn carriages, wagons, or carts or horse-riding activities.
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-30 · Read the full section at legislature.mi.gov
Cross-referenced in the statute itself: § 324.40111c, § 324.40112
Cited in 1 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2022
Leading cases: 20221117_C359831_36_359831.Opn.Pdf (Michigan Court of Appeals 2022)
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 259.322Operation of unmanned aircraft system; harassment, violation of order, or invasion of privacy prohibited; definition; individual registered as sex offenderIn force
(1) A person shall not knowingly and intentionally operate an unmanned aircraft system to subject an individual to harassment. As used in this subsection, "harassment" means that term as defined in section 411h or 411i of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.411h and 750.411i. (2) A person shall not knowingly and intentionally operate an unmanned aircraft system within a distance that, if the person were to do so personally rather than through remote operation of an unmanned aircraft, would be a violation of a restraining order or other judicial order. (3) A person shall not knowingly and intentionally operate an unmanned aircraft system to violate section 539j of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.539j, or to otherwise capture photographs, video, or audio recordings of an individual in a manner that would invade the individual's reasonable expectation of privacy.
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-30 · Read the full section at legislature.mi.gov
Cross-referenced in the statute itself: § 750.411h, § 750.539j
Cited in 1 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2021
Leading cases: Long Lake Township v. Todd Maxon (Michigan Court of Appeals 2021)
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 259.323Violation as misdemeanor; penalty; other violation of lawIn force
(1) An individual who violates section 21 or 22 is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 90 days or a fine of not more than $500.00, or both. (2) This section does not affect the ability to investigate or to arrest, prosecute, or convict an individual for any other violation of a law of this state.
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-30 · Read the full section at legislature.mi.gov
§ 324.40111cUse of tranquilizer propelled from bow or firearm; use of unmanned vehicle or device; prohibitionsIn force
(1) A person other than the department shall not take game using a tranquilizer propelled from a bow or firearm. (2) An individual shall not take game or fish using an unmanned vehicle or unmanned device that uses aerodynamic forces to achieve flight or using an unmanned vehicle or unmanned device that operates on the surface of water or underwater.
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-30 · Read the full section at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 2 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2025
Leading cases: Mike Yoder v. Scott Bowen (Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 2025)
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 324.40112Obstructing or interfering in lawful taking of animals or fish; prohibited conduct; petition; injunction; violation as misdemeanor; penalties; section inapplicable to peace officerIn force
(1) An individual shall not obstruct or interfere in the lawful taking of animals or fish by another individual. (2) An individual violates this section when the individual intentionally or knowingly does any of the following: (a) Drives or disturbs animals or fish for the purpose of disrupting a lawful taking. (b) Blocks, impedes, or harasses another individual who is engaged in the process of lawfully taking an animal or fish. (c) Uses a natural or artificial visual, aural, olfactory, gustatory, or physical stimulus or an unmanned vehicle or unmanned device that uses aerodynamic forces to achieve flight or that operates on the surface of the water or underwater, to affect animal or fish behavior in order to hinder or prevent the lawful taking of an animal or a fish. (d) Erects barriers to deny ingress or egress to areas where the lawful taking of animals or fish may occur. This subdivision does not apply to an individual who erects barriers to prevent trespassing on his or her property. (e) Interjects himself or herself into the line of fire of an individual lawfully taking wildlife.
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-30 · Read the full section at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 1 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2005
Leading cases: Taylor v. Humphries (District Court, W.D. Michigan 2005, 402 F. Supp. 2d 840)
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 750.411hStalking; definitions; violation as misdemeanor; penalties; probation; conditions; evidence of continued conduct as rebuttable presumption; additional penaltiesIn forcecited in 9 of our articles
(1) As used in this section: (a) "Course of conduct" means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of 2 or more separate noncontinuous acts evidencing a continuity of purpose. (b) "Dating relationship" means frequent, intimate associations primarily characterized by the expectation of affectional involvement. This term does not include a casual relationship or an ordinary fraternization between 2 individuals in a business or social context. (c) "Emotional distress" means significant mental suffering or distress that may, but does not necessarily, require medical or other professional treatment or counseling. (d) "Harassment" means conduct directed toward a victim that includes, but is not limited to, repeated or continuing unconsented contact that would cause a reasonable individual to suffer emotional distress and that actually causes the victim to suffer emotional distress. Harassment does not include constitutionally protected activity or conduct that serves a legitimate purpose.
