Florida has enacted two complementary statutory regimes that together address privacy violations in the aerial age: the Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act, targeting drone-mounted surveillance, and the digital voyeurism statute, targeting covert imaging of individuals in private settings. Each provides a distinct civil cause of action with its own elements, remedies, and constitutional contours. Plaintiffs' counsel pursuing privacy claims arising from drone surveillance or covert recording should understand both.
I. Doctrinal Framing
Privacy tort law in the United States has historically addressed four species of invasion: intrusion upon seclusion, appropriation of name or likeness, public disclosure of private facts, and false light. Florida has substantially expanded these common-law rights through targeted legislation addressing the specific technologies of aerial surveillance and digital recording. Where the legislature has provided a private right of action, the statutory framework tends to be more plaintiff-favorable than the corresponding common-law tort because it creates per se liability elements, eliminates certain causation challenges, and in some cases provides minimum or punitive damages without requiring proof of actual damages.
The two principal statutes—Fla. Stat. § 934.50 (drone surveillance) and Fla. Stat. § 810.145 (digital voyeurism)—overlap in some fact patterns but address distinct primary harms. Section 934.50 targets aerial observation of private property and persons from unmanned aircraft; § 810.145 targets covert imaging of individuals in private settings at ground level or at close range.
II. Florida's Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act: Section 934.50
A. Text and Purpose
Fla. Stat. § 934.50, titled the "Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act," was enacted in 2013 and has been amended multiple times, most recently in 2024. The statute broadly prohibits the use of drones equipped with imaging devices to conduct surveillance of private individuals or private property without consent.
Section 934.50(3)(b) states the core prohibition for non-governmental actors: "A person, a state agency, or a political subdivision . . . may not use a drone equipped with an imaging device to record an image of privately owned real property or of the owner, tenant, occupant, invitee, or licensee of such property with the intent to conduct surveillance on the individual or property captured in the image in violation of such person's reasonable expectation of privacy without his or her written consent."
The statute contains a presumption favorable to property owners: "a person is presumed to have a reasonable expectation of privacy on his or her privately owned real property if he or she is not observable by persons located at ground level in a place where they have a legal right to be, regardless of whether he or she is observable from the air with the use of a drone." § 934.50(3)(b). This presumption directly counters the traditional common-law "open fields" doctrine under Oliver v. United States and the aerial-observation precedents under California v. Ciraolo and Florida v. Riley that permit warrantless observation of curtilage from navigable airspace. The Florida Legislature's presumption establishes a statutory privacy expectation that runs independently of Fourth Amendment doctrine.
Key definitions:
- "Drone": A powered, aerial vehicle that does not carry a human operator, uses aerodynamic forces for lift, and can fly autonomously or be piloted remotely. § 934.50(2)(a).
- "Surveillance": Observation of persons sufficient to identify their habits, conduct, movements, or whereabouts, or observation of property sufficient to determine its physical improvements or occupancy. § 934.50(2)(e).
- "Imaging device": Any mechanical, digital, or electronic device capable of recording, storing, or transmitting an image, including still cameras, camcorders, and motion picture cameras. § 934.50(2)(c).
B. Enumerated Exceptions
The statute contains an extensive list of permissible drone uses in § 934.50(4)—law enforcement with a valid search warrant, emergency response, crowd monitoring, traffic management, utility infrastructure operations, aerial mapping and cargo delivery in FAA compliance, and fire department and agricultural operations, among others.
Plaintiffs must anticipate that defendants invoking these exceptions will bear the burden of establishing their conduct falls within an enumerated exemption. The list covers legitimate government and commercial operations, not private surveillance for entertainment, investigative, or prurient purposes.
C. Civil Remedies: Section 934.50(5)
The remedial provisions of § 934.50(5) create two tracks depending on whether the defendant is a law enforcement agency or a private actor.
For law enforcement agency violations of the prohibition at § 934.50(3)(a) (prohibiting government use without a warrant or exception), § 934.50(5)(a) permits an aggrieved party to bring a civil action "to obtain all appropriate relief in order to prevent or remedy a violation."
For private person/agency/subdivision violations of § 934.50(3)(b), the civil remedy is more specific and more potent under § 934.50(5)(b):
- Compensatory damages for violations
- Injunctive relief to prevent future violations
- Attorney's fees: The prevailing party is entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees from the nonprevailing party. In non-jury cases, attorney's fees are based on actual, reasonable time billed at an appropriate hourly rate, without a multiplier. Where the case is tried to verdict, the trial court may award a multiplier of up to twice the actual time value in its discretion.
