UAV Law
Enforcement & Privacy
The right to privacy is
fundamental in a free and civilized society! We The People,
have a reasonable and justifiable expectation of privacy that we will
not be monitored or spied on by law enforcement agents, individuals and
hobbyists. But it is already here! We are being monitored everyday
by government, law enforcement, businesses, and private citizens every
day! Just look around you! Surveillance cameras are on traffic lights,
street corners, banks, hospitals, office building, parking lots and even
private citizens have cameras outside there homes. These cameras
play an important role in "security and public safety."
UAV Privacy Protection Legislation
is necessary. However, some Federal, State and City Legislators may be
jumping the gun to fast and adopting or proposing Legislative Acts
without thinking about what the legislation does NOT include. These acts
could severely limit the use of UAV's by law enforcement. In their efforts to protect our
privacy they are forgetting about the role UAV's play in public safety.
The same important role that is currently carried out with helicopters
that cost $1500 per hour to fly operate. These full size and
expensive to operate helicopters are used to search for missing persons,
fire rescue, tracking criminals, SWAT operations, and much much more.
The US Supreme Court has
held that individuals do not generally have Fourth Amendment rights with
respect to aerial surveillance because of the ability that anyone might
have to observe what could be viewed from the air.
UAVs exemplify the modern information age, an
era of computer automation, the Internet, high-definition imagery, and
"smart"-technology.
Civilian applications include traffic surveillance, weather monitoring,
communications relay, border management, maritime patrol,
crime prevention, fire rescue, forest fire
monitoring and a host of other uses. More can be done virtually and by
remote control today than at any time in history, and the corresponding
actual and potential savings of personnel and resources are tangible.
Similarly, in the commercial sector, UAVs can
undertake tasks relating to fishery and agricultural management,
freight, pipeline monitoring, aerial photography, and search and rescue.
In doing so, UAVs optimize the political, business, and human costs of
dangerous activities.
Whether UAVs can be integrated into the
national airspace without also posing a safety or national security
issue is an open question.
As
the FAA itself noted of UAVs:
These devices may be as simple as a remotely
controlled model aircraft used for recreational purposes or as complex
as surveillance aircraft flying over hostile areas in warfare. They may
be controlled either manually or through an autopilot using a data link
to connect the pilot to the aircraft. They may perform a variety of
public services: surveillance, collection of air samples to determine
levels of pollution, or rescue and recovery missions in crisis
situations.
The absence of a distinctive body of rules and
regulations integrating UAV flight into the national airspace, coupled
with an existing time-consuming certification process for UAV flight in
the first place, is an impediment and constraint for present and future
UAV development.
At the same time, given the actual
proliferation of UAVs in the commercial and military markets, the time
for lawmakers to more directly address UAV integration into the NAS as a
matter of law is now. Policymakers should aggressively encourage UAV
production and use in the civil, commercial, and military realms, they
should approach the laws regulating UAV operations conservatively,
integrating different UAV assets into the national airspace in-step with
improvements in UAV technological reliability.
Of course, individuals do not
operate drone vehicles with the capabilities of the US government. Also,
some state courts have reached different conclusions about the privacy
issues associated with aerial surveillance.
The House of Representatives
approved an amendment
to the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013 to prohibit
information collected by Department of Defense drones without a warrant
from being used as evidence in court. In June 2012, identical bills were
introduced in the House and
the Senate to
require a warrant before drones could be used for most instances of
criminal surveillance.
Here are a couple of prime
examples of how far some Acts go in limiting the use of UAV's by law
enforcement and government agencies. Commercial use is illegal and
strict restriction are in place for hobbyists. None of these do not include
safety measures such a loss of communications or forbidding them from
being armed.
NOTE: Homeland Surveillance & Electronics LLC
Mission Statement is also to protect the privacy rights of the individuals and to work
with government agencies, organizations and businesses to help insure that those rights are not infringed. If they use them like they already use helicopters
for criminal pursuit, search and rescue, fire is one thing, but if they start using them to spy
on the general public without a warrant, then its a different story altogether.
Sen. Paul Introduces Bill to
Protect Americans Against Unwarranted Drone Surveillance
Jun 12, 2012
WASHINGTON, D.C. -
Today, Sen. Rand Paul introduced legislation into the Senate that
protects individual privacy against unwarranted governmental intrusion
through the use of the unmanned aerial vehicles commonly known as
drones. The Preserving Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act of 2012
will protect Americans' personal privacy.
