Washington Drone Laws: Voyeurism, Warrants & Penalties

Washington has no drone-specific privacy statute and no state law requiring police to get a warrant before flying a drone. A 2014 bill that would have imposed one was vetoed by the governor, and a 2015 follow-up died in the legislature, leaving Washington's general voyeurism law, RCW 9A.44.115, as its primary tool against drone spying.

This guide is part of our Drone Laws by State series; for the broader rules on recording people and property in Washington, see our surveillance camera laws guide.

Jurisdiction scope: This article addresses Washington law relevant to private and law-enforcement drone use, including RCW 9A.44.115 (voyeurism), WAC 220-413-070 (wildlife), and RCW 47.68.250 (commercial registration), and explains why the state currently has no dedicated drone-privacy or law-enforcement drone-warrant statute. It does not address FAA registration, Remote ID, or Part 107 pilot certification, which apply the same way nationwide regardless of state law.

How federal and Washington law divide drone authority

The FAA controls where a drone may fly nationwide. Under 49 U.S.C. section 40102, it classifies any unmanned aircraft as an "aircraft," regardless of size. A commercial or government flight generally needs a Remote Pilot Certificate under 14 C.F.R. Part 107; a hobbyist flight falls under the separate exception at 49 U.S.C. section 44809. Most registrable drones must also broadcast Remote ID since 2023.

That federal framework does not say what a Washington drone operator may record, or when Washington police need a warrant. Unlike many neighboring states, Washington never finished answering those questions in statute. Two attempts to pass a comprehensive law enforcement drone bill, in 2014 and 2015, both failed, so the state instead relies on general privacy, voyeurism, and wildlife statutes that were not written with drones specifically in mind, plus local ordinances and individual agency policy.

Can a private citizen legally fly a drone over my property in Washington?

Washington has no statute that bars a private drone operator from flying over your property, and no dedicated civil damages statute for drone surveillance like several neighboring states have enacted. What Washington has instead is its general voyeurism law, RCW 9A.44.115, which prosecutors have applied to drone conduct even though the statute does not mention drones by name.

First-degree voyeurism is a Class C felony: knowingly viewing, photographing, or filming another person, without consent, while they are in a place where a reasonable person would believe they could disrobe in privacy or be safe from casual or hostile surveillance, done for the purpose of sexual gratification. Second-degree voyeurism, a gross misdemeanor, covers photographing or filming someone's intimate areas without consent with the intent to distribute the images, without the sexual-gratification requirement.

That statute got a real test in 2024 and 2025. University security at Walla Walla University recovered a crashed drone after months of complaints about a device flying near a women's dormitory; data on the device led investigators to a suspect. On July 8, 2025, College Place police executed a search warrant and arrested 60-year-old Ross Wright, booking him at Walla Walla Corrections Facility on two counts of first-degree voyeurism after recovering footage that included identifiable individuals near the dorms and nearby homes. Because RCW 9A.44.115 requires the sexual-gratification or dissemination intent described above, a drone that simply hovers over a yard and records without that specific intent may fall outside the statute entirely, leaving general trespass, harassment, or nuisance law, none of it drone-specific, as the only other option.

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

Not under any current state statute. Washington came close twice and neither attempt survived. In 2014, EHB 2789 would have required Washington law enforcement agencies to obtain a warrant before using a drone for most purposes, with exceptions for emergencies and other defined legitimate uses, and would have required agency heads or the legislature to approve any drone acquisition. It passed the House 77-21 and the Senate 46-1 and reached Governor Jay Inslee's desk on March 13, 2014. Inslee vetoed it on April 4, 2014, saying the bill's provisions conflicted with public-records law in a way that could shield government drone use from disclosure. In place of the bill, he imposed a 15-month moratorium on drone purchases and use by executive-branch state agencies, asked local police departments to voluntarily hold off as well, and announced a task force to study the issue ahead of the 2015 session.

That task force produced HB 1639 in the 2015 session. It passed the House 73-25 on March 4, 2015, and the Senate passed an amended version 43-4 on April 15, 2015. The bill then needed the House to concur with the Senate's changes before it could go to the governor. According to the legislature's own bill history, the last recorded action was an April 24, 2015 referral to the concurrence calendar and House Rules, with no further action. The bill never reached the governor's desk, and no successor has passed since. As a result, Washington law enforcement drone use today is governed by ordinary Fourth Amendment case law and each agency's own internal policy, not a state drone statute.

In the absence of a state law, some cities have filled the gap locally. Seattle abandoned an early police drone program in 2013 after public protest led the mayor to order the department to return two federally funded drones to the vendor, and the city later adopted a surveillance-technology ordinance requiring city council approval, through a public ordinance process, before any city department may acquire new surveillance equipment, including drones.

Washington's rules on drone hunting and commercial registration

Washington Administrative Code 220-413-070 addresses drones in the hunting and wildlife context specifically. It is unlawful to use an aircraft, including an unmanned aircraft, to spot, locate, or report the location of wildlife for hunting purposes, except under a director-issued permit; unlawful to hunt wildlife from an unmanned aircraft; unlawful to use an unmanned aircraft to pursue, concentrate, or harass a wild animal or wild bird, except as the department authorizes to address a wildlife conflict; and unlawful to hunt game animals, game birds, or migratory birds on the same day a person has operated an unmanned aircraft.

On the commercial side, RCW 47.68.250 requires every aircraft based or operated in Washington, including a commercial unpiloted aircraft system, to register annually with the Washington State Department of Transportation for a $15 fee, a requirement that took effect April 1, 2022 alongside House Bill 1379. This sits on top of, not instead of, FAA registration; hobby and recreational drones, along with government aircraft, are exempt from the state fee.

Can I shoot down a drone over my Washington property?

No. Federal law makes it a serious felony to damage or destroy any drone, regardless of whose land it is flying over. 18 U.S.C. section 32, the Aircraft Sabotage Act, criminalizes willfully damaging an "aircraft," a category the FAA has applied to drones since 2012, and a conviction carries up to 20 years in federal prison and a fine up to $250,000. The FAA has stated publicly that it, not the property owner, controls the airspace, so owning the ground below a drone does not create a right to fire on it.

Washington's own gap in drone-specific statutes does not change this federal analysis. A landowner who believes a drone is trespassing or spying has the voyeurism statute, general trespass and harassment law, and a complaint to local police as available options, not self-help.

Watch out: Because Washington has no dedicated drone-privacy statute, a drone that merely hovers over your yard and records you, without the sexual-gratification or image-dissemination intent RCW 9A.44.115 requires, may not fit the voyeurism statute at all. Depending on the facts, a general trespass, harassment, or nuisance claim may be the only available remedy, and none of those are drone-specific either.