Texas Drone Laws (2026): Chapter 423, Privacy & McCraw

Texas has the most litigated drone privacy law in the country. Texas Government Code Chapter 423 makes it a crime to fly a drone to capture an image of a person or private property with intent to surveil, and in October 2023 the Fifth Circuit upheld the law against a sweeping First Amendment and federal preemption challenge in National Press Photographers Association v. McCraw.

This guide is part of our Drone Laws by State series, which also covers how state drone law intersects with surveillance camera laws more broadly.

Information last verified on 2026-07-09. This article has not yet been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.

Jurisdiction scope: This article addresses Texas state law on private and law enforcement drone image capture under Government Code Chapter 423 and the federal baseline that applies in every state. It does not address a civilian's right to record police in public, which is covered separately in our guide to recording laws.

Does the FAA or Texas control where a drone can fly?

The Federal Aviation Administration is the exclusive regulator of the airspace itself, in Texas as in every state. A commercial or otherwise non-recreational drone operator must hold a Remote Pilot Certificate under 14 CFR Part 107, register the aircraft, fly at or below 400 feet, and stay within visual line of sight; recreational flyers register separately under 49 U.S.C. Section 44809. Since September 16, 2023, most registered drones must also broadcast a Remote ID signal identifying the aircraft and its control station. A Texas city or county cannot add its own altitude ceiling or flight-path rule on top of that federal scheme; a federal district court struck down several provisions of a Massachusetts town's drone ordinance on exactly that theory in Singer v. City of Newton, 284 F. Supp. 3d 125 (D. Mass. 2017). What Texas regulates instead is conduct: what a person does with a drone-mounted camera once it is airborne over Texas soil, which is exactly what Chapter 423 targets.

Illegal use of a drone to capture an image: Section 423.003

Section 423.003(a) makes it an offense to use a drone to capture an image of an individual or privately owned real property in Texas with the intent to conduct surveillance on the individual or property shown, and Subsection (b) sets the penalty at a Class C misdemeanor. "Intent" carries the meaning given in Penal Code Section 6.03, and Subsection (c) provides a defense if the operator destroyed the image immediately upon learning it was captured unlawfully and never shared, exhibited, or provided it to anyone else. The offense turns on intent to surveil, not on the mere fact that a drone happened to fly over private land.

Chapter 423 also lists a long set of lawful purposes under Section 423.002 that fall entirely outside the surveillance offense, including capturing an image with the consent of the property owner, under a valid search or arrest warrant, for academic research at a Texas institution, for utility, pipeline, or telecommunications inspection, for real estate marketing that does not show identifiable individuals, for professional surveying or engineering work, and for military operations. A drone operator who fits one of these categories does not need to separately prove they lacked surveillance intent.

Possessing or sharing an unlawfully captured image: Section 423.004

Once an image is captured in violation of Section 423.003, Section 423.004 separately criminalizes what happens to it next. Possessing the image is a Class C misdemeanor. Disclosing, displaying, distributing, or otherwise using the image is a Class B misdemeanor, a meaningfully higher-stakes offense. Each individual image a person possesses, discloses, displays, distributes, or uses in violation of the statute counts as a separate offense, so a single drone flight that captures and shares multiple images can generate multiple charges. As with Section 423.003, a defense is available if the person destroyed the image or stopped the disclosure immediately after learning it was unlawfully captured.

Civil lawsuit and damages under Section 423.006

Beyond the criminal penalties, an owner or tenant of privately owned Texas real property can bring a civil action under Section 423.006 to enjoin a violation or imminent violation of Section 423.003 or 423.004. A prevailing plaintiff can recover $5,000 for each image captured in violation of Section 423.003, or $10,000 for the disclosure, display, distribution, or other use of any images captured in a single episode in violation of Section 423.004, and actual damages if the disclosure was made with malice as defined in Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 41.001. The court must award court costs and reasonable attorney's fees to the prevailing party. Multiple owners or tenants of the same property are treated as a single party for purposes of the statutory penalty, and a suit must generally be filed within two years of the date the image was captured or disclosed.

