Whether county ordinances were conflict-preempted by state law; Michigan’s Unmanned Aircraft Systems Act (UASA); MCL 259.305; The Drone Act; MCL 259.320(1)

The court affirmed an “order granting declaratory judgment and a permanent injunction in favor of plaintiffs in this case challenging, as preempted by state law, county ordinances prohibiting the operation of unmanned aerial systems.” Defendants admitted that they were not challenging on appeal the trial court’s actual ruling as to conflict preemption under MCL 259.305. Rather, they stated “on appeal that ‘Ottawa County limits its challenge to the injunction on the basis that the Drone Act, specifically MCL 259.320(1), recognizes that a property owner such as the County has the right to establish rules against drone usage on its property enforceable through criminal trespass, being MCL 750.552.” However, the court noted the “case did not involve a criminal trespass. And the provisions of MCL 259.320(1) were not at issue in this case. Plaintiff brought this civil action seeking a declaratory judgment and permanent injunction on the ground that defendants[’] Park Rule and specific ordinances were conflict-preempted by the UASA, specifically, MCL 259.305.” And this was the basis of the trial court’s ruling. The court noted that it “is an error-correcting court, but defendants are requesting this Court to address, in the first instance, whether defendant Ottawa County—as a property owner and not as a political subdivision—can ‘prohibit drone usage on pain of a criminal trespass.’” The court concluded they were “actually seeking a gratuitous opinion on a matter of their own interest—not the correction of an alleged error by the trial court.” The court found that it would be inappropriate for it “to address this issue that was not raised, argued, considered, and decided in the trial court and we decline to do so.”