- Punitive damages: § 934.50(5)(c) permits the recovery of punitive damages for violations of § 934.50(3)(b) by a person, subject to the requirements of Fla. Stat. part II of ch. 768 and applicable case law governing punitive damages.
The remedies under § 934.50(5)(d) are expressly cumulative to other existing remedies—a plaintiff with a § 934.50 claim may simultaneously pursue common-law intrusion-upon-seclusion claims, FDUTPA claims where applicable, and other state remedies without election-of-remedies concerns.
Suppression as a remedy: Section 934.50(6) provides that evidence obtained or collected in violation of the Act is not admissible in any criminal prosecution in Florida state court. This exclusionary remedy is separate from the civil damages framework and operates in the criminal context.
D. Standing: Who May Sue
The civil remedy under § 934.50(5)(b) is available to "the owner, tenant, occupant, invitee, or licensee of privately owned real property" whose privacy was violated. This is a broad plaintiff class: it encompasses renters, guests, business invitees, and licensees of the property, not merely the owner. A tenant whose landlord's exterior walls are surveilled, an employee whose workplace is observed from above, or a hotel guest whose balcony is recorded would each fall within the class.
III. Digital Voyeurism: Section 810.145
A. Text and Structure
Fla. Stat. § 810.145, as amended by the Florida Legislature in 2024, is now titled "Digital voyeurism." (Prior to October 1, 2024, it was titled "Video voyeurism.") The statute creates three tiers of criminal offense—digital voyeurism, digital voyeurism dissemination, and commercial digital voyeurism dissemination—each with escalating penalties.
The core offense of digital voyeurism under § 810.145(2)(a) occurs when a person "intentionally uses or installs an imaging device to secretly view, broadcast, or record a person, without that person's knowledge and consent, who is dressing, undressing, or privately exposing the body, at a place and time when that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy." The statute separately prohibits "upskirting"—secretly imaging under or through clothing—under § 810.145(2)(a)(3).
"Reasonable expectation of privacy" is defined in § 810.145(1)(f) as "circumstances under which a reasonable person would believe that he or she could fully disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that the person's undressing was being viewed, recorded, or broadcasted by another, including, but not limited to, the interior of a residential dwelling, bathroom, changing room, fitting room, dressing room, or tanning booth."
B. Criminal Penalties
Criminal penalties under § 810.145 depend on the nature of the act and the actor's age:
- A person under 19: first-degree misdemeanor for digital voyeurism
- A person 19 or older: third-degree felony
- Prior convictions: second-degree felony
- Commercial dissemination and dissemination are felonies regardless of age under the 2024 amendments
The 2024 legislative amendments (Ch. 2024-228) enhanced several penalties and reclassified certain offenses, particularly for digital voyeurism dissemination and commercial digital voyeurism dissemination.
C. Civil Remedies for Digital Voyeurism
Section 810.145 does not contain its own civil remedy provision. Plaintiffs seeking civil relief for conduct violating the digital voyeurism statute must proceed through general common-law theories—intrusion upon seclusion, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and, where images were disseminated, the tort of public disclosure of private facts. Florida courts have recognized that violation of § 810.145 can support common-law privacy claims, but the statute itself does not create a private cause of action analogous to § 934.50(5).
Practitioners should note that where digital voyeurism involves a drone—for example, a drone used to peer into a private space through a window—both § 934.50 and the common-law digital voyeurism theories may apply simultaneously.
IV. Interplay with the First Amendment
Both § 934.50 and § 810.145 regulate image capture, and the regulated conduct has First Amendment implications in some contexts.
A. Drone Surveillance and News Gathering
News organizations and documentary filmmakers have raised First Amendment objections to drone surveillance restrictions. These arguments have not yet been extensively litigated in Florida state courts. The First Amendment protects the right to gather news and information, but it does not immunize conduct that violates generally applicable laws of neutral application. The key question under Cohen v. Cowles Media Co. and related precedents is whether § 934.50 is a content-neutral, generally applicable law imposed without regard to the viewpoint of the operator. Florida courts will likely apply intermediate scrutiny under Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC if the statute is challenged as a content-neutral restriction on news-gathering conduct.
