Law Enforcement Adoption of Drones

[Dan]

Given the tragedy in Las Vegas a few days ago and observing the news and the difficulty they had trying to identify the location of the shooter. Having the officers carry drones in their car would seem like a logical step forward in incidents like this where it becomes difficult to identify a shooter without being placed in harms way.

 

[rickw]

No way,big distraction,they have very powerfull binoculars

 

[BigAl07]

From what I heard this morning the whole "Event" lasted just 11 minutes. I'm not sure how much running to the car, getting the UAS out, doing the initialization etc and then getting into the air would have helped much.

I'm a HUGE supporter of LEA and UAS (it's how I work LOL) but I don't think this would have been a very helpful tool... at least not during the initial active portion. I would not be surprised if they use some UAS for documenting and mapping of the area.

 

[BfDaddio]

Our local law agency got an inspire this year.

Eyes in the sky: Dakota County purchases 2 drones

 

[gwbaker]

Being in the business, I have to agree that a drone in the Vegas incident would have been marginally helpful at best. When you have an "active shooter" situation, recon is very low priority. Yes, recon would be very helpful and would create a safer situation for responding officers. But, the immediate threat to life outweighs the time required to obtain recon. You have to get in there and neutralize the threat. You do this as safely as you can, but time is critical.

On the flip side, in a hostage situation where time is on your side. A drone would be extremely valuable.

 

[rickw]

Being in the business, I have to agree that a drone in the Vegas incident would have been marginally helpful at best. When you have an "active shooter" situation, recon is very low priority. Yes, recon would be very helpful and would create a safer situation for responding officers. But, the immediate threat to life outweighs the time required to obtain recon. You have to get in there and neutralize the threat. You do this as safely as you can, but time is critical.

On the flip side, in a hostage situation where time is on your side. A drone would be extremely valuable.

I agree 100%,ex 50 myself

 

[dewster]

I think off the shelf lasers like Extreme Lasers would be somewhat effective at distracting/blinding or pinpointing the shooter. Faster to deploy. Only problem would be drawing attention to yourself. A drone was used in Stafford County Virginia to apprehend a fleeing suspect. Drones have their uses. Las Vegas would have been difficult to be effective.

 

[BuzzyOne]

The state police where I live are using drones to video crash scenes on the highway. It takes them minutes instead of hours to document the crash site and that gets the wreck cleared faster and traffic going quicker.

The local news story about it went on a bit too long about privacy issues though. Even zooming in dramatically on the drone camera lens when talking about privacy concerns. They reported that the operator was licensed and that they can't fly over people.

 

[DougB]

The department I work for has 5 drones on patrol. Plus one in our tactical unit. They’re using the Matrice 100 with a zoom and FLIR lenses. So far they’ve been pretty successful. That said I don’t think they would have been very helpful in Vegas at the beginning. To dynamic of a situation.

I would have taken a drone but already have a K9.

 

[Chip]

Governmental use of drones for surveillance without warrant can raise serious 4th amendment search and seizure issues.

 

[DougB]

Drones are used much like a K9 in the fact we use them mainly for searching for people such as a suspect hiding in an orchard or a small child who has wandered off from home. They can cover a large area for us and save time. Surveillance is generally done covertly so we don’t tip off the person being watched. Drones are large and too loud for that. We use them like an airplane or helicopter.

 

[gwbaker]

Governmental use of drones for surveillance without warrant can raise serious 4th amendment search and seizure issues.[/QU

Trolling?

 

[Chip]

Trolling?

Having the officers carry drones in their car would seem like a logical step forward

Is mentioning the 4th amendment prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure in the context of this comment and this thread trolling to you?

 

[gwbaker]

No, it is the incredible lack of understanding of the law that astonished me.

 

[Chip]

No, it is the incredible lack of understanding of the law that astonished me.

Governmental use of drones for surveillance without warrant can raise serious 4th amendment search and seizure issues.

Please explain the incredible lack of understanding of the law reflected in my statement. Sounds like you are a real expert.

 

[gwbaker]

Again, trolling. I regret responding to begin with and will no longer.

 

[Chip]

Again, trolling. I regret responding to begin with and will no longer.

You should regret being afraid to explain yourself and being so quick to insult and make judgments about people you know nothing about.

 

[BuzzyOne]

Governmental use of drones for surveillance without warrant can raise serious 4th amendment search and seizure issues.

Such as?

Seems to me the warrant requirement would be the same no matter the equipment used to surveil. Be it aircraft, tall ladders, cops walking the beat, the hundred million or so security cameras recording away, or sUAV's.

 

[BigAl07]

Such as?

Seems to me the warrant requirement would be the same no matter the equipment used to surveil. Be it aircraft, tall ladders, cops walking the beat, the hundred million or so security cameras recording away, or sUAV's.

Well said @BuzzyOne .

Why is a CAMERA on an R/C aircraft any different than a CAMERA on any other platform. People are just paranoid about anything that has the word (or similar meaning to) Drone.

 

[Chip]

Such as?

Seems to me the warrant requirement would be the same no matter the equipment used to surveil. Be it aircraft, tall ladders, cops walking the beat, the hundred million or so security cameras recording away, or sUAV's.

Not sure what you mean. I agree the warrant requirement should never change. The issue is whether the reasonable expectation of privacy spirals downward with every advance in surveillance technology all in the name of security.