Mayor grounds Seattle police drone program
»Play Video
SEATTLE (AP) - Seattle's mayor on Thursday ordered the police department to abandon its plan to use drones after residents and privacy advocates protested.
Mayor Mike McGinn said the department will not use two small drones it obtained through a federal grant. The unmanned aerial vehicles will be returned to the vendor, he said.
"Today I spoke with Seattle Police Chief John Diaz, and we agreed that it was time to end the unmanned aerial vehicle program, so that SPD can focus its resources on public safety and the community building work that is the department's priority," the mayor said in a brief statement.
The decision comes as the debate over drones heats up across the country. Lawmakers in at least 11 states are looking at plans to restrict the use of drones over their skies amid concerns the vehicles could be exploited to spy on Americans.
The Seattle Police Department previously said it would use drones to provide an overhead view of large crime scenes, serious accidents, disasters, and search and rescue operations. It had conducted demonstrations of the drones to show the public their capabilities.
The program drew strong criticism from residents Wednesday at a meeting of the City Council, which was considering an ordinance giving police the authority to use drones.
The proposed measure would have allowed the use of drones for data collection but barred police from using them over "open-air assembly of people" or for general surveillance. The drones would have carried no weapons, but the proposal would have allowed police to use face-recognition software in them.
The police department had purchased two Draganflyer X6 vehicles, which have a width of 36 inches, length of 33.5 inches and stand just under a foot. The drones are capable of flying indoors and outdoors and carry a camera, according to the company website.
The department had not yet begun using the drones but received approval from the Federal Aviation Administration.
One of the program's key adversaries was the Washington chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, which argued the drones were obtained without any public input or discussion.
"We applaud the mayor's action," spokesman Doug Honig said Thursday. "Drones would have given the police unprecedented abilities to engage in surveillance and intrude on the privacy of people in Seattle ... and there was a never a strong case made that Seattle needed them for public safety."
Moving forward, the ACLU would like to see the Legislature adopt "very tight restrictions" on law-enforcement drones statewide, Honig said.
Opposition to the use of drones in the U.S. has come from opposite sides of the political spectrum, including civil liberties advocates and those worried over government intrusion.
On Monday, the Charlottesville City Council in Virginia passed a resolution imposing a two-year moratorium on the use of drones within city limits. The Rutherford Institute, a civil liberties group behind the city's effort, said Charlottesville is the first city in the country to limit the use of drones by police.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security drones do enter Washington airspace occasionally, patrolling the Canadian border east of the Cascade mountains. The two 10,000-pound Predator-B unmanned aircraft are based in North Dakota.
Meanwhile, CIA Director-designate John Brennan strongly defended anti-terror attacks by unmanned drones abroad Thursday under questioning at a confirmation hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee. Brennan said drone strikes are used only against targets planning to carry out attacks against the United States, never as retribution for an earlier one.
Mayor Mike McGinn said the department will not use two small drones it obtained through a federal grant. The unmanned aerial vehicles will be returned to the vendor, he said.
"Today I spoke with Seattle Police Chief John Diaz, and we agreed that it was time to end the unmanned aerial vehicle program, so that SPD can focus its resources on public safety and the community building work that is the department's priority," the mayor said in a brief statement.
The decision comes as the debate over drones heats up across the country. Lawmakers in at least 11 states are looking at plans to restrict the use of drones over their skies amid concerns the vehicles could be exploited to spy on Americans.
The Seattle Police Department previously said it would use drones to provide an overhead view of large crime scenes, serious accidents, disasters, and search and rescue operations. It had conducted demonstrations of the drones to show the public their capabilities.
The program drew strong criticism from residents Wednesday at a meeting of the City Council, which was considering an ordinance giving police the authority to use drones.
The proposed measure would have allowed the use of drones for data collection but barred police from using them over "open-air assembly of people" or for general surveillance. The drones would have carried no weapons, but the proposal would have allowed police to use face-recognition software in them.
The police department had purchased two Draganflyer X6 vehicles, which have a width of 36 inches, length of 33.5 inches and stand just under a foot. The drones are capable of flying indoors and outdoors and carry a camera, according to the company website.
The department had not yet begun using the drones but received approval from the Federal Aviation Administration.
One of the program's key adversaries was the Washington chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, which argued the drones were obtained without any public input or discussion.
