WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY

Drones
The Next Step In Law Enforcement

Jesse Poole
5/15/2014







There is no denying that technology is continuing to change the way people live their
lives. High-speed Internet, Wi-Fi, and compact mobile devices make endless streams of data
available at the click of a button or the touch of a screen. While the everyday American may
take advantage of the variety of consumer products available to them, law enforcement agencies
are also taking advantage of modern technology. One of the most notable applications of new
technology comes from law enforcements use of drones. Remote controlled model planes and
helicopters are not a new concept in the world of technology; however, over the last decade
aeronautical enthusiasts have worked to develop a new kind of remote controlled aircraft. These
aircraft are often referred to as Drones, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV), or Unmanned Aerial
Systems (UAS). The purpose of this paper is to defend the use of unmanned aerial systems by
local and state law enforcement agencies. Suggestions regarding the manner in which UAS are
used and the practices for storing video data captured by using such systems will also be
outlined. Because of the complexity of the topic (Rothenberg, 2013) and the apparent absence of
clearly defined laws outlining the use of such systems (Shields, 2014), not every aspect related to
drone use can be addressed.
Often, people wonder what the difference is between a drone and the traditional Radio-
Controlled Aircraft (RCA). While the definitions of both drones and RCAs vary, a common
consensus regarding what makes the two systems different is the drones ability to fly
autonomously. Conventional RCA systems are piloted with a handheld radio transmitter, which
controls the RCA by communicating with the onboard receiver. The receiver communicates
with the RCAs servomechanism, commonly referred to as a servo, to control the RCAs
movements (Servo Control Facts, n.d.). In other words, RCAs pilots typically do not use
onboard computers, GPS, or cameras to operate the craft. With regard to a drone, the Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA) referrers to them as UAS which they define as the
unmanned aircraft (UA) and all of the associated support equipment, control station, data links,
telemetry, communications and navigation equipment, etc., necessary to operate the unmanned
aircraft (Federal Aviation Administration, accessed 28 April, 2014).
RCA or UAS?
In addition to the debate regarding law enforcements use of drones in an official
capacity, many argue that drones are not classified as aircraft; however, the FAA would disagree.
The FAA argues that any craft fitting the definition of the UA is capable of flying autonomously
and is thus considered an unmanned aerial system. UAS operated for recreational use,
according to the FAA, should follow the Model Aircraft Operating Standards issued in June of
1981. In short, aircraft operating under the model aircraft standards should fly below 400 feet, 3
miles from an airport, and away from populated areas (Federal Aviation Administration, 1981).
While model aircraft enthusiasts often comply with the standards set forth by the FAA, many
point out the fact that the standards are policy, not law. Most notable is the verbiage used in the
document outlining the standards. For example, the purpose of the policy, in part, states that it
encourages voluntary compliance with, safety standards for model aircraft operators.
(Federal Aviation Administration, 1981). The statement not only insinuates voluntary
compliance, but it also holds no legal backing.
Regardless of the ongoing debate of the FAAs authority to control commercial drone
use, law enforcement entities wishing to use drones as a tool are following the procedures
outlined by the FAA. According to the FAA, deploying a drone for commercial use requires
special authorization, or a Certificate of Authorization (COA). In a Federal Register notice
published in 2007, the FAA clarified that commercial drone use also requires a certified aircraft,

a licensed pilot and operating approval, even if the aircraft does not fly above 400 feet. While
the list of requirements is not lengthy, it can be expensive for law enforcement entities to meet.
The most notable reason comes from the requirement that whoever is operating the drone must
be a licensed pilot. Despite the potentially expensive and time consuming requirement, local law
enforcement agencies are taking advantage of the opportunity. In a report released in 2012, the
FAA listed all of the organizations that have applied for commercial drone use. Among them
were municipal law enforcement agencies located throughout the country, including the Houston
Police Department; the North Little Rock Police Department; the Mesa County Sheriffs Office;
the Miami-Dade Police Department; and the Seattle Police Department (Otto, 2012).
Law Enforcement Use
The increasing number of government entities being approved for commercial drone use
has many Americans worried about their privacy (Johnson, 2014; Quinn, 2013). However, law
enforcement agencies are standing their ground regarding their use of the new tool stating that
drones are a valuable addition to law enforcement operations (Haase & Bronk, 2013). While
most agencies are testing the technology for usage, Britain has already put the new technology
to use at the municipal level. In 2010, the UK had its first arrest using a basic unmanned drone.
British officers were in pursuit of an alleged car thief when the chase turned into a foot pursuit.
The officers lost sight of the suspect in a high-grass field under the cover of dense fog and
darkness. Fearing obvious safety concerns, the officers decided to launch a drone equipped with
an onboard camera. Officers were able to identify the location of the suspect and safely
apprehend him (Hull, 2010).
Law enforcement officers in Tijuana, Mexico are also using drones and its helping, says
Tijuana Police Chief Alejandro Lares (Welch, 2014). The police department is using drone

technology to positively impact high-crime areas. Currently the agency is using drones to reduce
the number of home invasions and car thefts in certain areas. The impact is clear and the
usability is apparent as Lares states its like having 20 officers on patrol or more. (Welch,
2014). However, other countries are not the only ones benefiting from local drone use. The
Miami-Dade Police Department has also had success with the use of drones. In April of 2014,
the State Attorneys Office shut down an illegal slaughterhouse operation where animals were
being tortured and inhumanely slaughtered. The drone was used for surveillance in the five-
month long investigation and lead to two arrests (Hamacher, 2014).
Although several law enforcement agencies have been approved to use drones, it appears
that many of the agencies granted a COA by the FAA are not using them in day-to-day law
enforcement activities. An exhaustive online search reveals little to no reports of local law
enforcement in the U.S. using drones to assist in the apprehension of suspects. This may be due
to two primary reasons; 1) the FAA has strict guidelines with regard to how the technology is
used when granting a COA; 2) local law enforcement agencies are being cautious with their
implementation of the new technology in order to avoid negative case law. While federal
agencies, like the Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Border Patrol, are utilizing
drones on a more liberal level, there is a clear difference between the mission of federal agencies
and local law enforcement.
Privacy Concerns
No doubt Americans are concerned about the privacy implications associated with law
enforcements use of domestic drones, and so are lawmakers (Clabough, 2014; Fox News, 2013;
Gates, 2014; Weissman, 2013). As drones continue to grow in popularity, become more
affordable, and are easier to fly, state lawmakers are frantically moving to pass new laws that

limit the domestic use of drones. While the FAA is conducting research to develop federal
regulations that would ultimately provide clear and concise guidelines regarding the use of
domestic drones, individual states are taking matters into their own hands. The state of Illinois
passed a new law that took effect in January, 2014 limiting the use of drones by law
enforcement. The law restricts law enforcement from using drones for surveillance purposes
without a warrant (Weissman, 2013). While some states, like Illinois, have been successful at
passing such laws, others have not. For example, Washington State submitted House Bill 2178,
which would require law enforcement agencies to obtain a warrant to deploy a drone for any
reason other than an emergency. The bill would also require law enforcement agencies to obtain
permission from lawmakers before purchasing drones (State of Washington, HB 2178).
Unfortunately for lawmakers, the bill was vetoed by Governor Jay Inslee in early April of 2014
(Gates, 2014). The governor stated that he would assign a special taskforce to review the
complex privacy issues surrounding the use of drones (Gates, 2014). Governor Inslees
decision to veto the bill, coupled with his statement regarding the complexity surrounding
privacy issues, adds to the assertion that developing domestic drone use regulations is not an
easy task. However, Washingtons neighboring state, Oregon, was successful in passing new
laws which restricts the use of drones by local and state law enforcement. Similar to
Washingtons proposed bill, the law requires law enforcement to obtain a warrant in all but a few
circumstances before deploying a drone (State of Oregon, HB 2710).
While states are trying to get a grasp on law enforcement use of drones, there is little that
can be done regarding civilian use. However, law enforcement officers in Ohio are pushing the
limits after they arrested a man who was flying his drone over a car crash and, according to
police, interfered with a rescue helicopters landing (Zachariah, 2014). Police say the pilot, a 31

