Drones threaten Civil Rights!

[Thomas B]

But videos that were got outside the laws would not get them a warrant

Agree... that’s why the warrant comes first.

 

[GFields]

I was only referring to the presenters statiing that some members of the civilian population would determine that the drones following them would be a breach of privacy laws.
As far as I'm concerned, I have nothing against cctv cameras being used for security and if crime can be reduced or prevented by their use then I'm all for them. Indeed, having been a victim of crimes myself, I do have 3 cctv cameras keeping watch on my premises.

I can't see any difference in them using helicopters

 

[anotherlab]

The police wouldn't need to get a warrant to use a drone to conduct surveillance as long as they had probable cause. In Smith v. Maryland, the Supreme Court ruled against the defendant's complaint that information has been collected from a pen register (wiretap) that had been placed on his home without a warrant. Drone surveillance would have less legal protection because the subjects would most likely be outdoors and have a diminished expectation of privacy.

 

[hiflyer201]

I think Helicopters and drones both work well as a deterrent along with being a huge aid in general police work. The added feature we have in Los Angeles...the entertainment of watching one or two daily car chases.

 

[Deleted member 93449]

While just about any filming of people in public view is not protected by the 4th Amendment using the NAS is controlled by the FAA. I would imagine any use of that airspace for any purpose, including LE for surveillance, requires the approval of the FAA. This could be in the form of a blanket approval for operations of this type outside controlled airspace.

 

[AceKayPilot]

If that was true, police wouldn't get much value out of their helicopters ??

I don’t think looking for heat signatures for grow-ops and tracking a perp. in the dark qualifies as “surveillance”. There are other activities which provide value.

 

[DanMan32]

But videos that were got outside the laws would not get them a warrant

Exactly. It only provides knowledge of where they need to focus to get other evidence they can use to get the warrant.

 

[anotherlab]

While just about any filming of people in public view is not protected by the 4th Amendment using the NAS is controlled by the FAA. I would imagine any use of that airspace for any purpose, including LE for surveillance, requires the approval of the FAA. This could be in the form of a blanket approval for operations of this type outside controlled airspace.

Aerial Surveillance by LE does not require FAA approval. LE drone operators do need to have their Remote Pilot License (Part 107).

 

[Ol' Sparky]

Like when everyones hair catches on fire every time some form of electronic "surveillance" is used in public. it's called "public" because you are out in the open, and as such, are subject to be filmed, photographed, recorded by anyone and anything. If you want your privacy, go home and draw the curtains.

 

[DanMan32]

Yes, please close your curtains.
If you do draw them, can I have a copy?

Ok, just being silly.

 

[shaneb50]

I have no problems with them to help catch criminals, however I have a bad feeling that this will be the start of a use of evil intentions or so. I’m just expressing my concerns. God bless you all my friends

 

[BigAl07]

In the US the FAA has issued directives stating that use of the National Airspace for general surveillance by civil law enforcement is prohibited. This means that local state, county and municipal police agencies are NOT protected against civil rights claims due to misuse of their publicly funded UAVs. Now, finding a federal prosecutor who would sign their name to such a case in the federal district courts is another question entirely.

What? Are you making this up as you go?

Surveillance is a LOCAL issue and not what the FAA is concerned with. The FAA is concerned with AVIATION safety and they don't care what you do as long as you follow the Regulations which have nothing to do with Surveillance, trespassing, reckless behavior, or anything else LOCAL.

 

[BigAl07]

No more than a warrant I’m sure
Still wanting to see actual FAA statements/policy on this.

The WARRANT is obtained BEFORE the "act" unless you have genuine EXIGENT Circumstances. Unfortunately, a good attorney can get "Evidence" obtained during an Exigent situation thrown out unless the actions are against Law Enforcement. Here's an example that came up in one of our NC Dept of Justice calls early 2020:

A Drone is put into play in an Active Shooter scenario to improve Situational Awareness of the Incident. No warrant has been issued mentioning the UAS but the UAS is in place to help LE know what's going on around the perimeter of the residence to protect officers who are trying to get in position "just in case". There is a large/tall Security Wall in place where-by making any "Viewing from a public standpoint" impossible (Expectation of Privacy). The gunman comes outside the residence (not in sight of anyone on the ground) and executes a hostage. The DRONE captures this on camera during the incident. It's very plausible that the evidence of the actual execution (although it would not be "needed" technically but it is solid evidence) could be tossed out because the WARRANT had not specifically stated anything about the UAS specifically.

