The Law Hasn’t Kept Up With How Police Use Drones

Jon McBride, who designs and builds drones with Digital Defense Surveillance, flies a training drone for members of the the Box Elder County Sheriff’s Office search and rescue team, during a demonstration, in Brigham City, Utah. Image Credit: Rick Bowmer/AP Images
Jon McBride, who designs and builds drones with Digital Defense Surveillance, flies a training drone for members of the the Box Elder County Sheriff’s Office search and rescue team, during a demonstration, in Brigham City, Utah. Image Credit: Rick Bowmer/AP Images

If you look up in Minnesota, you might soon realize police drones joining the birds in the sky above your head.

Advertisement

This is because the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office has already given the green light to one little quadcopter to cruise around above its citizens, reports ThinkProgress. More will probably follow. And the problem with this is that the police can use the drone to collect evidence without obtaining a warrant first.

The HCSO says that the drone is for search and rescue missions only, however:

it seems that more may be in store. Its Unmanned Aerial Systems policy currently outlines “protocols [for] data intended to be used as evidence” and “[facilitates] law enforcement access to images and data captured by the UAS.”

Advertisement

ThinkProgress points out that repeated media requests, asking for the sheriff’s office to elaborate on the protocols themselves, have gone unanswered. This is quite troubling, when you consider that:

...the policy stipulates that “data collected by the [drone] not related to an active criminal investigation must be destroyed no later than 30 days,” which sounds eerily similar to incidental collection, a practice whereby innocent individuals get swept into vague and broad searches conducted by law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

And from there, it’s not clear if, for instance, the collected data can be used by law enforcement for “possible prosecutions” before the 30-day limit is up.

This is a case where the technology is evolving faster than the legislation that governs it can. The Florida v. Riley case from 1989 ruled that the police don’t need a warrant to observe private property from public airspace. However, this was ruled with manned helicopters in mind, not drones. And it’s now being used as justification for warrantless aerial surveillance across the country. (We reached out to the sheriff’s office for comment and will update if we get one.)

Advertisement

“This means the use of drones,” ThinkProgress writes, “without first obtaining a warrant, is actually legal due to the lack of other precedent.” On top of that, federal law also doesn’t stop the police and other agencies from arming drones.

Other panoptic instances of drone use include Cessnas in Baltimore, especially in the wake of the Freddie Gray riots.

Advertisement

It’s similar to the problem we’re seeing in autonomous cars, in that the law hasn’t kept pace with the technology, especially in terms of insurance. In car crashes, all of a sudden it becomes complicated: was it the driver’s fault, or the system’s?

Advertisement

It makes sense why law enforcement officials are adapting drone usage so readily. Flying over things is more efficient, it’s faster. You can sweep larger amounts of space in shorter amounts of time. You can see over pesky things like fences and gates, go places where officers or even wiretaps cannot.

But the legality of drone usage is especially troubling because there is an invasion of privacy aspect to it. It’s a little bit weird that Minnesota’s HSCO hasn’t been clear about its intentions for the drone.

Advertisement

Also, what does a search and rescue drone need guns for?

Writer at Jalopnik and consumer of many noodles.

Share This Story

Get our newsletter

DISCUSSION

wiscoshibby
WiscoShibby


Do people think the point of law enforcement using drones is just so they can fly around and spy on everyone? I mean I understand where privacy concerns come from. And that people are concerned about them being abused and everything, but there are so many benefits to this that are being completely overlooked. Think about car accidents in rural areas where the response time would normally be 10 minutes or more. It would be huge to be able to get there prior to first responders to assess the situation. Seriousness of injuries, whether or not anyone needs extrication, whether or not anyone was ejected or anything is on fire, if the road is blocked, etc. The ability to get that information to police/fire/EMS before they even get there would be huge. And then there are 911 calls. Every single time some idiot pocket dials 911 from his cell phone, coordinates pop up and plot on a map. Then a cop has to drive through the general area to make sure nobody is being axe murdered. Now think about this....every single time a 911 call comes in, the coordinates get sent to a drone which is automatically sent to exactly where the call came from. You'd appreciate that if you're ever trapped in your car, upside down in a ditch somewhere and unable to speak to the dispatcher. But let's just blow it all off because they might see someone dancing naked in their backyard once in a while...really?