Senate panel tables drone bill after extensive debate over definitions, exemptions and civil penalties

The Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday tabled Senate Bill 136 after extended questioning about the bill’s definitions and broad exemptions.

Sponsor Senator Munoz described the measure as narrowly tailored to protect critical infrastructure — including power, water and pipelines — and to close enforcement gaps that law enforcement says make drone-related investigations difficult. "Drones are increasingly capable of high resolution imaging and long distance surveillance and are increasingly accessible," he said.

Rob Hart of the governor’s organized crime commission and a New Mexico State Police representative testified that criminal organizations have weaponized and repurposed off-the-shelf drones for surveillance, logistics and even to drop contraband; they said the lack of a state criminal statute complicates investigations and prosecutions.

Committee members raised multiple drafting concerns: the bill does not define core terms such as "surveillance," "proximity" or what counts as "critical infrastructure" in all contexts; exemptions for commercial, academic and community-based users could be overly broad; and some members warned the measure could unintentionally criminalize benign or accidental conduct, impede journalistic activity or restrict citizens’ ability to record government officials.

Sponsor and supporters defended leaving certain matters to the courts or factfinder and said the bill uses existing statutory definitions where appropriate. After debate, a substitute motion to table the bill prevailed on a roll-call vote and the panel tabled SB136 for further work.

What happens next: sponsor and committee members said the measure needs narrower definitions and clearer exemptions; the tabling vote halts immediate progress and leaves time for reworking the draft.