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-30 · Read the full section at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 122 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
Leading cases: McNEILL-MARKS v. MIDMICHIGAN MEDICAL CENTER-GRATIOT (Michigan Court of Appeals 2016, 316 Mich. App. 1) · Hayford v. Hayford (Michigan Court of Appeals 2008, 279 Mich. App. 324) · Nastal v. Henderson & Associates Investigations, Inc (Michigan Supreme Court 2005, 471 Mich. 712)
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Michigan Laws on Recording in Public: First Amendment Rights and Limits (2026), Michigan GPS Tracking Laws: Is It Legal to Put a Tracker on a Car? (2026), Michigan Restraining Order Laws (2026): How to Get a Personal Protection Order
§ 750.411iDefinitions; aggravated stalking; circumstances; violation as felony; penalty; probation; additional conditions of probation; effect of continued course of conduct; rebuttable presumption; additional penaltyIn forcecited in 5 of our articles
(1) As used in this section: (a) "Course of conduct" means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of 2 or more separate noncontinuous acts evidencing a continuity of purpose. (b) "Credible threat" means a threat to kill another individual or a threat to inflict physical injury upon another individual that is made in any manner or in any context that causes the individual hearing or receiving the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety or the safety of another individual. (c) "Emotional distress" means significant mental suffering or distress that may, but does not necessarily, require medical or other professional treatment or counseling. (d) "Harassment" means conduct directed toward a victim that includes, but is not limited to, repeated or continuing unconsented contact that would cause a reasonable individual to suffer emotional distress and that actually causes the victim to suffer emotional distress. Harassment does not include constitutionally protected activity or conduct that serves a legitimate purpose.
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-30 · Read the full section at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 142 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
Leading cases: McNEILL-MARKS v. MIDMICHIGAN MEDICAL CENTER-GRATIOT (Michigan Court of Appeals 2016, 316 Mich. App. 1) · Buchanan v. Crisler (Michigan Court of Appeals 2018, 922 N.W.2d 886) · IME v. DBS (Michigan Court of Appeals 2014, 306 Mich. App. 426)
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 750.539jSurveillance of or distribution, dissemination, or transmission of recording, photograph, or visual image of individual having reasonable expectation of privacy; prohibited conduct; violation as felony; penalty; exceptions; "surveil" definedIn forcecited in 19 of our articles
(1) A person shall not do any of the following: (a) Surveil another individual who is clad only in his or her undergarments, the unclad genitalia or buttocks of another individual, or the unclad breasts of a female individual under circumstances in which the individual would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. (b) Photograph, or otherwise capture or record, the visual image of the undergarments worn by another individual, the unclad genitalia or buttocks of another individual, or the unclad breasts of a female individual under circumstances in which the individual would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. (c) Distribute, disseminate, or transmit for access by any other person a recording, photograph, or visual image the person knows or has reason to know was obtained in violation of this section. (2) A person who violates or attempts to violate this section is guilty of a crime as follows: (a) For a violation or attempted violation of subsection (1)(a): (i) Except as provided in subparagraph (ii), the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.
Official text (excerpt) · as of 2026-07-30 · Read the full section at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 17 court opinionsMost recently applied by a court: 2026
Leading cases: In Re L-S Morehead Minor (Michigan Court of Appeals 2026) · In Re K N Klemkow Minor (Michigan Court of Appeals 2024) · People of Michigan v. Cora Ladane Lymon (Michigan Supreme Court 2024)
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Michigan Smart Glasses Recording Laws (2026), Michigan Recording Laws (2026): Consent Rules and Participant Exception, Michigan Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Surveillance, Privacy, and Tenant Rights (2026)
Explore the law
The laws cited above reference these related sections in their own text:
- Michigan Compiled Laws § 28.721 — Short title view in our statute record · read at the official source
- Michigan Compiled Laws § 750.539 — Divulging contents of messages view in our statute record · read at the official source
Related law for further reading — not part of this article’s citations.
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- MCL 259.322 (unlawful drone use: harassment, restraining orders, privacy, sex offenders)(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 259.305 (preemption of local unmanned aircraft ordinances)(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 259.323 (misdemeanor penalty for violating sections 21 or 22 of the Unmanned Aircraft Systems Act)(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 324.40111c (prohibition on taking game or fish using an unmanned vehicle)(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 324.40112 (obstruction and interference with lawful hunting and fishing, including by unmanned device)(legislature.mi.gov).gov
- Long Lake Township v. Maxon, 15 N.W.3d 118 (Mich. 2024) (official opinion)(courts.michigan.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. § 32 (destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities)(law.cornell.edu)
- FAA, State and Local Regulation of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) fact sheet(faa.gov).gov
- Bridge Michigan, Lawsuit could complicate drone laws for Michigan hunters and anglers(bridgemi.com)