B. The Private-Space/Public-Space Distinction
Section 934.50's coverage is explicitly tied to privately owned real property and the consent of the persons thereon. Drone surveillance of persons in public spaces—streets, parks, public beaches—is not prohibited by the Act. This public-space carve-out insulates legitimate journalism, public safety operations, and recreational drone use from § 934.50 liability while preserving the core privacy protection for private property. Plaintiffs' counsel must ensure that the surveillance occurred at a location meeting the statutory definition of privately owned real property and that the target lacked observable presence at ground level by persons in lawful locations.
C. Digital Voyeurism and the Newsworthiness Defense
In civil intrusion and privacy cases arising from § 810.145-type conduct, defendants occasionally raise "newsworthiness" as a defense to public-disclosure-of-private-facts claims. Florida courts applying the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652D recognize a newsworthiness exception but have not extended it to images captured without consent in private settings. Where the recording occurs in a space with a reasonable expectation of privacy as defined by the statute, the newsworthiness defense is analytically inapplicable regardless of the content of the images.
V. Practice Notes
Pleading § 934.50 claims. Complaints should identify: (1) the location as privately owned real property; (2) the plaintiff's status as owner, tenant, occupant, invitee, or licensee; (3) the nature of the drone and imaging device; (4) the operator's intent to conduct surveillance (distinguished from permissible incidental capture); (5) the absence of written consent; (6) the presumption that the person was not observable from ground level. Establishing the intent element typically requires discovery into the operator's instructions, flight logs, image storage, and purpose of the operation.
Punitive damages predicate. To recover punitive damages under § 934.50(5)(c), Florida's punitive damages statute at part II of ch. 768 requires an initial evidentiary showing—typically at the pleading stage via a proffer—that there is a reasonable basis for recovery. Fla. Stat. § 768.72. Counsel should identify this threshold early and document the factual predicate in the complaint.
Criminal-civil coordination. Where drone surveillance or digital voyeurism also constitutes a criminal act, the criminal investigation can generate useful evidence (seized devices, search warrant affidavits, officer interviews) for the civil case. Florida's victim's rights laws may provide additional avenues for civil recovery where the conduct also constitutes a crime.
Federal aviation preemption. Defendants who operate drones in compliance with FAA regulations sometimes argue federal preemption. While the FAA regulates the airspace and operational requirements for drones, it does not preempt state privacy laws. The FAA's regulatory framework addresses safety; § 934.50 addresses privacy. Federal circuit precedent generally holds that state property and privacy laws are not preempted by federal aviation regulations.
VI. Open Questions
- § 934.50 and commercial privacy investigation. The statute's exception at § 934.50(4)(i) for licensed persons acting within their "scope of practice" excludes professions in which the authorized scope includes "obtaining information about the identity, habits, conduct, movements" of persons. This carve-out explicitly targets private investigators. Counsel pursuing drone-privacy claims should verify that the defendant is not invoking this exception.
- Civil cause of action for § 810.145 violations. The absence of an express civil remedy in § 810.145 is a legislative gap. The Florida Legislature may address this in future sessions, particularly as comparable "revenge porn" and digital voyeurism statutes in other states increasingly include civil remedy provisions.
- Drone identification and data preservation. FAA remote-identification requirements (effective September 2023 for most drones) now require many drones to broadcast identification and location in real time. This creates an evidentiary avenue for identifying operators of drones used in surveillance; counsel should investigate remote-ID data as an early discovery priority.
VII. Closing
Florida's Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act reflects the legislature's judgment that the traditional "open fields" doctrine is constitutionally permissive but democratically inadequate in an era of inexpensive aerial surveillance technology. For plaintiffs whose privacy has been invaded by drone-mounted cameras, § 934.50 provides a purpose-built civil cause of action with compensatory damages, injunctive relief, attorney's fees, punitive damages, and cumulative common-law remedies. Digital voyeurism claims at § 810.145, while currently lacking a statutory private cause of action, support robust common-law theories. Practitioners should evaluate both statutes on any fact pattern involving aerial or covert imaging of a client in a private setting.
Talk to Yates Anderson
If you are litigating a matter in this area — or weighing whether to — the working analysis above only goes so far. Request a case evaluation and a Yates Anderson attorney will respond within one business day.
Informational only. Not legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is created by reading this post. Consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction.