Inside the Wire: How Correctional Facilities Are Combatting Drone Contraband

In recent years, the rapid proliferation of drones — also known as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) — has created both opportunities and challenges for public safety agencies, law enforcement, and especially correctional facilities. What once seemed too expensive and out-out-of-reach are now readily available, inexpensive, and easy to modify.

This accessibility has opened the door for bad actors to use drones to smuggle contraband into jails and prisons at an alarming rate. From cell phones and narcotics to weapons and escape tools, these aerial deliveries circumvent traditional security measures like walls, razor wire, and perimeter patrols.

The impact on facility operations cannot be overstated. Drone-dropped contraband can spark inmate turf wars, fuel drug epidemics, facilitate orchestrated escapes, and pose life-threatening safety risks to corrections staff. As drone technology continues to advance — with longer flight times, stealthier designs, and even autonomous flight paths — correctional leaders face an urgent need to invest in robust drone detection systems, update response protocols, and engage with policymakers to expand their legal options for countering these airborne threats.

In this article, we’ll examine the scope of the drone-contraband problem, review the legal obstacles that limit how prison officials can respond, and highlight some of the common missteps in managing drone incursions.

Importantly, we’ll spotlight practical, affordable, and impactful solutions that prisons and jails can implement now, including radar-based detection, optical and acoustic sensors, and Remote ID receivers.

The Scope and Scale of the Problem

Rapidly Rising Drone Threats

Exact numbers on drone intrusions can be difficult to track, but data from the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and various state departments of corrections underscores the gravity of the issue. In 2018, for example, the BOP formally began tracking drone incidents in federal facilities — and reported a significant jump from 23 sightings in 2018 to 57 in 2019. Since then, multiple corrections leaders have gone on record stating that the actual count of drones is likely far higher, given that many flights go unnoticed if staff do not have specialized detection equipment.

In the broader U.S. landscape, state prison systems have seen sharp upticks as well. In Texas, arrests have been made of individuals allegedly attempting to fly bundles of narcotics, tobacco, and even cell phones over prison fences. Meanwhile, the U.K. reported 1,296 drone incidents at prisons in just a ten-month period ending in October 2024. Regardless of the country, the emerging consensus is that drone-enabled smuggling is fast becoming the preferred method for introducing high-value contraband — often coordinated by gangs, cartels, or other criminal enterprises.

Impact on Facility Safety and Operations

Drone contraband goes beyond illicit items like marijuana or cigarettes. Drones have delivered hard drugs such as heroin and methamphetamine, fueling addiction crises behind bars. They have also dropped firearms or tools — like wire cutters — that enable violent crimes and escapes. In one infamous 2017 case, a South Carolina inmate used drone-delivered wire cutters to break out of a maximum-security prison, triggering a multi-state manhunt. Separately, an Ohio prison yard erupted into a 75-inmate brawl when a drone dumped a mixture of drugs and tobacco over the fence, causing staff to deploy pepper spray to regain control.

Beyond the overt security threats, drone drops wreak administrative havoc. When staff suspect a drone contraband drop, it often necessitates a lockdown, a thorough yard search, and even staff redeployments away from other duties.

Crashing Into the Community

Sometimes these drone contraband runs fail spectacularly. In one Canadian case, a drone loaded with narcotics and cell phones missed its prison target and crash-landed on the roof of a nearby elementary school — endangering children and faculty. These incidents demonstrate that when contraband drops go awry, the risk isn’t confined to prisons alone.

Overall, the growing sophistication of criminal drone operators — from multi-drone “coordinated attacks” to the use of “dark drones” with lights off highlights the importance of proactive measures. Even if a facility has not yet experienced a major drone incident, the increasing volume of prison flyovers nationwide suggests it’s likely only a matter of time before criminals test those waters from above.

