State lawmakers look to restrict use of controversial drones
SEATTLE (AP) - A new bill introduced by a Republican lawmaker in Olympia would put strict restrictions on how law enforcement agencies and state departments can buy and deploy aerial drones.
Rep. David Taylor's proposal was introduced Friday, a day after Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn ordered the city's police department to abandon its nascent drone program, which had received approval from the Federal Aviation Administration but was awaiting the go-ahead from the City Council.
Taylor's extensive bill covers the purchase of drones, data collection by the unmanned aerial vehicles, search warrant requirements and mandated audits.
The Moxee lawmaker worked for about two months on the measure, which would regulate drones for both law enforcement and state agencies, such as the Department of Ecology or the Department of Transportation.
"One reason to write this bill was to open dialogue," Taylor said. "We need to understand where we're heading."
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. Concerns have increased since the FAA began establishing safety standards for civilian drones, which are becoming increasingly affordable and small in size.
The Seattle Police Department bought two Draganflyer X6 vehicles through a federal grant without public input. The Draganflyer X6 vehicle is 36 inches wide and is 33.5 inches long, and stand just under a foot.
Taylor's bill immediately gained the backing of the Washington state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, which spearheaded the opposition to Seattle police drones.
"Aerial drones can provide law enforcement agencies with unprecedented capabilities to engage in surveillance and intrude on people's privacy," ACLU spokesman Doug Honig said in an email.
So far Taylor's bill has only Republican backers, but that's expected to change. Across the country, opposition to the use of domestic drones has come from opposite sides of the political spectrum, including civil liberties advocates and those worried about government intrusion.
Taylor's measure would require legislative approval from local or state lawmakers before a corresponding police agency obtains a drone, meaning a city council would have to vote before its police department could acquire a drone.
Under the bill's provisions, an agency must have a warrant to use a drone unless there are exigent circumstances, such as search and rescue or hostage situations. Such situations still would require retroactive warrants.
The measure calls for deletion of data gathered within 30 days if no criminal activity is recorded. It requires erasing data collected from people who are not the target of a drone deployment within 24 hours. It also calls for an annual report from law enforcement agencies and courts showing how drones have been used, as well as an annual audit for each agency that uses drones.
Taylor said the bill is aimed at protecting privacy and reducing the liability of any Washington agencies that use the vehicles.
He added that should the bill get a hearing in committee, he expects to hear from law enforcement agencies on how they would use drones.
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 was 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.
Rep. David Taylor's proposal was introduced Friday, a day after Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn ordered the city's police department to abandon its nascent drone program, which had received approval from the Federal Aviation Administration but was awaiting the go-ahead from the City Council.
Taylor's extensive bill covers the purchase of drones, data collection by the unmanned aerial vehicles, search warrant requirements and mandated audits.
The Moxee lawmaker worked for about two months on the measure, which would regulate drones for both law enforcement and state agencies, such as the Department of Ecology or the Department of Transportation.
"One reason to write this bill was to open dialogue," Taylor said. "We need to understand where we're heading."
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. Concerns have increased since the FAA began establishing safety standards for civilian drones, which are becoming increasingly affordable and small in size.
The Seattle Police Department bought two Draganflyer X6 vehicles through a federal grant without public input. The Draganflyer X6 vehicle is 36 inches wide and is 33.5 inches long, and stand just under a foot.
Taylor's bill immediately gained the backing of the Washington state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, which spearheaded the opposition to Seattle police drones.
"Aerial drones can provide law enforcement agencies with unprecedented capabilities to engage in surveillance and intrude on people's privacy," ACLU spokesman Doug Honig said in an email.
So far Taylor's bill has only Republican backers, but that's expected to change. Across the country, opposition to the use of domestic drones has come from opposite sides of the political spectrum, including civil liberties advocates and those worried about government intrusion.
Taylor's measure would require legislative approval from local or state lawmakers before a corresponding police agency obtains a drone, meaning a city council would have to vote before its police department could acquire a drone.
Under the bill's provisions, an agency must have a warrant to use a drone unless there are exigent circumstances, such as search and rescue or hostage situations. Such situations still would require retroactive warrants.
