Despite a plethora of concerns, namely violating the public’s privacy, drones don’t appear to be going anywhere anytime soon.
In order to make sure the rules for using a drone are as clear as possible, Minnesota state Rep. Brian Johnson, a Republican, has reintroduced legislation clarifying when law enforcement can use the technology in the state.
Although drones were first used by the U.S. military abroad, local law enforcement officials, farmers, journalists and hobbyists have all begun to express interest in using drones for various reasons. But before drone use by the masses takes off, lawmakers and privacy advocates say there needs to be rules on when and where the technology can be used.
One of the biggest areas of concern is law enforcement’s use of the new technology.
Johnson said he is aware of at least a dozen instances in which Minnesota police forces used drones as part of their regular duties in 2013, which is why he decided to reintroduce a bill that would create a statewide policy for when and how law enforcement can use drones.
According to a report from a Minnesota public affairs news service website, Johnson was encouraged to reintroduce the bill by the Ramsey County Sheriff’s Office, who reportedly wanted guidance on when drones could be used.
Based on a draft of the legislation, police in Minnesota would be allowed to use drones to prevent a terrorist attack or to help handle a situation involving “imminent danger to life or serious damage to property,” without first obtaining a warrant. However, all other use of drones would require officers to obtain a warrant first, which Johnson, a former Isanti County Sheriff’s deputy, said is “a minor impediment to police work.
“It’s only going to be two or three extra sentences in a search warrant,” he said.
Though Johnson has been credited with introducing the bill, the proposed legislation has received support from Democrats as well, since two of the legislation’s co-authors — Reps. Tom Anzelc and Jason Metsa — are both members of the Democratic Party.
However, unlike Johnson, who wants to make drone use easier for law enforcement, Anzelc and Metsa say they are more concerned about protecting their constituents privacy. Anzelc said that his constituents are supportive of government’s role, but they are also wary that government may overstep its boundaries and intrude in people’s private lives.
“It just feels, to me, inherently wrong that privacy can be invaded — either by the government or other forces in the society,” Anzelc said.
Some privacy advocates have also expressed concern that police may decide to get around the warrant requirement by claiming that “swift action” was needed to ensure that property wasn’t damaged, evidence wasn’t destroyed and suspects were not able to escape.
Mary Madden, of Alameda County Against Drones, said that based on the language of the bill, “Police can basically decide to use a drone whenever they like if they can claim that it met one of those qualifications.
“Will they chase a ‘suspect’ with a drone on for a misdemeanor offense? That is not ruled out here. Do they think property may be damaged? They can send up a drone,” she said.
“This bill opens up warrantless drone use for just about anything and leaves it up to police discretion,” Madden said. “There are huge, drone-sized loopholes in this bill.”
While Madden says Minnesota’s law is more protective of privacy than legislation in other states — giving the example of police using drones for traffic accidents in Illinois, allowing power companies to use the technology in Idaho, searching for marijuana growing operations on private property, and over large crowds in Tennessee — she says many law enforcement and economic development interests have teamed up to get rid of an already weak warrant requirement.
And although Minnesota has at least one city that has banned the use of drones, Madden says the ban may no longer apply, or be legally recognized, as the Federal Aviation Administration controls all U.S. airspace.
Whether the bill will pass this legislative session remains to be seen. But one thing is certain, those concerned about the possible privacy violations that could occur with the use of drones in the state will make it a point to clarify the language in the bill doesn’t violate their Fourth Amendment rights.