"Like other tools used to collect
information in law enforcement, in order to use drones a warrant needs
to be issued. Americans going about their everyday lives should not be
treated like criminals or terrorists and have their rights infringed
upon by military tactics," Sen. Paul said.
The Preserving Freedom from
Unwarranted Surveillance Act of 2012 also:
1. Prohibits the use of drones by
the government except when a warrant is issued for its use in accordance
with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment.
2. Includes the following
exceptions:
1) patrol of national borders;
2) when law enforcement possesses
reasonable suspicion that under particular circumstances, swift drone
action is necessary to prevent "imminent danger to life;"
3) high risk of a terrorist attack
3. Allows any person to sue the
government for violating this Act.
4. Specifies that no evidence
obtained or collected in violation of this Act can be used/admissible as
evidence in a criminal, civil, or regulatory action.
PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT V2: BAN
ON THE USE OF DRONES BY FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES
SECTION 1. [STATE] General Laws,
Chapter ____ of Title _____ is hereby amended by adding thereto this
section:
– Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
(UAV) by Law Enforcement Banned –
(a) The general assembly finds and
declares the following:
(1) The right to privacy is
fundamental in a free and civilized society.
(2) Persons within the State of
[STATE] have a reasonable and justifiable expectation of privacy that
they will not be monitored with UAVs by law enforcement agents of the
United States or law enforcement agents of the State of [STATE].
(3) The potential benefit to law
enforcement and criminal justice from the use of UAVs is far outweighed
by the degradation to the fundamental right to privacy secured by the
Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of
[STATE] that will result from law enforcement’s use of UAVs.
(4) The use of UAVs by law
enforcement is repugnant to a free society.
(b)
Any law enforcement agent of the Federal Government that shall utilize a
UAV for any purpose whatsoever within the airspace of the State of shall
be guilty of a Class A Misdemeanor.
(c)
Any law enforcement agent of the State of [STATE] that shall utilize a
UAV for any purpose whatsoever within the airspace of the State of
[STATE] shall be guilty of a Class A Misdemeanor.
(d)
Any person that shall knowingly, or under facts where the person should
know, assist any person or entity to violate section (b) or (c) of this
chapter shall be guilty of a Class A Misdemeanor.
(e)
Any information gathered by a UAV, and any information gathered as a
result of the use of a UAV, whether by said law enforcement agents, or
otherwise, is declared inadmissible in any civil or criminal court of
law in the State of [STATE].
(f)
As used in this section, “Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)” and “UAVs” are any
aircraft without a human pilot on board.
(g)
As used in this section, “law enforcement agent of the United States” is
any officer, employee or agent of the United States, or any officer
employee or agent of a branch, department or agency of the United
States, or any person or entity acting under contract with the United
States or any branch, department or agency thereof, for the purpose of
law enforcement or criminal justice.
(h)
As used in this section, “law enforcement agent of the State of [STATE]”
is any officer, employee or agent of the State of [STATE], or any
officer employee or agent of a branch, department or agency of the State
of [STATE], or any person or entity acting under contract with the State
of [STATE] or any branch, department or agency thereof, for the purpose
of law enforcement or criminal justice.
(i)
This section shall be construed broadly to effect the legislative intent
of banning the use of UAVs by law enforcement, and any information
obtained as a result of the use of UAVs by law enforcement, within the
State of [STATE].
(j)
Severability: If any provision, portion or subdivision of this Act is or
becomes illegal, such illegality shall not affect the remainder of this
Act.
SECTION 2: This act takes effect
immediately upon approval by the Governor.
ACT V1: WARRANT REQUIREMENT FOR
BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES PRIOR TO THE USE OF
DRONES
SECTION 1. [STATE] General Laws,
Chapter ____ of Title _____ is hereby amended by adding thereto this
section:
– Warrant Required for the Use of
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) by Law Enforcement–
(a) The general assembly finds and
declares the following:
(1) The right to privacy is
fundamental in a free and civilized society;
(2) Persons within the State of
[STATE] have a reasonable and justifiable expectation of privacy that
they will not be monitored with UAVs by law enforcement agents of the
United States or law enforcement agents of the State of [STATE] without
a warrant based on probable cause first issuing;
(3) The potential benefit to law
enforcement and criminal justice from the use of UAVs without a warrant
first issuing is far outweighed by the degradation to the fundamental
right to privacy secured by the Constitution of the United States and
the Constitution of the State of [STATE] that will result from law
enforcement use of UAVs without first obtaining a warrant;
(4) The use of UAVs by law
enforcement without first obtaining a warrant is repugnant to a free
society.
