Warrantless drone ban hovers over Brown’s desk

Warrantless drone ban hovers over Brown’s desk

puma.droneWith a stroke of his pen, Gov. Jerry Brown could set the tone for state-level drone policy.

After passing the Assembly and the state Senate, AB1327 will await Brown’s signature until the end of September.

Legislation regulating the use of drones by law enforcement has already been proposed or passed in 13 other states. But a combination of timing, public opinion and California’s high profile have catapulted AB1327 to national attention.

Around the country, voters have objected strongly to the prospect of “domestic” drones used to police citizens, and some legislatures have responded. In Virginia, legislators barred both cops and regulators from deploying drones for the next two years, while Florida’s elected representatives considered requiring a warrant for any use of drones by law enforcement.

Sweeping rules, specific restrictions

A bipartisan group of California lawmakers banded together to draft AB1327. Assemblymen Steven Bradford, D-Gardena, Jeff Gorell, R-Camarillo, and Bill Quirk, D-Hayward, proposed to restrict drone policing in several key ways:

  • In general, “public agencies” would be barred from using or contracting for “unmanned aircraft systems.” Narrow exceptions would include a use of drones that “achieves the core mission” of an agency and “is unrelated to the gathering of criminal intelligence.”
  • Law enforcement agencies would be required to obtain a warrant based on probable cause, except in the instance of traffic accidents, environmental disasters, or the inspection of “state parks and wilderness areas for illegal vegetation or fires.”
  • Any public agencies “intending to deploy” drones would be required to provide “reasonable public notice.”
  • Information collected by drones, including photo and video data, would have to be “permanently destroyed within one year,” and could not be “disseminated” beyond the agency collecting that information.
  • Finally, along with such information and its records, the identities of individuals and entities who “obtains or requests” those records would be subject to a disclosure requirement. Here, narrow exceptions would include disclosures that “would endanger the safety of a person involved in an investigation,” or “endanger the successful completion of the investigation” itself.

In general, Gorell said, the prospect of policing by drone raised a threat to “our reasonable expectation of privacy,” requiring lawmakers to set “guidelines,” according to The Los Angeles Times. But amid the flurry of precise details and legalistic language, one exemption seemed to run contrary to the civil-libertarian flavor of the legislation. “Illegal vegetation,” which law enforcement could search without a warrant over public land, clearly referenced cultivated marijuana plants.

Legislating in advance

California’s cops have reacted negatively to news of AB1327’s passage. Aaron Maguire, legislative counsel for the California State Sheriff’s Association, summed up that organization’s skepticism toward Gorell’s view of privacy. “If you’re going to the 49ers game, or you’re in a public arena,” he said, “we don’t think an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy, and we don’t think a warrant makes sense.”

By any measure, AB1327 can be read as an effort to head off a potential problem at the pass. Reactive legislating has increasingly come under attack by activists and lobbyists with vested interests in pushing against “do-nothing” legislators. In fact, although fears of drone abuse are on the rise, the number of such incidents has so far been very low nationwide. In California, however, a string of events attracting popular attention pushed drone concerns to the front burner more than inside political pressure or partisan agendas.

Backlash crested this summer against law enforcement drones real and imagined:

  • San Jose police had to apologize for pursuing drone plans without adequate public notice.
  • The Los Angeles Police Department placed two drones under lock and key pending clarifications of federal rules.
  • A Los Angeles crowd dispatched a hobbyist’s drone, mistaking it for an LAPD device.
  • A West Hollywood man raised awkward legal questions by tormenting city cops with flyovers of police station parking lots.

The decision on limiting drone use now is up to Brown.

1 comment

Write a comment
  1. LetitCollapse
    LetitCollapse 15 September, 2014, 15:13

    After what we found out about NSA domestic surveillance (via Snowden) how easy do you think it would be for law enforcement to violate the provisions of this law even if Brownie signs it?

    And even if they did violate it and got caught, do you think anyone would get punished for it?

    Did anyone from NSA get punished other than Snowden the whistleblower??? 😉

    James Clapper, the Director of Intelligence lied under sworn oath during congressional testimony about domestic spying by NSA. He committed perjury. Did anything happen to him? hah. 🙂

    Let’s all grow up.

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply

Tags assigned to this article:
dronessurveillanceJames Pouloslaw enforcement

Related Articles

Is An All-Cuts Budget Ahead?

FEB. 25, 2011 By KATY GRIMES SACRAMENTO — There is never a dull moment with California Gov. Jerry Brown. In

CA bill would ban 3D gun

May 12, 2013 By John Seiler Friday I wrote about federal attempts to ban a 3D gun that you can

Video: Peter Schiff on the gold standard

Businessman and investment broker Peter Schiff sits down with CalWatchdog’s James Poulos to discuss whether or not the gold standard can save