While unmanned aircraft could offer outstanding benefits to both the NYPD and the city’s fire department, these benefits may not outweigh the concerns of citizens and civil liberties groups.

By , MintPressNews

In order to reduce crime in the city, New York Police Commissioner Bill Bratton said he is open to allowing the NYPD to use drones — the unmanned aircrafts typically used in war zones — especially in areas such as the city’s housing projects where shootings are reportedly up 32 percent this year.

“Myself, I’m supportive of the concept of drones, not only for police but for public safety in general,” Bratton said last Tuesday, while addressing the City Council’s Public Safety Committee.

“It’s something that we actively keep looking at and stay aware of,” he said, before adding that the drones would also likely help the New York City Fire Department better determine the size and intensity of a fire.

However, some civil rights organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the New York Civil Liberties Union, are voicing. concerns about the use of drones. They say that the use of the technology will likely lead to violations of privacy — something all Americans are guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

“Drones can be useful in law enforcement,” Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union,said, “but they should not become a vehicle for widespread, secret surveillance of the private space of innocent New Yorkers.”

John Miller, the NYPD’s head of intelligence, agreed with Bratton that drones could be a useful tool for the department. He added that while the department has not used drones yet, officers are studying the technology because it’s a “potentially valuable weapon against crime.”

Drones may be able to help police officers and other first responders with some crimes, but the concerns about a city police department using the technology are also related to the fact that the unmanned aircraft were first used overseas to kill those persons deemed terrorists by the United States.

Given that there have been concerns recently about the increase in police militarization across the U.S., as departments outfit officers with weapons and gear that was intended for the U.S. military, there is a fear that use of drones may not be just about tracking down suspects.

Concerns about a militarized police force are sometimes magnified in New York, as the NYPD is one of — if not the only — police departments in the U.S. to have officers stationed abroad in cities such as London, Washington, Hamburg, Tel Aviv and Toronto, where they are tasked with gathering intelligence. The NYPD also has its own terrorism response center, mobilized strike units and paramilitary storm troopers.

While drones may not technically be in use by the department yet — though it’s been in the works for years– the NYPD has had a surge in recent years in interest of using technology to help battle crime, earning the department the reputation as being one of the most innovative when it comes to policing techniques.

According to a report from the New York Daily News, the NYPD has already budgeted $500,000 to test gunshot detectors, which are essentially sensors connected to police cameras, or drones, that direct cops to the origin of a gunshot sound.

The gunshot detectors were tested in the city’s Brownsville and Brooklyn areas in 2011, but they were never tested citywide. Bratton, who used to be on the board of ShotSpotter, a company that makes gunshot detectors, said he believes the technology is “extraordinarily effective.”

However, Eugene O’Donnell, a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and a former police officer, warned that the technology isn’t as great as it sounds. “It can detect a shot, but the problem is having the cops get to the scene. I’ve yet to see that the technology is bringing a lot of people to justice,” he said.

O’Donnell went on to add that shot detectors haven’t made a remarkable difference in Newark, N.J., Chicago and Boston, since police officers can’t always get to the scene in time. Officers in Oakland, Calif., and Milwaukee, Wis., have also said that the detectors sometimes fail to distinguish the sound of a firework bursting from a gunshot.

While drones could be used to ascertain whether the sound was a gunshot or a firework, then track which direction the suspects fled and even determine what the suspects look like, O’Donnell noted that use of the technology comes along with a plethora of constitutional issues.

“Can you look into somebody’s house? Can you fly over their backyard?” he asked. “There’s an unlimited number of scenarios you can think of where drones can be used.”

He pointed out that in Miami, police officers are required to obtain a warrant before using a drone, unless someone’s life is danger, in order to ensure they don’t violate anyone’s Fourth Amendment rights. And in Seattle, citizens’ concerns about the potential for privacy rights to be violated prompted the Seattle Police Department to abandon plans to use night-vision cameras.

Before drones could be used by the NYPD, Mayor Bill de Blasio and the city council would have to approve the technology. De Blasio has publicly showed support for the use of drones, but during the department’s previous attempts to incorporate drones under the leadership of Commissioner Ray Kelly, the city’s heavy air traffic made drone use unfeasible.

To add to our post about state drone resolutions, last year the California Democratic Party uniquely passed an anti-drone resolution (pages 9-10 of this PDF) which a co-author, Peter Leinau, hopes will “be a part of a mainstream push back by the Democratic Party members AND leadership against both drones and extra-judicial assassinations.” The resolution is reprinted below:

Resolution  13–04.85
RESOLUTION  TO  END  UNLAWFUL  DRONE  STRIKES,  EXTRAJUDICIAL  EXECUTIONS,  AND  RESTRICT DOMESTIC DRONE  SURVEILLANCE

WHEREAS, the U.S. government sets a dangerous precedent as it continues drone strikes and extrajudicial killings on people in countries with whom America is not at war, the majority being “signature drone strikes,” where operators fire upon groups of men whose identities are unknown, but who are deemed “targets” based on vaguely defined “suspicious behavior” or “signatures,” including being a male of “military age,” while also utilizing the unlawful and inhumane practice of “double taps,” where rescuers of victims of initial strikes are killed by a second strike; and

WHEREAS, our drone attacks result in the disproportionate killing of 36 to 50 civilians for every one alleged combatant and, given that the Geneva Conventions prohibit attacks that “may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life… excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated” during armed conflicts, and that the extrajudicial execution of any person, whether in peace or war time, is prohibited by International Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law, and knowing that the constant overhead presence of U.S. drones engenders hatred and desire for revenge among the communities under attack by terrorizing the daily lives of ordinary civilians beyond actual death and physical injury-­‐destroying the culturally binding fabric of weddings, funerals, everyday community activities and the lives of children, many who are so traumatized they cannot go to school, and are unable to eat, sleep, play, socialize or function normally, which is a form of physiological torture and collective punishment prohibited by international law, all the while making the world and our nation less safe; and

WHEREAS, the current administration is directing the use of drones on American citizens by
1) Authorizing the use of military drones to target and kill alleged terrorists, including U.S. citizens who may not even be involved in operational plots to harm our nation, without recognizing the United States Constitutional guarantee of due process for all people, including those accused of treason; and
2) Directing the FAA to create regulations enabling drones to fly throughout U.S. airspace including California by September 2015 for surveillance of individuals or groups in public spaces and in their homes, in direct violation of our Constitutional guarantee to privacy and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the California Democratic Party stands in opposition to the extrajudicial killings and use of drones as described herein, both foreign and domestic, and urges that our policies be structured within the framework of international law, Constitutional checks and balances, due process, judicial review, and transparency; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that we call upon the Congressional delegation and the White House to:
1) Make public all claimed legal justifications of present policies and practices;
2) Conduct a fundamental re-­‐evaluation and overhaul of current practices by reforming the policies authorizing the use of American military force, both foreign and domestic; and
3)Re-­‐institute Congressional authority and oversight with regard to war making powers and federal law Enforcement

Committee Resolution, Co-­‐Sponsored by: Karen Bernal, Margarita Lacabe, John Burton, Peter Leinau, Rick Tuttle

Florida:

Section 1. Searches and seizure using a drone.—    17

(1) SHORT TITLE.—This act may be cited as the “Freedom from    18  Unwarranted Surveillance Act.”    19

(2) DEFINITIONS.—As used in this act, the term:    20

(a) “Drone” means a powered, aerial vehicle that:    21

1. Does not carry a human operator;    22

2. Uses aerodynamic forces to provide vehicle lift;    23

3. Can fly autonomously or be piloted remotely;    24

4. Can be expendable or recoverable; and    25

5. Can carry a lethal or nonlethal payload.    26

(b) “Law enforcement agency” means a lawfully established    27  state or local public agency that is responsible for the    28  prevention and detection of crime, local government code    29  enforcement, and the enforcement of penal, traffic, regulatory,    30  game, or controlled substance laws.    31

(3) PROHIBITED USE OF DRONES.—A law enforcement agency may    32  not use a drone to gather evidence or other information.    33

(4) EXCEPTIONS.—This act does not prohibit the use of a    34  drone:    35

(a) To counter a high risk of a terrorist attack by a    36  specific individual or organization if the United States    37  Secretary of Homeland Security determines that credible    38  intelligence indicates that there is such a risk.    39

(b) If the law enforcement agency first obtains a search    40  warrant signed by a judge authorizing the use of a drone.    41

(c) If the law enforcement agency possesses reasonable    42  suspicion that, under particular circumstances, swift action is    43  needed to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to    44  property, to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect or the    45  destruction of evidence, or to achieve purposes including, but    46  not limited to, facilitating the search for a missing person.    47

(5) REMEDIES FOR VIOLATION.—An aggrieved party may initiate    48  a civil action against a law enforcement agency to obtain all    49  appropriate relief in order to prevent or remedy a violation of    50  this act.    51

(6) PROHIBITION ON USE OF EVIDENCE.—Evidence obtained or    52  collected in violation of this act is not admissible as evidence    53  in a criminal prosecution in any court of law in this state.

Idaho:

LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Sixty-second Legislature First Regular Session – 2013 IN THE SENATE SENATE BILL NO. 1134 BY STATE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE AN ACT 1 RELATING TO AERONAUTICS; TO DEFINE A TERM, TO ESTABLISH PROVISIONS RELATING 2 TO RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS, TO PROVIDE EX – 3 CEPTIONS, TO PROVIDE FOR A CIVIL CAUSE OF ACTION, TO PROVIDE FOR CERTAIN 4 DAMAGES AND TO PROVIDE THAT AN OWNER OF CERTAIN FACILITIES SHALL NOT BE 5 PROHIBITED FROM USING AN UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM TO INSPECT SUCH FA – 6 CILITIES. 7 Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Idaho: 8 SECTION 1. That Chapter 2, Title 21, Idaho Code, be, and the same is 9 hereby amended by the addition thereto of a NEW SECTION , to be known and des – 10 ignated as Section 21 – 213, Idaho Code, and to read as follows: 1 1 21 – 213. RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS – – DEFINI – 12 TION – – VIOLATION – – CAUSE OF ACTION AND DAMAGES. 13 (1)(a) For the purposes of this section, the term “unmanned aircraft 14 system” (UAS) means an unmanned aircraft vehicle, drone, remotely pi – 15 loted vehicle, remotely piloted aircraft or remotely operated aircraft 16 that is a powered aerial vehicle that does not carry a human operator, 17 can fly autonomously or remotely and can be expendable or recoverable. 18 (b) Unmanned aircraft system does not include: 19 (i) Model flying airplanes or rockets including, but not neces – 20 sarily limited to, those that are radio controlled or otherwise 21 remotely controlled and that are used purely for sport or recre – 22 ational purposes; and 23 (ii) An unmanned aircraft system used in the taking of commercial 24 photography. 25 (2)(a) Absent reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal conduct, 26 no person, entity or state agency shall use an unmanned aircraft system 27 to conduct unwarranted surveillance or observation of: 28 (i) An individual or a dwelling owned by an individual and such 29 dwelling’s curtilage, without such individual’s written consent; 30 (ii) A farm, dairy, ranch or other agricultural industry with – 31 out the written consent of the owner of such farm, dairy, ranch or 32 other agricultural industry. Provided however, that the restric – 33 tions on the use of unmanned aircraft systems provided for in this 34 subsection shall not apply to state or local law enforcement agen – 35 cies engaged in marijuana eradication efforts on any property de – 36 scribed in this subparagraph. 37 (b) Absent reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal conduct, no 38 person, entity or state agency shall use an unmanned aircraft system to 39 photograph an individual, without such individual’s written consent, 40 for the purpose of publishing or otherwise publicly disseminating such 41 photograph. 42

Illinois:

 Section 1. Short title. This Act may be cited as the
Freedom from Drone Surveillance Act.
    Section 5. Definitions. As used in this Act:
    “Authority” means the Illinois Criminal Justice
Information Authority.
    “Drone” means any aerial vehicle that does not carry a
human operator.
    “Information” means any evidence, images, sounds, data, or
other information gathered by a drone.
    “Law enforcement agency” means any agency of this State or
a political subdivision of this State which is vested by law
with the duty to maintain public order and to enforce criminal
laws.
    Section 10. Prohibited use of drones. Except as provided
in Section 15, a law enforcement agency may not use a drone to
gather information.
    Section 15. Exceptions. This Act does not prohibit the use
of a drone by a law enforcement agency:

    (1) To counter a high risk of a terrorist attack by a
specific individual or organization if the United States
Secretary of Homeland Security determines that credible
intelligence indicates that there is that risk.
    (2) If a law enforcement agency first obtains a search
warrant based on probable cause issued under Section 108-3 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963. The warrant must be
limited to a period of 45 days, renewable by the judge upon a
showing of good cause for subsequent periods of 45 days.
    (3) If a law enforcement agency possesses reasonable
suspicion that, under particular circumstances, swift action
is needed to prevent imminent harm to life, or to forestall the
imminent escape of a suspect or the destruction of evidence.
The use of a drone under this paragraph (3) is limited to a
period of 48 hours. Within 24 hours of the initiation of the
use of a drone under this paragraph (3), the chief executive
officer of the law enforcement agency must report in writing
the use of a drone to the local State’s Attorney.
    (4) If a law enforcement agency is attempting to locate a
missing person, and is not also undertaking a criminal
investigation.
    (5) If a law enforcement agency is using a drone solely for
crime scene and traffic crash scene photography. Crime scene
and traffic crash photography must be conducted in a
geographically confined and time-limited manner to document
specific occurrences. The use of a drone under this paragraph

(5) on private property requires either a search warrant based
on probable cause under Section 108-3 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure of 1963 or lawful consent to search. The use of a
drone under this paragraph (5) on lands, highways, roadways, or
areas belonging to this State or political subdivisions of this
State does not require a search warrant or consent to search.
Any law enforcement agency operating a drone under this
paragraph (5) shall make every reasonable attempt to only
photograph the crime scene or traffic crash scene and avoid
other areas.
    Section 20. Information retention. If a law enforcement
agency uses a drone under Section 15 of this Act, the agency
within 30 days shall destroy all information gathered by the
drone, except that a supervisor at that agency may retain
particular information if:
    (1) there is reasonable suspicion that the information
contains evidence of criminal activity, or
    (2) the information is relevant to an ongoing investigation
or pending criminal trial.
    Section 25. Information disclosure. If a law enforcement
agency uses a drone under Section 15 of this Act, the agency
shall not disclose any information gathered by the drone,
except that a supervisor of that agency may disclose particular
information to another government agency, if (1) there is

reasonable suspicion that the information contains evidence of
criminal activity, or (2) the information is relevant to an
ongoing investigation or pending criminal trial.
    Section 30. Admissibility. If the court finds by a
preponderance of the evidence that a law enforcement agency
used a drone to gather information in violation of the
information gathering limits in Sections 10 and 15 of this Act,
then the information shall be presumed to be inadmissible in
any judicial or administrative proceeding. The State may
overcome this presumption by proving the applicability of a
judicially recognized exception to the exclusionary rule of the
Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution or Article I, Section
6 of the Illinois Constitution to the information. Nothing in
this Act shall be deemed to prevent a court from independently
reviewing the admissibility of the information for compliance
with the aforementioned provisions of the U.S. and Illinois
Constitutions.
    Section 35. Reporting.
    (a) If a law enforcement agency owns one or more drones,
then subsequent to the effective date of this Act, it shall
report in writing annually by April 1 to the Authority the
number of drones that it owns.
    (b) On July 1 of each year, the Authority shall publish on
its publicly available website a concise report that lists

every law enforcement agency that owns a drone, and for each of
those agencies, the number of drones that it owns.

Virginia:

1.  § 1. No state or local government department, agency, or instrumentality having jurisdiction over criminal law enforcement or regulatory violations, including but not limited to the Department of State Police, and no department of law enforcement as defined in § 15.2-836 of the Code of Virginia of any county, city, or town shall utilize an unmanned aircraft system before July 1, 2015.

Notwithstanding the prohibition in this section, an unmanned aircraft system may be deployed before July 1, 2015, (i) when an Amber Alert is activated pursuant to § 52-34.3 of the Code of Virginia, (ii) when a Senior Alert is activated pursuant to § 52-34.6 of the Code of Virginia, (iii) when a Blue Alert is activated pursuant to § 52-34.9 of the Code of Virginia, (iv) for the purpose of a search or rescue operation where use of an unmanned aircraft system is determined to be necessary to alleviate an immediate danger to any person, or (v) for training exercises related to such uses. In no case may a weaponized unmanned aircraft system be deployed or its use facilitated by a state or local agency in Virginia.