Legal Constraints and Policy Gaps

Limited Authority to “Take Down” Drones

A pivotal challenge for prisons is the tight legal restriction on how they can respond to a drone in flight. Under U.S. federal law, drones are considered aircraft in the National Airspace System, meaning that disabling or destroying one could be construed as a felony. This constraint can apply to correctional facilities unless they have special authorization or a partnership with a federal agency that does.

Simply put, state or local prison staff cannot legally shoot down, jam, or otherwise physically interfere with an unauthorized drone. And because jamming (or “spoofing”) might affect other legitimate radio signals and conflict with Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules, it’s largely off-limits to correctional systems as well.

Privacy and Surveillance Regulations

Even on the detection side, there are regulatory gray areas. Some counter-drone platforms rely on intercepting or monitoring the communications link between a drone and its controller. However, intercepting these signals can, in certain circumstances, conflict with federal wiretap or pen-trap statutes unless the facility is working under a federally sanctioned pilot project or a specific legal carve-out. Correctional administrators must ensure that any detection technology they use scrupulously avoids capturing private communications.

Policy Lag

While the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has placed formal no-fly zones over federal prisons and a number of states have criminalized drone flights over correctional facilities, the penalty structures and enforcement mechanisms vary widely. Many believe the punishment for drone-based smuggling lags behind the seriousness of the threat, making it an appealing avenue for criminals seeking to move high-value contraband at relatively low risk.

Complicating matters, local law enforcement often lacks the immediate authority or resources to intervene once a drone is in flight. Unless the operator is caught in the act or the drone crashes inside the facility, building a criminal case can be difficult. As a result, many prison officials find themselves limited to a “detect and observe” posture — hopefully pinpointing a drone in time to find any contraband it drops, but unable to neutralize the drone in real time.

Common Mistakes Correctional Facilities Make

Even with the best intentions, some prison facilities have adopted ineffective approaches to drone incursions that reduce effectiveness or create legal liabilities.

1. Attempting to Knock a Drone Out of the Sky

Shooting at a drone or trying to jam its signal seems like a direct solution. Yet, as noted, this can violate federal airspace laws, and there have been documented cases of prison staff facing legal questions after interfering with drones by force. The drone’s uncontrolled fall could also injure someone on the ground. The recommended approach under current law is to detect and track the drone, coordinate with law enforcement, and secure your perimeter or evidence of a drop as quickly as possible.

2. Underestimating the Threat or Lacking Detection

Some administrators assume, “We’ve never seen a drone, so we must not have an issue.” However, drones can be astonishingly quiet, especially at night or when flying high. Facilities without specialized detection hardware often only notice a fraction of attempted drops. If the first time you become aware of a drone is when contraband is already in the yard, the damage is done.

3. Mishandling Downed Drones

Drones that crash or get intercepted can be gold mines of forensic evidence: flight logs, navigation data, potential fingerprints, and so forth. Officers who immediately handle or power down a drone without proper protocol risk destroying that evidence. Treating every recovered drone as crime scene evidence improves the odds of identifying the perpetrators and deterring future attempts.

4. Failure to Coordinate with External Agencies

A prison can secure its own perimeter, but drone operators often launch from beyond the fence. Without strong relationships and established SOPs with local law enforcement, by the time officers respond, the pilot may have fled. Proactive planning and real-time communication channels are vital. Correctional facilities and local police should synchronize who handles the “inside” (managing inmates and contraband) and who handles the “outside” (locating the operator, investigating the source).

5. Overlooking Legislative Engagement

Legislators and policymakers might be unaware of how critical the drone-contraband crisis has become. While airports and infrastructure sites receive significant attention, the corrections community can be overlooked. Failing to educate elected officials and push for updated counter-UAS laws means the prison community remains restricted in its ability to mitigate a real threat. By sharing incident data and advocating for stronger penalties and limited drone mitigation authority, correctional leaders can help shape the legal landscape.

