5 KEY CONSIDERATIONS FOR A
LAW ENFORCEMENT DRONE POLICY
The use of unmanned aerial vehicles in public safety continues to grow. According to the Center for the
Study of the Drone in an April 2017 report, at least 347 state and local policy, sheriff, fire and emergency
units have acquired drones, most within the last year. Several factors are driving drone use, including
decreased cost and increased availability, as well as the issuance of long-awaited FAA guidelines
governing law enforcement drone use.
But drone use is also a thorny issue, bringing with it privacy and safety concerns. Law enforcement
agencies must not only ensure their officers are properly trained, but also that they are complying with
federal and state guidelines.
Having solid policy and procedure in place to guide law enforcement drone use is key to ensuring their
legal, safe use. Here are five key policy areas to consider.
Permitted Uses
It’s not difficult to imagine the wide range of benefits drones can provide in public safety. According to a
report by the National Conference of State Legislatures, law enforcement drone uses include:
• Evidence collection and surveillance
• Photographing traffic crash scenes
• Monitoring correctional facilities
• Tracking prison escapees
• Crowd control and monitoring dangerous situations
Other documented uses include assistance in serving warrants, assistance in emergencies and natural
disasters, assessing an area/person before committing personnel to a search or entry, mapping outdoor
crime scenes, locating stolen property, detecting explosive ordnance, and response to hostage incidents
or armed/barricaded subject calls. In Minnesota, one agency has equipped its UAV with a system that
can track people with Alzheimer’s, autism or other related conditions. The individuals wear transmitters
that are activated if they wander, and the drone can help quickly locate them.
Prohibited Uses
But for all their potential, drones are also subject to scrutiny from privacy advocates and state
legislatures, creating a growing list of prohibited uses that your agency’s policy must address.
Prohibited uses vary greatly by state. Some areas to watch include:
• Random surveillance and crowd control. The National Conference of State Legislatures notes
that at least 18 states have passed legislation requiring law enforcement agencies to obtain a
search warrant to use drones for surveillance or to conduct a search, absent exigent
circumstances. Naturally, this prohibits the use of drones for crowd control or traffic monitoring.
• Weaponization. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures report, three
states—Maine, North Dakota and Virginia—prohibit law enforcement agencies from using
weaponized drones. Even these restrictions sometimes leave room for interpretation. The North
Dakota law specifically prohibits lethal weapons, which spurred a lot of discussion around
whether it would be legal to equip drones with less-lethal weapons such as a TASER or tear gas.
• Targeting a person based on individual characteristics. A generally accepted best practice in
law enforcement drone use is to prohibit their use to target a person based solely on individual
characteristics, such as race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, disability, gender or sexual
orientation. State laws may go even further in spelling out restrictions in this area.
• Facial recognition. Drones can be combined with the latest biometric matching technology.
Whether state legislatures will be comfortable with that is another question. A recent bill
proposed in Massachusetts would ban drones from using facial recognition and other biometric
matching technology except to identify the subject of a warrant.
• Nighttime use. FAA guidelines only permit law enforcement drone use during daylight hours.
Agencies can apply for a waiver, which brings additional requirements and restrictions.
Importance of Preserving Privacy Rights
As with other technologies, addressing privacy concerns surrounding drones involves a balance of policy
and engagement. Your policy should include a strong statement about the importance of preserving
privacy rights. Absent a warrant or exigent circumstances, operators should adhere to FAA guidelines
and avoid intentionally recording or transmitting images of any location where a person would have a
reasonable expectation of privacy, such as a backyard.
Once your policy incorporates a strong privacy protection, you will be in a better place to engage
advocacy groups concerned about the use of law enforcement drones. Pointing to specific examples of
how your agency intends to use the drone and how drones have aided in search and rescue operations
can also provide a positive focus to such conversations.
Retention of Data
Similar to body-camera footage, data retention issues abound when it comes to drone use. Will all video
from the drone be recorded and if so, where will it be retained and for how long? How will your agency
deal with footage collected of those who are not the target of criminal investigations? Can your agency
freely share or disclose information gathered by the drone with other governmental agencies?
Again, some states have issued specific laws. Illinois, for example, requires law enforcement agencies to
destroy all information gathered by a drone within 30 days, except when there is “reasonable suspicion
that the information contains evidence of criminal activity, or the information is relevant to an ongoing
investigation or pending criminal trial” (725 ILCS 167/20).
Absent any state-specific requirements, it’s probably best to treat information and footage gathered by
a drone as you would other records. If your agency has a strong records retention policy, it will probably
cover you for records produced by drones as well.
Responsibilities of the Drone Coordinator
So how do you ensure you’re covering all the complex considerations of using a drone in law
enforcement? A best practice is to build the role of drone coordinator into your policy. In most agencies,
the drone coordinator will likely not be a separate position, but formally designating someone to
coordinate your agency’s drone use helps bring consistency to operations and provides a point of
contact for questions or issues.
Following are just a few responsibilities the drone coordinator can take on:
• Ensuring that all operators complete required FAA and agency training
• Developing protocols for conducting criminal investigations involving a drone, including
documentation of time spent monitoring a subject
• Implementing a system for public notification of drone deployment
• Recommending program enhancements, particularly regarding safety and information security
• Issuing reports regarding drone use
Take to the Skies
When any powerful technology intersects with law enforcement, agencies are faced with a complex
balancing act. On the one hand, drones represent a vast potential of new applications in public safety.
On the other, agencies must ensure safe, constitutionally sound use. A clear, concise drone policy is
essential in achieving this balance.
One final consideration: keeping your policy and procedures up to date. Drone laws and regulations are
very much in flux, with new state legislation popping up frequently. If your agency has established or is
considering establishing a drone program, you must ensure you have a way to stay current on changing
federal and state regulations.
Lexipol’s Law Enforcement Policy Manual and Daily Training Bulletin Service provides essential policies
that help reduce risk and keep officers safe, including a comprehensive drone operations policy.
Contact us today for more information or to request a free demo.
