Droning On? Implications for Law Enforcement in the 21st Century.
Devon Bell
“Every breath you take, every mover you make, every bond you break, every step you take, I’ll be watching you.” Sting (The Police)
One of the outcomes of prolonged military activity is technology accelerates at an exponential pace. The desire to safely, quickly, and efficiently complete missions with minimal casualties serves as a powerful catalyst for innovation. Some of our greatest advancements are born out of the military’s desire to advance their mission. Medical advances, technologies such as GPS, aeronautical and engineering breakthroughs have been born out of military innovation. Sometimes these breakthroughs are immediately recognized as positive and embraced domestically and sometimes there is great trepidation. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV’s), commonly known as drones are one of those advancements that falls on both sides of the fence.
Private companies recognize the potential for UAV drones. They can serve as platforms for aerial surveys, have tremendous recreational appeal for hobbyists, and can be used to deliver products to customers (see; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CYT4PFV_Hs). Drones are an increasingly affordable, reliable and available technology platform that can be leveraged to cut costs and increase service levels to customers.
Many government agencies are evaluating UAV drones for many of the same reasons as the private sector. This can create a sense of anxiety for the general public, many of whom see the meta-data mining of information by the National Security Agency (NSA) as draconian and intrusive. This has been the subject of debate for many law enforcement agencies as to rather or not this technology should be embraced for public safety use and, if so, what are the operational limitations?
Many law enforcement agencies view a civilian UAV mission as mirroring their current manned aircraft operations. There are a variety of potential UAV usages including, search and rescue, tactical overflies (gaining the lay of the land on a tactical incident), and the ability to capture images without placing an air crew in harm’s way. They are maneuverable and very affordable when compared to the cost of air crews and flight time.
Law enforcement currently does surveillance using manned aircraft and views drones as aircraft without pilots. If a fixed wing or helicopter could legally fly the mission, then why couldn’t a drone? The question raises Constitutional issues. Under FAA regulations, law enforcement aircraft can conduct surveillance from an altitude that the aircraft can recover from should there be a catastrophic failure of the aircraft. Generally, that keeps them a healthy height above the ground. In addition, it could hardly be considered effective “surveillance” if an aircraft is rattling the windows of a subject who is being watched.
Enter the drone. Today’s drones are small, virtually silent, and can be equipped with high definition or even infra-red cameras. They are capable of high fly-overs which provide remarkable detail; however, they are equally capable at hovering just outside a window. Where are the lines drawn, and what are our citizens’ expectations of privacy? How long should captured images be retained and what rules of prosecutorial discovery apply?
Many law enforcement agencies are struggling with how to successfully implement this new technology and with good reason. For an agency of peace officers to gain operational or intelligence advantage while undercutting the confidence that our communities have in the profession is counter-intuitive and ultimately counterproductive. Peace officers take an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States.” We must take care not to trample that oath in the interest of achieving security.