The measure calls for deletion of data gathered within 30 days if no criminal activity is recorded. It requires erasing data collected from people who are not the target of a drone deployment within 24 hours. It also calls for an annual report from law enforcement agencies and courts showing how drones have been used, as well as an annual audit for each agency that uses drones.
Taylor said the bill is aimed at protecting privacy and reducing the liability of any Washington agencies that use the vehicles.
He added that should the bill get a hearing in committee, he expects to hear from law enforcement agencies on how they would use drones.
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 was 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.
THIS STATEÂ IS JUSTÂ RETARDEDÂ Â LOOSER;S WHOÂ THINKÂ CRIMINALSÂ SHOULD HAVE RIGHTS THESE DRONE;S SHOULD BE USEDÂ ALL THE TIME THEY COST A LOT LESSÂ THEN HELOCOPTER;S ANDÂ Â CANÂ WATCH THINGSÂ Â Â WHIT OUT BEING SEENÂ THATS A BIG PLUSÂ Â
Wow. All this over a glorified radio shak toy. Nice. So it's ok for a 5 year old to get frisked and searched prior to boarding a plane. So it's ok for law enforcement to read text messages and emails without a warrant. It's ok for police to use helicopters and fixed wing aircraft with far more sophistocated optics and capabilities (that already do the same thing the drones were proposed to do). It's ok that we have sattelites cruising overhead invisible to the naked eye that can read your ATM or McDonald's reciept from space. But god allmighty the existance of a toy that can't stay in the air for more than 20 minutes, can't fly at night or in the wind and rain, is just going to cause the huge privacy concern...
Â
If you actually think that this is going to be the last you'll ever hear the mention of drones being used by law enforcement, you're tinfoil hat isn't on right.
Â
Pick your battles people. This isn't exactly the right one.
I need to look up the bill and see if there are limitations for private use also. If there isn't, there really should be.
@theToucan There is. They can be flown anywhere as long as you stay under 500 feet above the ground, more than 2 miles away from an operating airport, and that it remain within the operator's sight at all times so if there is a failure in the video feed, the pilot can land it visually.
Â
Sorry but it's been available to the public for a long time and for less than $500 to $800, you too can have a camera that can give you a live feed from almost a mile away. Toss another $500 at it and the thing can fly by itself to and from waypoints that you set using google earth and an on board GPS. They were used during Katrina's search and rescue to help asess damage and locate survivors. Real estate agents use them to survey property. Scientists use them to conduct research. They are available from a large variety of places. You can even buy scaled down versions for kids at toy stores. Costco even had one that you could fly from an ipad or iphone. No one cared, but god help us all of the police get them? Yeah ok. You're tinfoil hat's slipping pal.
Yes lets worry about toy helicopters and not the budget. Distract the sheep while continuing to slash law enforcement.Â
Who cares what the ACLU says. If the public does not what drones, put it to a vote.
If they don't what cameras put it to a vote.
The ACLU gets way to much air time,I don't need them to speak for me or represent me.
The ACLU can go to hell.
SO TRUE DOG I HATE THE ACLUÂ NOÂ REAL LAW FIRMÂ WOULD HIRE ANY OF THEM
Washington State LOVES criminals.Â
After the Federal Government was defending the use of drone strikes- against Americans, I'm completely against any use of them domestically.
@Dredd57 You do realize that this thing's a toy right and incapable of carrying weapons? You strap a gun to it and it'd never get off the ground.
Â
What I don't get is that everyone who is against this thing is completely ignorant of it and it's capabilities. This thing does the same thing that helicopters and fixed wing aircraft already do, and with far more powerful cameras too. But the idea that this toy might be airborn somewhere and the tinfoil hat crazies come out whining about how this is somehow an invasion and erosion of people's right to privacy?!? Yeah ok. Whatever pal. Pick your battles. When you decide to talk about an invasion of privacy when a 5 year old gets frisked and searched at the airport trying to catch a flight to disneyland as an invasion of privacy and illegal searches I'd be with you all the way. But crying over these toys? Sorry but you and your side just took what would be a very valuable asset away from the police. Do you remember them? They're the same group that you'd be upset with if you ever called and they couldn't catch the bad guy fast enough for you.