year old machinist named Stanley, refused to land his camera-equipped drone and interfered with
the emergency situation. Stanley admitted he flew his drone over the crash site, but disputes the
claim that law enforcement ordered him to land. Stanley was charged with felony obstruction of
official business and misdemeanor charges of misconduct at an emergency and disorderly
conduct (Zachariah, 2014). Arguments on both sides would appear to have a valid stance.
Stanley could argue that law enforcement on the ground are not trained or experienced to the
degree that would allow them to make the claim that the drone was interfering with the rescue
helicopters ability to land. He could also argue that local law enforcement overstepped their
jurisdiction by enforcing aviation regulation violations that they have no right to enforce. On the
other hand, law enforcement could argue that the instrument used in the commission of a crime
does not preclude jurisdiction because the instrument was a UAS. Because there is little to no
legal precedent regarding the use of drones, situations like this are complex and will likely cause
judges and criminal justice officials to rethink how they write future laws.
Recommended Guidelines
There is no denying that modern drone technology is forcing the United States to rethink
how it views privacy laws. Several states have already taken action to combat the issue as it
relates to law enforcement, and the FAA is currently working on new regulations that would
allow for the integration of drones into U.S. airspace. While drones are causing privacy
concerns, drone technology as a whole can be very beneficial. For example, drones can make it
easier for farmers to monitor their crops and irrigation systems. Drones can also help the real
estate business by providing aerial footage of houses that are for sale. Drones can also create an
industry of aerial photography for sports and other events. They are also capable of helping put
out wildfires and test air quality for the EPA and other scientific entities. Unmanned aircraft can

also be used to hunt wild animals that may not be indigenous to a specific area and are
threatening the ecosystem. The medical field can also benefit by transporting medicine to rural
areas in a short amount of time and with little transport cost. Despite the negative publicity
regarding drones and privacy, the technology, if implemented correctly, will likely provide
positive contributions to society (Kerr, 2013).
The same ideology applies to law enforcements use of drone technology. That is, if
implemented appropriately, the law enforcement community can benefit from its use while still
preserving the rights of the American people. Although the FAA will eventually release
amended regulations regarding the use of domestic drones, states should continue to enact laws
that preserve the privacy rights of the people while at the same time allowing the technology to
benefit law enforcement and the community. These laws should address the use of drones;
retention of data obtained by a drone; auditing and abuse prevention; and aircraft equipment.
These areas are explained in more detail below.
Usage. Local law enforcement should be held to strict regulations regarding the use and
deployment of drones to mitigate the potential for privacy rights violations. The strict
regulations should also require law enforcement to obtain a warrant before deploying a drone for
law enforcement purposes. This also includes, but is not limited to, any surveillance operation
where video or audio data is captured or recorded. There are, however, few exceptions when a
warrant should not be required. This would include a situation where law enforcement have
reasonable suspicion the drone will obtain evidence relating to a specific instance of criminal
activity based on specific and articulable facts. The exception should also apply if law
enforcement is in a time-limited emergency in which the preservation of life is immediately
threatened, such as a hostage situation, fire, or search and rescue.

Data retention. Any and all data captured or recorded that can identify an individual
should not be retained for more than thirty-days. Additionally, the information should not be
reviewed or shared unless there is reasonable suspicion that the data contains evidence of a crime
or are relevant to an ongoing investigation or pending judicial proceedings.
Transparency. Agency policies and procedures regarding the use of drones should be
clear, concise, documented, and made available to the public; however, specific information
pertaining to investigations in which drones were used should not be released. Additionally, law
enforcement should not have control over the manner in which drones are used and the policies
dictating such use. Drone regulations should be enacted at the state-level by the state-elected
representatives.
Oversight. Routine and systematic audits should be conducted by an independent entity
to ensure laws are being followed. Auditors should also record program data pertaining to the
levels of usage, reasoning behind each use, and its disposition to provide a meaningful cost
benefit analysis for the public. Funding for drone programs will likely come from taxpayer
money and, like most other government service programs, the citizens have the right to examine
its usefulness. Violations of drone use should also be recorded and reported to the states justice
department for review.
The implementation of new technology can have a profound effect on the community in
which law enforcement serve. Keep in mind the recommendations outlined in this article are
specific to the preservation of privacy and safety of the community. While not discussed in great
detail, they should always be addressed before submitting a bill to the state legislature. While
the future of drone use by municipal law enforcement is yet to be seen at the federal level, 36

states have introduced legislation to limit the use of drones by law enforcement and 22 states
already have acting legislation (Bohm, 2014). It is important to remember that drone
technology, if implemented appropriately, can act as a valuable tool for people all over the
world, not just the United States, and in many different industries. And while state laws continue
working to catch up to drone technology, one thing is for certain the mere complexity of drone
use as a whole will continue to grow.



