Practical Investments in Drone Detection and Airspace Awareness

Given the legal complexities around actively neutralizing drones, the most viable approach for prisons today is robust detection and monitoring. This approach focuses on discovering suspicious drones early, tracking their flight paths, alerting staff to potential contraband drops, and collecting evidence that aids investigation and possible prosecution. Several categories of technology can serve this function:

1. Radar-Based Systems (Drone Radar)

Radar is one of the most reliable methods for detecting small drones, especially in low-visibility conditions (nighttime or poor weather). Newer radars are compact, relatively cost-effective, and can track multiple objects over wide areas. By placing radar units around the perimeter, facilities gain a persistent “electronic fence in the sky.” These units use Doppler shifts to differentiate drones from birds or debris. Radar detection can extend hundreds or even thousands of meters, depending on model and installation height, giving officers time to respond before a drone crosses the fence line.

2. Optical Sensors (EO/IR Camera Systems)

Optical systems rely on visual, infrared, or thermal cameras. They’re particularly useful for positively identifying a flying object once radar triggers an alert. For instance, if your radar indicates a drone is inbound from the north, an optical sensor can automatically slew a camera to that bearing, allowing security staff to confirm it’s indeed a drone rather than a bird. Some solutions, like the Casia G system (from uAvionix/Iris Automation), use powerful AI algorithms to detect and classify objects in real time, day or night. These optical sensors often integrate seamlessly with existing security infrastructure, such as closed-circuit TV networks.

3. Acoustic Sensors

Acoustic or audio-based detection systems listen for the signature buzz or whirr of drone rotors. They can be valuable in layered solutions, especially if radar or camera coverage has gaps. However, acoustic sensors can be prone to false alarms in noisy environments (like highways or heavy machinery). Still, combined with radar or optical inputs, acoustic technology offers an extra layer of certainty. Some solutions come with advanced noise-filtering algorithms that help them differentiate a drone from background sounds.

4. Remote ID Receivers

In 2023, the FAA began requiring most drones to broadcast a Remote ID signal. This signal includes the drone’s location, velocity, unique ID, and often an approximate location for the operator. Using devices like UAS Sentry or Dronetag Rider/Scout receivers, a prison can passively pick up these Remote ID broadcasts. This can be invaluable because if a drone is broadcasting properly, staff will see not only the drone on a map but also a point indicating where the pilot is operating. Admittedly, criminals intending to deliver contraband may disable or spoof Remote ID, but many novices or less sophisticated smugglers might not. In any case, Remote ID detection quickly rules out legitimate or authorized drone flights in the area.

Layered, Integrated Architecture

No single sensor solves every use case. The most robust solution is a layered approach that fuses data from radar, optical, acoustic, and Remote ID channels into one interface. This “sensor fusion” reduces false positives and ensures near-total coverage, from high-flying drones to stealth drones hugging tree lines. By tying these feeds into the facility’s security operations center, staff can see an integrated airspace picture and receive immediate alerts if a sensor detects anomalies.

Forensic and Investigative Tools

Beyond real-time detection, prisons should develop processes to track, log, and investigate each drone incident. This might involve specialized software that records flight paths or a digital evidence room where recovered drones are forensically analyzed (pulling flight logs, GPS data, or potential fingerprint evidence). Engaging local crime labs or building in-house expertise can pay dividends by leading to arrests and prosecutions, thereby deterring future smuggling attempts.

Interagency Coordination and Proactive Planning

No single entity — not even the best-equipped prison — can combat drone contraband alone. Collaboration with local, state, and federal law enforcement is paramount.

1. Pre-Incident Protocols

Develop memoranda of understanding (MOUs) or standard operating procedures with law enforcement to clarify roles and responsibilities. For example, the prison might secure the yard and inmates, while local police or sheriff’s offices set up a perimeter outside to locate the drone operator. Regular joint training or tabletop exercises help both sides understand who handles emergency communications, evidence handling, and potential arrests.

2. Real-Time Crime Centers

Many cities and counties now use Real-Time Crime Centers (RTCCs) that aggregate live feeds from cameras, license plate readers, and other data sources. Integrating your prison’s drone detection alerts into an RTCC ensures immediate situational awareness across the entire public safety spectrum. If the center sees a suspicious drone track heading toward your facility, they can dispatch units to intercept the operator before a drop occurs.