"We applaud the mayor's action," spokesman Doug Honig said Thursday. "Drones would have given the police unprecedented abilities to engage in surveillance and intrude on the privacy of people in Seattle ... and there was a never a strong case made that Seattle needed them for public safety."
Moving forward, the ACLU would like to see the Legislature adopt "very tight restrictions" on law-enforcement drones statewide, Honig said.
Opposition to the use of drones in the U.S. has come from opposite sides of the political spectrum, including civil liberties advocates and those worried over government intrusion.
On Monday, the Charlottesville City Council in Virginia passed a resolution imposing a two-year moratorium on the use of drones within city limits. The Rutherford Institute, a civil liberties group behind the city's effort, said Charlottesville is the first city in the country to limit the use of drones by police.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security drones do enter Washington airspace occasionally, patrolling the Canadian border east of the Cascade mountains. The two 10,000-pound Predator-B unmanned aircraft are based in North Dakota.
Meanwhile, CIA Director-designate John Brennan strongly defended anti-terror attacks by unmanned drones abroad Thursday under questioning at a confirmation hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee. Brennan said drone strikes are used only against targets planning to carry out attacks against the United States, never as retribution for an earlier one.
Speaking of drone strikes, until 2001 they were illegal in the U.S. Then President Bush revoked the assassination ban. Please consider signing this petition to bring back the assassination ban. : )
http://www.change.org/petitions/the-president-of-the-united-states-barack-obama-reinstate-eo-12333-article-2-11-and-end-targeted-killing?utm_campaign=friend_inviter_chat&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=share_petition&utm_term=permissions_dialog_false#
The ACLU complained about the lack of public input in acquiring the drones. Fair enough, but what about the lack of public input in getting rid of them?? This whole thing has been so un-democratic.
Hey SUN_RUNNER.  Under no circumstances should you stop taking your medication, ever.  It makes you sound crazy.  Take your medication and then post some of your options in a reasonable articulate manner.
Â
Â
WE NEED TO GET RID OF THIS IDIOT MAYOR JUST LIKEÂ PACIFICÂ DID. SEATTLE;S MAYOR ISÂ AÂ THE WORSET I HAVE EVER SEEN ONLY INÂ A TRASHY CITY LIKE SEATTLE WOULD CAREÂ ABOUITÂ THESEÂ TRUST MEÂ NO ONE WOULD WANT TO SEE ANYÂ OF YOUÂ Â NAKED IN UR BACK YARDSÂ YOU ARE SOME OF THE UGLYEST PEOPLE I HAVE SEEN ALLWAYS WIENING ABOUT COPSÂ THINKING YOUR RIGHT,S ARE SO IMPORTINÂ YOUÂ MAKE ME SICK!!! YOU LETÂ YOUR CRIMINALS RUN WILD ANDÂ Â THENÂ TRY AND STOP THE COPS FROMÂ CATCHING THEM ANYÂ WAYÂ YOU CAN
Why can't we pass a law that states any evidence obtained by these drones without a warrant are considered illegally obtained and there for inadmissible in a trial. Hmm, what a novel idwea   Â
 @Jonathan White Probably would be anyway. There is some precedent.
Since I can't see these things flying into private homes or businesses, I don't understand the so-called privacy concerns. Â Since when is there an expectation of privacy when you're walking or driving on a public street. Â A police officer in a patrol car or conventional helicopter can see you and whatever you're doing, so how is this different?
 @Cetus If the cop in the helicopter hovers over your private back yard and photographs you wife sunbathing by your pool, he can be fired and prosecuted for voyeurism. The drone could be used just like some jerks use hidden cameras in ladies' restrooms and fitting rooms and changing rooms at public pools.
Anyway, why do we want to pay a police officer to sit at a console somewhere and fly drones around looking for "suspicious" behavior? And what comes next - an armed drone to shoot the "suspicious" people like the kid in Bothell who apparently tried to park for free in an open, unsecured, publicly-accessible parking lot?
 @JLS1950 If the drone is used illegally, then just like the cop in the helicopter hovering over my back yard illegally, I would report it and let the process work.
Â
I would assume that the person at the "console somewhere" would not be a sworn officer and so would be cheaper. Â The drones would probably be used in support of sworn officers and therefore make their jobs easier. And as far as "what comes next", we won't know that until we know what comes first.
