Instead, she came face to face with a drone.
“It followed us all week, creeped me out,” Miller said. At the time, she was told there was nothing that could be done.
Miller briefly shared her story while discussing a new package of bills, sponsored by state Rep. William Bruck, R-Erie, that would change how Michigan regulates drone usage.
The bipartisan bill package would prohibit drone operators from flying over some state-owned property and “critical infrastructure,” like power plants and law enforcement buildings.
It would also allow police to take drones down if they violate the law or pose a public safety risk.
Bruck and other sponsors pointed to the bills as necessary to ensure Michigan is protected from a new and spreading technology that could potentially disrupt state operations.
Several stakeholder groups said there’s still more work to be done on the bills, however, including to ensure that existing federal regulations aren’t preempted.
Drones, also known as “unmanned aircraft systems,” are used for everything from news agency photography to law enforcement and as of late, even some customer deliveries.
There are over 837,000 total drones registered, according to the website of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
Drones are typically required to be registered with the FAA, and there are limits to where they can fly, including around airports and near some stadiums during sports events.
But Bruck said state regulation is also necessary to address what he described as the “Wild West” of drone management.
“We are very vulnerable to nefarious drones here in the country,” Bruck said. “We see all around the world this is happening, and we’d be naive to think that this will not happen here in our country, and especially in our state, with the infrastructure we have.”
Bruck’s bipartisan bill package, encompassing 15 bills in total and dubbed SHIELD (Securing Homeland and Infrastructure with Emerging Laws for Drones), has been more than a year in the making, he said.
“We have [gone] through bazillions, if that’s a word, of changes,” he said. “And we have worked with stakeholders extensively. We have not been able to please every single stakeholder in this case, but the key here is homeland security.”
Rep. Mike Harris, R-Waterford Township, a former law enforcement officer and drone hobbyist who sponsored legislation in the package, said drones are now being used in “real world conflicts and attacks.”
“That technology does not stay overseas,” he said. “It spreads, it becomes cheaper and it becomes much easier to use.”
Bruck gave the example of a 2025 Ukrainian drone strike on Russia, called “Operation Spiderweb,” that destroyed around 20% of Russia’s operational strategic bomber fleet on the ground.
And he said in Butler, Pennsylvania, when then-presidential candidate Donald Trump was shot, the shooter is believed to have scouted the location with a drone prior to carrying out his attack.
In Michigan, Bruck said concerts in open-air stadiums have been delayed due to drone incursions.
At the same time, he recognized that the emerging technology is also being operated by companies like Amazon to make deliveries, and by public safety officials who can use thermal imaging to find missing people.
While the FAA regulates airspace, the state does also have existing laws that prohibit “knowingly and intentionally” using drones to interfere with the operations of correctional and law enforcement facilities, along with a list of “key facilities” like chemical manufacturing plants, water treatment and hazardous waste storage facilities.
House Bill 5319, the first bill in the package, would make those key facilities, correctional facilities and law enforcement facilities “no drone zones.” It would also add to the list other types of not-yet-covered critical infrastructure, like railroads.
The bill would take effect 90 days after its passage.
Critical infrastructure could be designated by the state, or identified by the federal Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), a component of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
The state would also update its key facilities list under the bill package to also include data centers and battery storage facilities.
Harris said it’s naive to assume that state facilities or public infrastructure are immune “simply because we hope they are.”
But in a letter to the committee, Michigan Aeronautics Commission Chair Benjamin Carter expressed concern that the package could ultimately drive unsafe use of drones by “co-mingling federal and state authority and by creating a patchwork of restrictions” that cause uncertainty for pilots.
The commission is responsible for the general supervision of all aeronautics within the state, regulating airports and flight schools and promoting Michigan’s $22 billion aviation industry.
Other groups, like Grand Rapids-based technology and drone company Westwood AI, said the legislation places Michigan at the “forefront internationally” when it comes to drone innovation, creating the “certainty and sustainability required for investment.”
The Michigan Drone Association falls somewhere in the middle.
While the association is generally in support of the package, according to testimony from representative Matt Rybar, the group with over 800 individual members and 140 member groups wants to work to address technology limitations that would put drone operators in “a bit of a corner.”
Rybar said the key is ensuring a difference in penalties for negligent and malicious flying, along with making sure that equitable access to airspace is maintained and federal regulations aren’t preempted. He said some measures in the bills could be impractical to implement.
The legislation does carve out exemptions for commercial drone operators and public safety agencies that fly drones.
Violators could be subject to a four-year felony and fines of up to $2,500.
Bruck said a substitute to the bill would include less strict penalties in cases of first-time, non-malicious offenders who accidentally break the law.
The bill package also requires the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) to purchase, develop or contract out development of an app that an individual must then use while operating a drone.
Bruck said the app would give a warning when a drone operator is approaching a restricted zone.
Another bill in the package would require MDOT to create and maintain a publicly-accessible, state geofencing drone database that lists restricted zones. Rybar described that as an unfunded mandate.
MDOT indicated the database would require “significant additional resources,” including between $20 and $40 million for sensors, $10 to $20 million for information technology and between four and 10 additional staff members.
Separately, legislation introduced by Harris would allow the state and other critical infrastructure owners to install devices that detect drones and prohibit their flight over state-owned buildings and infrastructure, covering areas not preempted by federal law.
“In short, this bill respects the FAA’s authority while ensuring that Michigan is not standing still in the face of evolving threats,” Harris said.
According to House Fiscal analysis, drone detection devices can cost around $7,000 per unit, with permanent fixed systems ranging from $50,000 to up to $500,000 per site.
Bruck said the package would also allow police and authorized private security officers to take out drones violating the law or posing a public safety risk. It does not give private citizens the same right.
He said now, some places like “The Big House” at the University of Michigan, have already installed technology to detect drones.
“They can see drones,” he said, but “they can’t protect from drones.”
Other bills would create a state standard for “no drone zone” signs and require they be posted around restricted areas, and would prohibit drones from trespassing over private property if they invade privacy or harass residents.
Still more legislation would prohibit state and local governments, colleges and universities from buying drones manufactured by federally-designated companies of concern. They would ban purchase after two years and operation after five.
The bills will be discussed over a series of three hearings. No votes have so far been taken.
“This package isn’t perfect,” Bruck said. “There’s much more to do, but we must do something.”
©2026 Advance Local Media LLC. Visit mlive.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