3. Working with Legislators

By systematically recording and reporting drone incidents, correctional facilities can present compelling evidence to local and state representatives about the growing contraband crisis. These data points can encourage tougher penalties for drone smugglers or expansions of counter-UAS authority. Legislators typically respond more quickly once they grasp how drones directly endanger community safety and correctional operations.

Advexure’s Technology Partners

For correctional agencies looking to scale or upgrade their drone detection, our team can help. With a trusted industry reputation and years of experience serving public safety, Advexure has established strategic partnerships with cutting-edge drone detection providers to deliver comprehensive solutions:

MatrixSpace

MatrixSpace specializes in AI-powered drone radar systems designed to detect and classify small UAVs even in challenging conditions. Their radars use machine learning to minimize false alarms from birds or environmental clutter. By partnering with MatrixSpace, Advexure can offer correctional facilities an out-of-the-box perimeter radar solution that is both highly accurate and easy to set up. The real-time data from MatrixSpace radar helps staff track a drone’s route and anticipate likely drop zones.

uAvionix (Casia G)

The Casia G detect-and-avoid platform was originally developed by Iris Automation to help drone pilots safely integrate with air traffic. Now, it doubles as a ground-based detection system that uses optical sensors to identify approaching drones. Paired with radar coverage, Casia G can quickly confirm whether an airborne object is actually a drone — a key advantage in prioritizing genuine threats. Because it’s a passive (camera-based) system, Casia G faces fewer regulatory hurdles.

Final Considerations

Drone incursions pose a growing threat that correctional facilities can no longer ignore. Criminal enterprises see drones as a low-risk, high-reward method of delivering contraband, and the stealth and sophistication of their operations will only grow. While federal law still restricts robust “take down” measures, prisons are far from powerless. A proactive detection strategy, layered with radar, optical, acoustic, and Remote ID solutions, can tip the balance in favor of correctional authorities. Once aware of an incoming drone, staff can lock down the facility, preempt contraband drops, and gather actionable intelligence to track or apprehend pilots on the outside.

Here are key steps for any facility looking to harden its defenses:

1. Recognize the Drone Problem

Perform an airspace audit or temporary sensor deployment to discover just how often your prison is targeted. Data drives decision-making.

2. Implement a Layered Detection Strategy

Combine drone radar, AI-enabled optical systems, and Remote ID receivers for full-spectrum coverage. Use sensor fusion software to unify alerts into one user-friendly interface.

3. Integrate with Existing Security

Tie drone detection feeds into your main security operations center and collaborate with real-time crime centers. Ensure you have standard operating procedures to guide staff in how to respond, who to notify, and how to track potential contraband.

4. Train Staff in Evidence Handling

When a drone crash-lands or is recovered, treat it as a forensic gold mine. Properly bag and preserve the device for analysis that can lead to arrests and future deterrence.

5. Develop Interagency Protocols

Pre-coordinate with local and state law enforcement to handle outside-the-fence pursuits, pilot identification, and data sharing. Conduct joint drills to clarify roles.

6. Advocate for Legislative Support

Educate legislators about the gravity of drone contraband. Push for stronger penalties, expanded detection permissions, and a streamlined path to deploy advanced counter-UAS technologies.

Prisons and jails are, by design, environments meant to keep dangerous items and individuals contained. Drones, however, have bypassed that containment in new ways. Yet with the right planning, technology, training, and policy support, correctional facilities can reassert control of their airspace — preventing contraband drops, enhancing officer safety, and maintaining the integrity of prison operations. It’s time to take action, invest in detection infrastructure, and secure the skies above the wire.

If you’re ready to explore a drone detection solution, contact our team today for more information. Working together, we can ensure contraband stays out of your facility by stopping illicit drone deliveries at the source.