Re: FAA Surveillance Stance - You're not going to see, IMHO, any FAA statement concerning UAS Surveillance. That's not their sandbox and definitely not one they even want to get into. Again IMHO only.

 

[anotherlab]

I have no problems with them to help catch criminals, however I have a bad feeling that this will be the start of a use of evil intentions or so. I’m just expressing my concerns. God bless you all my friends

In what way? At the end of the day, it's just a tool.

 

[BigAl07]

While just about any filming of people in public view is not protected by the 4th Amendment using the NAS is controlled by the FAA. I would imagine any use of that airspace for any purpose, including LE for surveillance, requires the approval of the FAA. This could be in the form of a blanket approval for operations of this type outside controlled airspace.

The FAA does not ask what you are using the drone for when a Law Enforcement Agency gets either their Part 107 or Public Use COA. They only give FAA Regulations that must be followed just like any other Part 107 operator. The benefit of the COA is having "Waivers" built into the COA (flying in controlled airspace, BVLOS, Flights over People etc).

The FAA is only concerned with Aviation Safety. Everything else comes to State and Local issues and not FAA.

 

[Corsair415]

Not really news, government is inherently a threat to civil rights. ??‍

 

[Cymru]

Im all for police using drones.
Helicopters are OK but take a long time to get to the scene and are very very obvious and very expensive.
Drones mean they can have coverage of an areas far faster and cheaper which means far more chance actually catching the people.
Fire service also use them to look for arsonists torching hillsides and forest and for thermal inspections.

I cant see this as anything but a good idea *provided* its used for legitimate law enforcement as opposed to Derbyshire police in Lockdown v1 twitter-shaming people who weren't committing any offence and in the middle of nowhere.

 

[TheWooze]

FAA Regulations​

Two major FAA regulations are obstacles to the use of autonomous UAV technology: Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) flight, and Detect and Avoidance (DAA). The BVLOS regulation states that a pilot must keep the UAV in visual line of sight at all times while in flight, thus preventing the possible of any autonomous or remotely directed flights.4  The FAA recognizes this regulation needs to be relaxed for the continued advancement of autonomous UAV technology. However, crash avoidance technologies such as Detect and Avoidance would need to be further developed and tested in order for the FAA to authorize autonomous UAV flights. With manned aircraft, a fail-safe is already built in with a human pilot being able to “see and avoid” if necessary. With unmanned aircraft, the pilot is on the ground or, in the case of autonomous UAVs, there is no pilot at all to “see and avoid” and take evasive action. Currently, “sense and avoid” technology is being developed to allow UAVs to talk to each other and sense and avoid when other aircraft come to close.5 To help the technology move forward, the FAA has already granted several exemptions to Amazon to develop technology and methods so they can make their autonomous “Prime Air” deliveries a reality. Police might be able to gain similar allowances if they join others to advocate for an expansion of these exemptions for public safety testing and deployment.

 

[theDRONEranger]

In the US the FAA has issued directives stating that use of the National Airspace for general surveillance by civil law enforcement is prohibited. This means that local state, county and municipal police agencies are NOT protected against civil rights claims due to misuse of their publicly funded UAVs. Now, finding a federal prosecutor who would sign their name to such a case in the federal district courts is another question entirely.

This is NOT a correct statement. I have just concluded conversation with FAA (via email presentation of your posting (minus any/all identifying data)). The FAA expressly denies any such occurrences. They further suggested that perhaps you may have been thinking of the DOJ. However, they (FAA) were quick to remind me the DOJ does NOT control the US airspace! FAA further suggests you may have had your sources mixed.

 

[Blairsville]

We follow suspects, having (probable cause) all the time and weather it’s aerial or eyes on, any evidence he plants, hides or passes off is admissible.