 @JLS1950  @Stantheman Where, in any of my posts, did I say it was?
Â
I believe the courts have also long held that if the police want to come onto my property, they either need my permission, a warrant or probable cause. Â This applies whether the police are on foot, bicycle, patrol car, helicopter or any other device.
 @Cetus  @Stantheman Courts have also held that a fenced yard is not necessarily or even usually a public space.
 @Stantheman  @JLS1950 "The constitution guarantees the right to privacy, it doesn't stipulate that you revoke this right by heading out in to public."
Â
But the courts have held for many years that there is no expectation of privacy in public places.
 @Cetus  @JLS1950 When I was deployed in Iraq these things were used to spy on us. Never once did they find a bomb or insurgents waiting to ambush us. But when had drones we would get back from mission and get chewed out for smoking in a govt vehicle, or pissing in an "unsafe" manner, or shooting at people that were threatening. The constitution guarantees the right to privacy, it doesn't stipulate that you revoke this right by heading out in to public. For those of you saying that it is just criminals they are after think again. The US has 4% of the world's population but 25% of the world's population. This is not b/c our judicial system is more efficient. Nationwide we have PA's and DA's who have knowingly charged innocent people with crimes they knew they could convict them. One example is Kenny Hulshof of Missouri, but there are others and it is not hard to find the articles
 @Cetus your embracing the glass is half empty argument assuming that people in public are all doing something wrong. Sorry won't fly here.
 @BuddyHolly Not my assumption at all.  My assumption is that people in public do what people in public do and that while they are doing that, since they are doing it in public, there is no expectation of privacy.
Game of Drones is coming! Muahahha!Â
http://racoontshirt.spreadshirt.com/game-of-thrones-parody-star-wars-A10143766/customize/color/16
Gotta love how a the spineless mayor caves into those who represent the gang bangers and drug dealers.Â
 @Common Sense gotta give mayor props for speaking for the people and not rubber stamping diez
 @Common Sense those who would give up freedom for security deserve neither.
@Huma Kavula @Common Sense What freedom aspects does the use of drones in public give up? The freedom to commit crime and not get caught?
 @bmk812  @Huma  @Common The freedom to enjoy your own backyard without having some silent drone hovering at 300' taking video without your knowledge? The freedom to assume that when you can see the sky from inside your home, the sky is not looking back?
@Huma Kavula Nope, I see no difference between a toy helicopter and a real one, except the huge price difference. But you're right, we don't want "Big Brother" so lets take out all of the dash cams out of SPD cars.
 @Common Sense  @Huma When a real helicopter is hovering over your home, you KNOW it. When a drone with an HD image system is looking into your backyard or your bedroom, you will likely never have a clue.
These aren't even drones.  They are remote controlled quad copters that run about 7-8 minutes on a battery with limited flight distance because they require  line of sight.  A real drone like the US military uses is remotely controlled from miles away, runs for days and can fly anywhere.  People are such babies.  They were going to use them to help survey accidents and crime scenes, instead of having to use a ladder from a firetruck.  Way to go Seattle in protecting our rights to not have our lives invaded on by technology.  Â
 @Jon L If they want to monitor the city.. they can do it via cameras not something that can freely fly and say 'look in on you and a spouse' in your 15 floor room doing what couples do...sorry but no thank you!
 @Jon L don't be fooled.  this was a starting place for something bigger.
 @Huma Kavula Something bigger?  Monitoring our city to keep it safe?  What do you think they can do with a drone?  This is a case of fear mongering at it's finest.  The city can't even keep the snow off the streets and pot holes fixed, you really think they can implement a plan to monitor you with a drone?
To bad thats the only drones Seattle is getting rid of...
What the article fails to mention is that although the drones were paid for by a grant from the Dept of Homeland Security at a cost of $82,000, that money was not refunded by the vendor, despite the fact they were returned to the vendor.
Has anyone here ever taken anything back to the store because they did not want it afterall, and not asked for their money back? I havent, but for some reason that is how politicians operate. I simply do not get it.
 @northwestsurfer should have bought them at costco
The only "Drones" you need to worry about Occupy the Mayors office !
Oh and the Govenors mansion in Olympia.