The prohibitions in this section shall not apply to the Virginia National Guard while utilizing unmanned aircraft systems during training required to maintain readiness for its federal mission, when facilitating training for other United States Department of Defense units, or when such systems are utilized to support the Commonwealth for purposes other than law enforcement, including damage assessment, traffic assessment, flood stages, and wildfire assessment. Nothing herein shall prohibit use of unmanned aircraft systems solely for research and development purposes by institutions of higher education and other research organizations or institutions.

2. That the Department of Criminal Justice Services, in consultation with the Office of the Attorney General and other state agencies, shall develop model protocols for use of unmanned aircraft systems by law-enforcement agencies and shall report such findings to the Governor and the General Assembly on or before November 1, 2013.

Oregon:

DEFINITIONS SECTION 1. As used in sections 1 to 17 of this 2013 Act: (1) “Drone” means an unmanned flying machine. “Drone” does not include a model air- craft as defined in section 336 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-95) as in effect on the effective date of this 2013 Act. (2) “Law enforcement agency” means an agency that employs police officers, as defined in ORS 133.525, or that prosecutes offenses. (3) “Public body” has the meaning given that term in ORS 174.109. (4) “Warrant” means a warrant issued under ORS 133.525 to 133.703. USE OF DRONES BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES SECTION 2. (1) Except as otherwise provided in sections 2 to 7 of this 2013 Act, a law enforcement agency may not operate a drone, acquire information through the operation of a drone or disclose information acquired through the operation of a drone. (2) Any image or other information that is acquired through the use of a drone by a law enforcement agency in violation of sections 2 to 7 of this 2013 Act, and any evidence derived from that image or information: (a) Is not admissible in, and may not be disclosed in, a judicial proceeding, administrative proceeding, arbitration proceeding or other adjudicatory proceeding; and (b) May not be used to establish reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed. SECTION 3. (1) A law enforcement agency may operate a drone, acquire information through the operation of a drone, or disclose information acquired through the operation of a drone, if: (a) A warrant is issued authorizing use of a drone; or (b) The law enforcement agency has probable cause to believe that a person has com- mitted a crime, is committing a crime or is about to commit a crime, and exigent circum- stances exist that make it unreasonable for the law enforcement agency to obtain a warrant authorizing use of a drone.

(2) A warrant authorizing the use of a drone must specify the period for which operation of the drone is authorized. In no event may a warrant provide for the operation of a drone for a period of more than 30 days. Upon motion and good cause shown, a court may renew a warrant after the expiration of the 30-day period. SECTION 4. A law enforcement agency may operate a drone for the purpose of acquiring information about an individual, or about the individual’s property, if the individual has given written consent to the use of a drone for those purposes. SECTION 5. (1) A law enforcement agency may operate a drone, acquire information through the operation of a drone, or disclose information acquired through the operation of a drone, for the purpose of search and rescue activities, as defined in ORS 404.200. (2) A law enforcement agency may operate a drone, acquire information through the operation of a drone, or disclose information acquired through the operation of a drone, for the purpose of assisting an individual in an emergency if: (a) The law enforcement agency reasonably believes that there is an imminent threat to the life or safety of the individual, and documents the factual basis for that belief; and (b) Not more than 48 hours after the emergency operation begins, an official of the law enforcement agency files a sworn statement with the circuit court that describes the nature of the emergency and the need for use of a drone. (3) A law enforcement agency may operate a drone, acquire information through the operation of a drone, or disclose information acquired through the operation of a drone, during a state of emergency that is declared by the Governor under ORS chapter 401 if: (a) The drone is used only for the purposes of preserving public safety, protecting prop- erty or conducting surveillance for the assessment and evaluation of environmental or weather related damage, erosion or contamination; and (b) The drone is operated only in the geographical area specified in a proclamation pur- suant to ORS 401.165 (5). SECTION 6. (1) A law enforcement agency may operate a drone, acquire information through the operation of a drone, or disclose information acquired through the operation of a drone, for the purpose of reconstruction of a specific crime scene, or similar physical as- sessment, related to a specific criminal investigation. (2) The period that a law enforcement agency may operate a drone under this section may not exceed five days for the purpose of reconstruction of a specific crime scene, or similar physical assessment, related to a specific criminal investigation. SECTION 7. (1) A law enforcement agency may operate a drone for the purpose of training in: (a) The use of drones; and (b) The acquisition of information through the operation of a drone. (2) Any image or other information that is acquired through the use of a drone by a law enforcement agency under this section, and any evidence derived from that image or infor- mation: (a) Is not admissible in, and may not be disclosed in, a judicial proceeding, administrative proceeding, arbitration proceeding or other adjudicatory proceeding; and (b) May not be used to establish reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed.