(b)
Any law enforcement agent of the United States that shall utilize a UAV
for any purpose whatsoever within the airspace of the State of [STATE]
without first obtaining a warrant shall be guilty of a Class A
Misdemeanor.
(c) Any
law enforcement agent of the State of [STATE] that shall utilize a UAV
for any purpose whatsoever within the airspace of the State of [STATE]
without first obtaining a warrant shall be guilty of a Class A
Misdemeanor.
(d) Any
person that shall knowingly, or under facts where the person should
know, assist any person or entity to violate section (b) or (c) of this
chapter shall be guilty of a Class A Misdemeanor.
(e) Any
information gathered by a UAV without a warrant, and any information
gathered as a result of the use of a UAV without a warrant, is declared
inadmissible in any civil or criminal court of law in the State of
[STATE].
(f)
As used in this section, “Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)” and “UAVs” are any
aircraft without a human pilot on board.
(g)
As used in this section, “law enforcement agent of the United States” is
any officer, employee or agent of the United States, or any officer
employee or agent of a branch, department or agency of the United
States, or any person or entity acting under contract with the United
States or any branch, department or agency thereof, for the purpose of
law enforcement or criminal justice.
(h)
As used in this section, “law enforcement agent of the State of [STATE]”
is any officer, employee or agent of the State of [STATE], or any
officer employee or agent of a branch, department or agency of the State
of [STATE], or any person or entity acting under contract with the State
of [STATE] or any branch, department or agency thereof, for the purpose
of law enforcement or criminal justice.
(i)
As used in this section, a “warrant” shall be issued by a duly
authorized State magistrate or judge, or a Federal magistrate or judge,
using the procedures established by applicable law. Any such warrant
shall be based on probable cause established by oath or affirmation,
shall be obtained prior to the use of a UAV, and shall expire
twenty-four (24) hours after issuance.
(j)
This section shall be construed broadly to effect the legislative intent
of requiring a warrant prior to the use of UAVs within the State of
[STATE] by law enforcement, and requiring a warrant in order for any
information obtained by a UAV, or as a result of the use of a UAV, to be
admissible in a court of law.
(k)
Severability: If any provision, portion or subdivision of this Act is or
becomes illegal, such illegality shall not affect the remainder of this
Act.
SECTION 2: This act takes effect
immediately upon approval by the Governor.
For Legislatures to restrict the
use of this technology in law enforcement except where a search warrant
"is required", is "ridiculous!". What's wrong with applying the
same rules and procedures as the current full size copters?
As stated above,
Homeland Surveillance & Electronics LLC
Mission Statement is also to protect the privacy rights of the individuals and to work
with government agencies, organizations and businesses to help insure that those rights are not infringed. If they use them like they already use helicopters
for criminal pursuit, search and rescue, fire, public safety missions
etc. is one thing, but if they start using them to spy on the general
public without a warrant, then its a different story altogether.
We do not support a ban on UAV's by law enforcement except when
necessary to carry out a warrant as stated in the aforesaid acts.
The list of applications for a UAV is endless.
Compare the cost of a full-size
helicopter which cost $1500.00 per hour to a UAV and it's a "no
brainer".
That's Our 2 Cents Worth!
Tell us what you think on the
UAV BLOG!
Association for AUVSI
Dept of Homeland Security (DHS) Memo on UAS
Drones - Through The Eyes of the Public
Drones Are Going Mainstream
Drones Are About To Go Postal
FAA Regulations
FAA Fact Sheet – UAS
FAA - UAS Frequently Asked Questions
FAA Certificate of Authorization
FAA Drone Authorization List
FAA - Arlington Police Department Authorized to Fly UAV
FAA Unmanned Aircraft Systems Test Site Selection
FAA UAS Research Test Sites
FAA Temporary Flight Restrictions
GAO Unmanned Aircraft System
Integration of Drones Into Domestic Airspace
Int'l Assc of Chiefs of Police
Int'l Assc of Chiefs of Police - How To Use Drones
Military UAV Platforms
Police Fire Dept Testing Drones
UAV's Are Searchingt For Oil
UAS Aviation Rulemaking Committee
UAV Drones for Farmers and Ranchers
UAV Event Focuses On Easing Domestic Rules
UAV Law Enforcement and Privacy Protection
UAV Legislation Bills
UAV and Lethal Weapons
UAV Privacy Issues
USGS National Unmanned Aircraft Systems UAS Project Office
Virgina Tech Developing Autonomous Robotic Jellyfish
FREE UAV World Newsletter
In The News
|