Critical infrastructure, correctional facilities, and sports venues

Separate from the surveillance-image offense, Chapter 423 restricts low-altitude drone flights near sensitive facilities regardless of intent. Section 423.0045 makes it a Class B misdemeanor, escalating to a Class A misdemeanor on a repeat offense, to operate a drone below 400 feet over a defined critical infrastructure facility, such as a refinery, power generation site, water treatment plant, or oil and gas pipeline or wellhead. Section 423.0046 applies the same altitude threshold and penalty structure to a sports venue, defined as an arena, stadium, coliseum, or similar facility with a seating capacity of 30,000 or more. Section 423.0047 applies to a correctional, detention, or juvenile facility, again as a Class B misdemeanor. All three sections exempt the facility's own owner or operator, government entities, law enforcement, and FAA-compliant commercial operators.

Even before the Fifth Circuit restored the statute to full effect, Texas newsrooms reported real friction over Chapter 423 in the field. In one widely reported incident, a Texas photojournalist flying a drone to cover a fire was warned by an officer that continuing to do so could violate Chapter 423, illustrating how the statute's critical infrastructure and general surveillance provisions can chill routine newsgathering even absent a prosecution.

National Press Photographers Association v. McCraw: what the Fifth Circuit actually decided

The National Press Photographers Association and the Texas Press Association sued Texas officials, including Department of Public Safety Director Steve McCraw, in September 2019 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, arguing that Chapter 423's surveillance-image and critical-infrastructure provisions violated the First Amendment on their face and were preempted by federal aviation law. In March 2022, U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, held the challenged provisions unconstitutional, and enjoined their enforcement statewide.

The Fifth Circuit reversed on October 23, 2023, in a decision reported at 84 F.4th 632. The court rejected both the facial First Amendment challenge and the preemption challenge, and it directed the district court to enter judgment for the state, restoring Chapter 423 to full enforceability. Critically, the panel did not hold that Chapter 423 can never be challenged. It expressly left open the possibility of narrower as-applied First Amendment challenges brought by a specific person prosecuted under a specific set of facts. The opinion also noted that no plaintiff in the case had ever been arrested or prosecuted under Chapter 423, and that the one known prosecution, brought by the Hays County District Attorney's office, ended in a deferred disposition and did not involve a member of the press. In short, McCraw validates Chapter 423 as written, but it does not guarantee that every future prosecution under it will survive a challenge.

Does police need a warrant to fly a drone over my property in Texas?

Texas has not enacted a standalone statute requiring a warrant before every law enforcement drone flight, unlike states such as Illinois, Minnesota, or neighboring Utah. A Texas resident's claim that police unlawfully surveilled them by drone instead rests on ordinary Fourth Amendment analysis. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that aerial observation of a yard from public airspace by a manned aircraft, without a warrant, generally does not violate the Fourth Amendment. See California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986), and Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989). Neither case involved a drone, and no Texas appellate decision has squarely extended that reasoning to a small drone hovering much closer to a home, so the outcome of a specific Texas case can turn heavily on altitude, duration, and what the drone actually observed.

The federal shoot-down rule

A persistent misconception is that a landowner may legally shoot down a drone hovering over their own property. Federal law says otherwise. The FAA classifies drones as aircraft within the National Airspace System, so 18 U.S.C. Section 32, the federal Aircraft Sabotage Act, applies to them: willfully damaging, destroying, or disabling a drone is a federal felony carrying up to 20 years in prison, regardless of whose property the drone is over, because the federal government, not the landowner, controls the airspace. No Texas statute authorizes a landowner to disable a drone over their own land, and a local prosecutor declining to pursue state charges in a sympathetic case does not establish a legal right to shoot one down.

Disclaimer

This article provides general legal information about Texas drone law as verified on 2026-07-09. It does not constitute legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Readers with a specific drone incident, or a question about a pending Texas bill, should consult a lawyer licensed in Texas.

Related articles

• Drone Laws by State: the complete hub
• Texas Surveillance Camera Laws
• Texas Recording Laws

Last updated: 2026-07-09. Statutes cited reflect their in-force or enacted version as of 2026-07-09.