Kentucky has a layered set of drone statutes that go well beyond the federal baseline. The state is unusual because it addresses government drone use, private surveillance, infrastructure trespass, and criminal liability all in separate statutes.
| Restriction | Statute | Penalty |
|---|
| Surveillance without intent / unauthorized image publication | KRS 500.130 | Class B misdemeanor: up to 90 days jail, $250 fine |
| Voyeurism via drone | KRS 531.090 | Class B misdemeanor |
| Trespass over key infrastructure (first offense) | KRS 511.100 | Class B misdemeanor: up to 90 days jail, $250 fine |
| Trespass over key infrastructure (repeat offense) | KRS 511.100 | Class A misdemeanor: up to 12 months jail, $500 fine |
| Criminal acts committed via drone | KRS 501.110 | Same penalty as if the crime were committed in person |
| Hunting or fishing with drones | 301 KAR 3:140 (Oct 2025) | Fish and wildlife violation |
| Attaching lethal payload to a drone | KRS 500.130(4) | Criminal penalty (non-military drones) |
| Reckless operation near manned aircraft | KRS 183.991 | Class A misdemeanor or Class D felony |
Warning: Kentucky's criminal liability extension statute (KRS 501.110) means any crime committed via drone carries the same penalties as if you did it in person. Stalking, trespassing, harassment, burglary facilitation: if it is a crime on foot, it is a crime by drone with identical sentencing.
The Citizens' Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act
KRS 500.130 is Kentucky's primary drone statute, and it is more detailed than most state laws. Recreational and professional drone use is explicitly allowed as long as there is no intent to conduct surveillance on private property and no unauthorized use or publication of images. The law also contains an insurance exception: companies may use drones for underwriting risk assessment and damage investigation.
The most notable provision is the warrant requirement for law enforcement. Police must obtain a warrant that specifically authorizes the use of an unmanned aircraft system. A general search warrant is not enough. When law enforcement does use a drone, KRS 500.130(7) requires them to minimize data collection on people who are not suspects. Disclosure of that data is prohibited except by court order. And under KRS 500.130(8), evidence from unauthorized drone surveillance is inadmissible in civil, criminal, or administrative proceedings.
Key infrastructure trespass
KRS 511.100 targets drone flights over power plants, correctional facilities, military bases, and energy installations. Flying over these locations with intent to cause harm, damage, or conduct surveillance without the owner's consent is a Class B misdemeanor on the first offense. The second offense escalates to a Class A misdemeanor with up to 12 months jail. Proposed legislation (SB 16, 2024) would expand this list to include concentrated animal feeding operations and food processing facilities, though that bill faced significant opposition from civil liberties groups.
Hunting and fishing ban (301 KAR 3:140)
Effective October 16, 2025, this regulation makes it unlawful to use drones in the "take" of fish or wildlife. "Take" is broadly defined to include pursuing, hunting, catching, trapping, and any lesser act to lure or attract game. This also covers using drones to drive or herd wildlife and harassing animals. There are limited exceptions for Kentucky Fish and Wildlife employees conducting research, authorized landowners managing wildlife damage, and commercial fishers locating invasive carp.
The "Drone Slayer" case: Hillview, Kentucky (July 2015)
One of the most famous drone cases in US history happened in Bullitt County, Kentucky. On July 26, 2015, William Merideth shot down a camera-equipped drone that was hovering over his property in Hillview (a suburb of Louisville) with a 12-gauge shotgun after his daughter reported it near their home. Merideth was arrested and charged with two felonies: first-degree criminal mischief and first-degree wanton endangerment.
In October 2015, Bullitt County Judge Rebecca Ward dismissed all charges, ruling Merideth had a right to shoot the drone. The judge stated the drone was an invasion of privacy. The drone owner, John David Boggs, filed a federal lawsuit in January 2016 demanding payment for the drone. In March 2017, Senior U.S. District Judge Thomas B. Russell dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. This case directly influenced Kentucky's subsequent drone legislation and remains a landmark in the national debate over airspace rights versus property and privacy rights.
For more on privacy law, see our drone spying laws guide and flying over private property guide.