Building the Stalking Case

Stalking is a "course of conduct" — not a single incident. Your charging instrument must establish repeated acts that caused the victim to reasonably fear for their safety. Drone stalking cases should include:

  • A timeline of all documented incidents (from the victim's log and police reports)
  • Video evidence showing the drone's position relative to the victim's dwelling and movements
  • Remote ID or Wi-Fi data linking a specific device to the incidents
  • Forensic matching of device flight data to detection tower or victim-captured data
  • Victim testimony on behavioral changes caused by the harassment (leaving home, covering windows, fear of being outside)
  • Any prior relationship or contact between the suspect and victim
  • Evidence of drone purchase timing correlating with harassment start date

Charging Strategy

Consider layering charges across multiple applicable statutes. In the 2024 Rockingham County case, eight counts were filed under three separate statutes (spying by electronic device, drone trespass, and stalking) based on documented incidents. Honeycutt pleaded guilty to six of eight counts.

Important note for charging instruments: Virginia's UAS trespass statute (§ 18.2-121.3) requires that the drone "come within 50 feet of a dwelling house." Flight data from a detection tower, victim video, and Remote ID logs can all be used to establish proximity. Do not assume you need to prove exact altitude — documented hovering outside windows and following the victim on their own property satisfies the proximity and intent elements.

Addressing FAA Preemption Arguments

Defense counsel may argue that FAA jurisdiction preempts state criminal prosecution. This argument fails because:

  • FAA jurisdiction covers airspace regulation and pilot certification — not criminal conduct directed at persons
  • State criminal statutes address the use of a drone against a person, not its operation in navigable airspace
  • The existence of a federal regulatory scheme does not immunize actors from state criminal liability for how they use a federally regulated device
  • Courts have affirmed that states retain police power to protect residents from harassment, stalking, and trespass regardless of the instrument used

Bail & Protective Conditions

Request explicit conditions prohibiting drone operation and contact with the victim. Under Va. Code § 18.2-324.2, a protective order respondent who subsequently uses a drone to follow, contact, or image the petitioner faces additional criminal charges.