Why the hell is the US wasting so much money spying on the Canadian border with drones? Just look to your southern border for the actual threat.Â
 @little_brotherx Because Drugs.
 @mirrors_edge  @little_brotherx just how big of a threat are drugs to you?
@Huma Kavula @mirrors_edge @little_brotherx A drug addict broke into my car and stole my stereo and GPS unit. He was busted robbing someone, but had already sold my stuff. I had to pay for a window and I still have no stereo or gps. Perhaps you will donate?
AND ..... can I ask how much that little "borrowing spree" cost ?????????????????
Here we go with the "I don't want big brother over me" or "another freedom you will loose" from paranoid people out there. Come on! The cops can use all the help they can get with the increase in violence. Its not going to get much better because we are a large city now. Those little RCH are way cheaper than adding cops. They were not going to spy on you idiots
 @sb in seattle there has been a decrease in violence ever since the 70's.  wake up from your state sponsored fear.
@sb in seattle Its "losing", not "loosing"
Â
 @sb in seattle Yeah, except for that little tidbit about how violent crimes have steadily decreased for decades. But, hey, don't  let facts get in the way of a good propaganda campaign to get taxpayers to spend money on useless toys for pigthugs who don't know that there is a thing called a "constitution" or that a document called the "Bill of Rights' exists to protect us from those very same pigthugs.
@Kevin Rhodes spoken like a felon
 @sb in seattle There is no increase in violence. It has been in sharp decline for quite some time. You're paranoid.
 @sb in seattle idiot
 @sb in seattle No way, they never do anything wrong, except for killing woodcarvers, except for losing 100,000 dashcam videos, except for crippling a guy outside cinerama, except for racially harassing hispanics, except for punching little girls in the face, etc. etc. etc.
Â
Think before you post.Â
@NW-Economist Wood carver? Oh you mean the drunk sex offender with a long history of assaults ect.Â
 @Common Sense You forgot to finish that sentence....
Â
"...that was walking harmlessly down the road and had a hearing disability."
Â
I guess only certain people are worth living in your opinion.
@NW-Economist @sb in seattle You know what, why donât you turn your computer off before you have a thought. I think you and Mayor McGinn are both uninformed people who are followers and would believe the vial garbage spilled by someone in the ACLU. The incidents you have mentioned are very unfortunate and never should have happened. But at the same time to group the entire SPD into one class is complete bias on your part and you, one who I would guess is touting all that liberal, canât we all just get along, koom-bi-ya junk ought to be ashamed of yourself. Until you walk a mile in those cops shoes and until you have lost fellow officers to the likes of Maurice Clemmons and Christopher Monfort, you have no grounds for running your trap like a good little ACLU pawn. Those cops are out there to protect you and your altered way of life. I suppose if you were beaten and robbed in a back alley somewhere you would be wanting justice done right away. Guess what, it wonât happen because you and your idiot for a mayor have taken away all the resources to fight crime. And for what? âOh I donât what the SPD to see me, I feel uncomfortable if they see me.â Well you dip you wouldnât feel uncomfortable if you wasnât doing something wrong to begin with. To you, McGinn and Americaâs Communist and Liberals Union, I say Phooey.
 @Common Sense I repeat, show me one single SPD officer who has EVER testified against another... still waiting....
@NW-Economist Your poor "cripple" didn't even involve SPD. Not to mention you left out the facts of buying drugs and running after being pointed out as the suspect in a stabbing.
Â
Your poor fat girl who got punched was only after attacking an officer over a simple jay walking ticket.Â
Â
So yeah, your cop hating has quite nicely distorted the facts.
 @Common Sense How are the facts twisted? Show one SPD officer who has EVER testified against a fellow officer. We're all waiting...
@NW-Economist No thanks, I can see how you twist the facts to match your story.
 @Kamja Also, I'm hardly a liberal, go read my other posts I think you'll be quite surprised....
 @Kamja  Show me one SPD officer who testified against ANY of his coworkers for ANY of those incidents...
Â
There isn't a single one. What does that tell you about the rest of the cops that you think are "good?"
Â
NOT ONE SINGLE SPD OFFICER HAS COME FORWARD ABOUT ANY OF THESE INCIDENTS! Do you think there are any "good cops" in that department?
Â
Edmund Burke said that all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. I guess keeping their "code of silence" is more important than their oaths or justice.Â