Senate rejects ban on drone use for property tax assessments after privacy, safety debate
February 06, 2025 | 2025 Legislative SD, South Dakota
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
Senator Carly, the bill’s sponsor, asked the Senate to prohibit government use of drones for property tax assessment, saying the technology risks residents’ privacy and safety. Senate Bill 50 failed on final passage, 17 yeas to 16 nays, with two senators excused.
Carly opened debate by describing how drones can capture imagery at “window level” and said the state should avoid having “a drone army assessing our homes.” The sponsor listed other concerns: battery fires, hazards to people and livestock, and growing public unease as drone use becomes more widespread.
Supporters of the bill framed it as a privacy and safety protection. Carly said, “So why are we here? We're here because we don't wanna have a drone army assessing our homes with with, our tax assessors.” Senators Hone and Deibert described incidents and risks for livestock and private property; Hone said the measure was “a good start” and Deibert said licensed drone operators are not the concern but private misuse is.
Opponents said counties and assessors rely on drones as a practical, less-intrusive tool in some rural areas. Senator Vilhauer told the chamber he had been contacted by assessors who asked not to lose “a valuable resource” that helps reach inaccessible parcels and saves counties money. An opponent also said comparable tools—satellite imagery, fixed-wing mapping, drive-by inspections and county records—are available but that drones can fill gaps where terrain or access make other methods impractical.
Several senators raised constitutional and process questions in debate. Senator Pischke asked whether drone use implicated the Fourth Amendment; Carly responded by citing the Fourth Amendment language and the South Dakota Bill of Rights as the basis for privacy concerns. Senators also debated whether consent procedures, training, FAA licensing, or safeguards could address the sponsor’s concerns.
The final roll-call produced 17 yeas, 16 nays and two excused; the president declared the bill lost. Senator Carly noted her “motion to reconsider.”
The failure leaves current practice unchanged: counties that choose to use drones for some functions may continue to do so pending any future statutory change or local policy.
Carly opened debate by describing how drones can capture imagery at “window level” and said the state should avoid having “a drone army assessing our homes.” The sponsor listed other concerns: battery fires, hazards to people and livestock, and growing public unease as drone use becomes more widespread.
Supporters of the bill framed it as a privacy and safety protection. Carly said, “So why are we here? We're here because we don't wanna have a drone army assessing our homes with with, our tax assessors.” Senators Hone and Deibert described incidents and risks for livestock and private property; Hone said the measure was “a good start” and Deibert said licensed drone operators are not the concern but private misuse is.
Opponents said counties and assessors rely on drones as a practical, less-intrusive tool in some rural areas. Senator Vilhauer told the chamber he had been contacted by assessors who asked not to lose “a valuable resource” that helps reach inaccessible parcels and saves counties money. An opponent also said comparable tools—satellite imagery, fixed-wing mapping, drive-by inspections and county records—are available but that drones can fill gaps where terrain or access make other methods impractical.
Several senators raised constitutional and process questions in debate. Senator Pischke asked whether drone use implicated the Fourth Amendment; Carly responded by citing the Fourth Amendment language and the South Dakota Bill of Rights as the basis for privacy concerns. Senators also debated whether consent procedures, training, FAA licensing, or safeguards could address the sponsor’s concerns.
The final roll-call produced 17 yeas, 16 nays and two excused; the president declared the bill lost. Senator Carly noted her “motion to reconsider.”
The failure leaves current practice unchanged: counties that choose to use drones for some functions may continue to do so pending any future statutory change or local policy.
View full meeting
This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.
View full meeting