People need to read and understand the _entire_ statue. The statue does not specifically apply to civil or criminal, it (and all statues) apply to both. First and foremost, it _is_ used in criminal cases. If you break a statute, law enforcement can issue a citation or even arrest someone (hence, criminal). The person who suffered damages is also welcome to file a civil case against someone citing a statute being violated and showing damages.
However, if someone were to look over this statue that would see that it's much more then an issue of intent:
(e) “Surveillance” means:
1. With respect to an owner, tenant, occupant, invitee, or licensee of privately owned real property, the observation of such persons with sufficient visual clarity to be able to obtain information about their identity, habits, conduct, movements, or whereabouts; or
2. With respect to privately owned real property, the observation of such property’s physical improvements with sufficient visual clarity to be able to determine unique identifying features or its occupancy by one or more persons.
It's not just showing "intent", it's also being able to show that the person flying the drone is focusing on that person or property. That is why "surveillance" is mentioned. Keep in mind, it's _not_ the photo or video that matters (as this is protected under the US Constitution), it's the intent of the person taking the photo or video. Now, think about showing "intent". How would someone prove to another person that a person was intending to follow a person's movements. A simple fly by, containing photos or video from several other things, would not be enough.
A jury also gets to see the entire statute and have it explained to them. Anyone reading the entire statute would see that it's aimed at following a certain person or their vehicle. Such, as law enforcement following someone.
This is a _good_ law for every day people in order to protect them from law enforcement using drones to follow you around and gather information without a warrant. People should want _more_ states to have this same statute.