Minnesota has two major areas where state law adds to the federal baseline: commercial operator licensing through MnDOT, and law enforcement surveillance restrictions under Statute 626.19. Both are unusual. Most states have neither.
MnDOT Commercial Operations License
If you advertise or offer drone services to third parties in Minnesota, you need a Commercial Operations License from MnDOT Aeronautics. The determination is case-by-case: the key question is whether your flight outputs go to a third party. A farmer mapping their own fields does not need the license. A company hired to map that farmer's fields does.
| Requirement | Details | Cost |
|---|
| Commercial Operations License | Required when providing drone services to third parties | $30/year |
| Aircraft Registration | Register each drone with MnDOT Aeronautics | $25-$100/year (varies by aircraft) |
| Liability Insurance | Annual policy required (per-flight insurance not accepted) | Varies ($500-$1,500/yr typical) |
| Insurance Standard | Must meet Minnesota Rule 8800.3200, Subp. requirements | Included in policy |
Warning: Per-flight insurance policies (common among hobbyists and occasional commercial pilots) are not accepted for MnDOT registration. You must carry an annual liability insurance policy. This catches many Part 107 pilots who use pay-per-flight coverage from providers like SkyWatch or Verifly.
Statute 626.19: Law Enforcement Drone Surveillance
Minnesota Statute 626.19 requires law enforcement agencies to obtain a search warrant before using drones, with nine specific exceptions. This is one of the strongest drone surveillance laws in the country.
- Warrant required for all law enforcement drone use except listed exceptions
- Facial recognition and biometric-matching technology banned on drones without a warrant
- Weaponizing drones is prohibited
- Collecting data on public protests or demonstrations requires a warrant
- Warrants must be sealed for 90 days (or until objective accomplished)
- Subjects must be notified within 90 days of warrant unsealing
The Nine Warrant Exceptions
Law enforcement can use drones without a warrant in these situations:
- Emergency involving risk of death or bodily harm
- Over a public event with heightened safety risk
- Credible terrorist threat
- Natural or man-made disaster response
- Disaster operation planning, rescue, and recovery
- Threat assessment for a specific event
- Over a public area with reasonable suspicion of criminal activity
- Crime scene or crash scene reconstruction
- Training purposes
Note: The ACLU of Minnesota has noted that exception #7 ("reasonable suspicion" over public areas) gives police broad discretion to fly without a warrant. Public Record Media reported that after a 2020 law update, police departments increasingly used this exception to deploy drones without judicial oversight. Law enforcement agencies must document each drone use, including the statutory exception relied on, and the BCA publishes
annual UAV reports.
Privacy Laws for Civilian Drone Use
Minnesota has no standalone drone privacy statute for civilian-to-civilian surveillance. Instead, existing criminal laws apply:
- MN Statute 609.746 (Interference with Privacy): covers voyeurism via drone. Gross misdemeanor; felony if the victim is a minor.
- MN Statute 609.749 (Harassment/Stalking): covers repeated unwanted drone flights over someone's property. Gross misdemeanor (up to 1 year jail, $3,000 fine); felony for repeat offenders or aggravating factors.
The Mical Caterina Case: $55,000 FAA Fine in Minnesota
In August 2015, Minnesota resident Mical Caterina flew his DJI Inspire 1 over a Cecil the Lion memorial protest. He gave the photos to local media for free, calling it "a favor for a friend of a friend." The FAA disagreed. They alleged five violations at $11,000 each: flying within 5 miles of an airport, within 100 feet of a helicopter, careless or reckless operation, and commercial operation without a license.
Caterina argued his Inspire 1's geofencing system prevented airport proximity and that the drone was over 800 feet from the helicopter. He planned to fight the fines. The case became a widely cited example of FAA enforcement against hobbyist-style flights that cross into commercial territory when media use is involved.
Tip: The Caterina case is a reminder that giving drone footage to media, even for free, can be classified as commercial use by the FAA. If your footage ends up in any commercial context, you need Part 107.