Sources:
Baldor Electric Company. (n.d.). Servo Control Facts. Retrieved April 28, 2014, from
http://www.baldor.com/pdf/manuals/1205-394.pdf
Bohm, A. (2014, April 22). Status of 2014 Domestic Drone Legislation in the States. Retrieved
May 11, 2014, from https://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty/status-2014-
domestic-drone-legislation-states
Clabough, R. (2014, February 19). State Legislatures Pass Bills Limiting Domestic Drone Use.
Retrieved May 10, 2014, from http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution
/item/17665-state-legislatures-pass-bills-limiting-domestic-drone-use
Federal Aviation Administration. (1981, June 09). Model Aircraft Operating Standards.
Federal Aviation Administration. (n.d.). Unmanned Aircraft (UAS) Questions and Answers.
Retrieved April 28, 2014, from http://www.faa.gov
Fox News. (2013, February 06). States step up fight against use of surveillance drones by law
enforcement. Retrieved May 10, 2014, from http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/
06/states-propose-limiting-use-drones-by-police

Gates, D. (2014, April 04). Inslee vetoes bill to limit use of drones in state. Retrieved May 10,
2014, from http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2023304483_dronesbillvetoxml.html
Haase, S., & Bronk, C. (2013, February 28). Drones should raise privacy concerns for Houston.
Houston Chronicle. Retrieved May 10, 2014, from http://www.chron.com/opinion/
outlook/article/Drones-should-raise-privacy-concerns-for-Houston-4317532.php

Hamacher, B. (2014, April 23). 2nd Arrest in Illegal Slaughterhouse Operation. Retrieved May
10, 2014, from http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Second-Man-Arrested-in-Miami-Dade-
Illegal-Slaughterhouse-Operation-256375601.html
Hull, L. (2010, February 12). Drone makes first UK 'arrest' as police catch car thief hiding under
bushes. Retrieved May 10, 2014, from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-
1250177/Police-make-arrest-using-unmanned-drone.html
Johnson, S. (2014, April 11). Balancing privacy, jobs in the domestic drone debate. Retrieved
May 10, 2014, from http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/11/stateline-
privacy-jobs-drones/7590409/
Kerr, S. (2013, November 11). Can Drones Be Used for Social Good? Retrieved May 11, 2014,
from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/witness/can-drones-be-used-for-
so_b_4220360.html

Koebler, J. (2014, May 01). The US Government Is Trying to Fine a Drone Hobbyist for the
First Time Ever. Retrieved May 10, 2014, from http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-us-
government-is-trying-to-fine-a-drone-hobbyist-for-the-first-time-ever
Otto, G. (2012, April 24). FAA Releases List of Registered Domestic Drone Operators.
Retrieved May 10, 2014, from http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/04/24/faa-
releases-list-of-registered-domestic-drone-operators
Quinn, J. (2013, February 05). Police drones sparks debate over personal privacy. Retrieved May
10, 2014, from http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/02/05/privacy_vs_security_
when_does_the_use_of_drones_cross_the_line.html

Rothenberg, D. (2013, May 06). What the Drone Debate Is Really About. Retrieved May 10,
2014, from http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/05/drones
_in_the_united_states_what_the_debate_is_really_about.html
Shields, B. (2014, March 11). Rules Still Unclear for Private Drones in the U.S. Retrieved May
10, 2014, from http://news.kron4.com/news/rules-still-unclear-for-private-drones-in-the-
u-s
State of Washington, HB 2178. Retrieved May 12, 2014, from http://apps.leg.wa.gov
/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=2178
Weissman, D. (2013, December 31). Illinois law limits ways police can use drones. Retrieved
May 10, 2014, from http://www.marketplace.org/topics/tech/illinois-law-limits-ways-
police-can-use-drones
Welch, W. M. (2014, January 28). At nation's doorstep, police drones are flying. Retrieved May
10, 2014, from http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/01/28/police-drones-
tijuana-mexico/4951075/
Welsh, W. N., & Harris, P. W. (1999). Criminal justice policy & planning. Cincinnati, OH:
Anderson Pub.
Zachariah, H. (2014, April 15). Man charged in use of camera drone at accident. Retrieved May
11, 2014, from http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2014/04/15/man-charged-
in-use-of-camera-drone-at-accident.html