WisconsinPolice could act against drones posing credible safety threats
The failed proposal would let officers take steps against credible drone threats to people and protected places, subject to federal authorization and safeguards.
What it does
Officers could track, warn, disrupt, or seize a drone that poses a credible threat to people or protected places. They could use reasonable force to disable, damage, or destroy it.
A person who uses a weaponized drone to violate the restriction on flying over a correctional institution would face a felony if its use threatens public safety.
Argument forOfficers could track or disable a drone posing a credible threat, which may help protect people and important facilities.
Argument againstOfficers might disrupt, seize, or damage a drone based on a threat assessment, which could affect people using drones lawfully nearby.
More detail
A law enforcement officer may take listed steps to address a credible drone threat, including tracking, warning, disrupting, seizing, or using reasonable force to disable, damage, or destroy the drone. The threat must concern the safety or security of people, facilities, or assets, a venue used for a large public gathering or event, critical infrastructure, or a correctional facility. The officer or agency must act only as authorized by federal law, including its training, certification, equipment, and reporting requirements. Officers may take these actions while the drone is operating, if needed to address a credible threat.
A person who violates the restriction using a weaponized drone that poses a threat to public safety would commit a Class H felony. The restriction covers flying a drone over a correctional institution, including its grounds. Flying over a state facility is allowed with express authorization from the corrections secretary or a designee; for a county facility, authorization must come from the county sheriff or a designee. A weaponized drone is equipped with a taser, firearm, flamethrower, chemical, or explosive device. Its use must pose a threat to public safety.
Where do you stand?
Choose your position
Tell your reps
Take a position to see your representatives and ways to contact them.
Where it stands
- Introduced
- Passed Assembly
- Passed Senate
- To Governor
- Became Law
Looking ahead
No hearings or votes scheduled.
History
- 2026
- May 13Failed to pass notwithstanding the objections of the Governor pursuant to Joint Rule 82Latest
- May 12Placed on calendar 5-12-2026 pursuant to Joint Rule 82 (2)(a)
- Apr 3Report vetoed by the Governor Tony Evers on 4-3-2026Major
- Apr 2Presented to the Governor on 4-2-2026To Governor
- Mar 25Report correctly enrolled on 3-25-2026Minor
- Mar 25LRB correction (Assembly Amendment 2 to Assembly Amendment 1)
- Mar 25LRB correction (Assembly Amendment 1 to Assembly Amendment 1)
- Mar 18Received from Senate concurred inMinor
- Mar 17Ordered immediately messaged
- Mar 17Read a third time and concurred inPassed Senate
- Mar 17Rules suspended to give bill its third reading
- Mar 17Ordered to a third readingMinor
- Mar 17Read a second timeMinor
- Mar 16Placed on calendar 3-17-2026 pursuant to Senate Rule 18(1)
- Vote recorded Public hearing requirement waived by committee on Senate Organization, pursuant to Senate Rule 18 (1m), Ayes 3, Noes 2. Result: pass.Upper
- Mar 16Public hearing requirement waived by committee on Senate Organization, pursuant to Senate Rule 18 (1m), Ayes 3, Noes 2
- Mar 4Available for scheduling
- Vote recorded Report concurrence recommended by Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety, Ayes 5, Noes 3. Result: pass.Upper
- Mar 4Report concurrence recommended by Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety, Ayes 5, Noes 3Minor
- Mar 4Executive action taken
- Feb 20Read first time and referred to committee on Judiciary and Public SafetyMinor
- Feb 18Received from AssemblyMinor
- Feb 17Ordered immediately messaged
- Vote recorded PASSAGE. Result: pass.Lower
- Feb 17Read a third time and passed, Ayes 57, Noes 42Passed Assembly
- Feb 17Rules suspended
- Feb 17Ordered to a third readingMinor
- Feb 17Assembly Amendment 1 adoptedMajor
- Feb 17Assembly Amendment 2 to Assembly Amendment 1 adoptedMajor
- Feb 17Assembly Amendment 2 to Assembly Amendment 1 offered by Representative WichgersMinor
- Feb 17Assembly Amendment 1 to Assembly Amendment 1 adoptedMajor
- Feb 17Read a second timeMinor
- Feb 13Withdrawn from committee on Rules and referred to calendar of 2-17-2026Minor
- Feb 11Assembly Amendment 1 to Assembly Amendment 1 offered by Representative WichgersMinor
- Jan 22Referred to committee on RulesMinor
- Vote recorded Report passage as amended recommended by Committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety, Ayes 11, Noes 4. Result: pass.Lower
- Vote recorded Report Assembly Amendment 1 adoption recommended by Committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety, Ayes 11, Noes 4. Result: pass.Lower
- Jan 22Report passage as amended recommended by Committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety, Ayes 11, Noes 4Minor
- Jan 22Report Assembly Amendment 1 adoption recommended by Committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety, Ayes 11, Noes 4Minor
- Jan 21Executive action taken
- Jan 20Assembly Amendment 1 offered by Representative WichgersMinor
- Jan 9Senator James added as a cosponsor
- 2025
- Dec 3Public hearing held
- Nov 7Read first time and referred to Committee on Criminal Justice and Public SafetyMinor
- Nov 7Introduced by Representatives Wichgers, Behnke, Dittrich, Goeben, Knodl, Kurtz, Melotik, Murphy and Mursau; cosponsored by Senators Bradley, Jacque, Marklein and NassIntroduced
Public SafetyCriminal JusticeTechnology