REGISTRATION OF DRONES USED BY PUBLIC BODIES SECTION 8. (1) A public body may not operate a drone in the airspace over this state without registering the drone with the Oregon Department of Aviation. (2) The Oregon Department of Aviation may impose a civil penalty of up to $10,000 against a public body that violates subsection (1) of this section. Enrolled House Bill 2710 (HB 2710-ACCA) Page 2

(3) Evidence obtained by a public body through the use of a drone in violation of sub- section (1) of this section is not admissible in any judicial or administrative proceeding and may not be used to establish reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that an of- fense has been committed. (4) The Oregon Department of Aviation shall establish a registry of drones operated by public bodies and may charge a fee sufficient to reimburse the department for the mainte- nance of the registry. (5) The Oregon Department of Aviation shall require the following information for reg- istration of a drone: (a) The name of the public body that owns or operates the drone. (b) The name and contact information of the individuals who operate the drone. (c) Identifying information for the drone as required by the department by rule. (6) A public body that registers one or more drones under this section shall provide an annual report to the Oregon Department of Aviation that summarizes: (a) The frequency of use of the drones by the public body during the preceding calendar year; and (b) The purposes for which the drones have been used by the public body during the preceding calendar year. (7) The State Aviation Board may adopt all rules necessary for the registration of drones in Oregon that are consistent with federal laws and regulations. SECTION 9. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, section 8 of this 2013 Act becomes operative January 2, 2016. (2) The Oregon Department of Aviation and the State Aviation Board may take any action before January 2, 2016, including the adoption of rules, that is necessary to allow im- plementation of section 8 of this 2013 Act on January 2, 2016. PROHIBITION ON USE OF WEAPONIZED DRONES BY PUBLIC BODIES SECTION 10. A public body may not operate a drone that is capable of firing a bullet or other projectile, directing a laser or otherwise being used as a weapon. USE OF INFORMATION ACQUIRED BY PUBLIC BODY DRONES SECTION 11. Any image or other information that is acquired by a public body through the use of a drone that has not been approved by the Federal Aviation Administration, and any evidence derived from that image or information: (1) Is not admissible in, and may not be disclosed in, a judicial proceeding, administrative proceeding, arbitration proceeding or other adjudicatory proceeding; and (2) May not be used to establish reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed. SECTION 12. Section 11 of this 2013 Act is repealed January 2, 2016.

CRIMES INVOLVING DRONES SECTION 13. (1) A person commits a Class A felony if the person possesses or controls a drone and intentionally causes, or attempts to cause, the drone to: (a) Fire a bullet or other projectile at an aircraft while the aircraft is in the air; (b) Direct a laser at an aircraft while the aircraft is in the air; or (c) Crash into an aircraft while the aircraft is in the air. (2) A person who intentionally interferes with, or gains unauthorized control over, a drone licensed by the Federal Aviation Administration, or operated by the Armed Forces of Enrolled House Bill 2710 (HB 2710-ACCA) Page 3

the United States as defined in ORS 351.642, an agency of the United States or a federal, state or local law enforcement agency, commits a Class C felony. CIVIL REMEDIES SECTION 14. In addition to any other remedies allowed by law, a person who inten- tionally interferes with, or gains unauthorized control over, a drone licensed by the Federal Aviation Administration, or operated by the Armed Forces of the United States as defined in ORS 351.642, an agency of the United States or a federal, state or local law enforcement agency, is liable to the owner of the drone in an amount of not less than $5,000. The court shall award reasonable attorney fees to a prevailing plaintiff in an action under this section. SECTION 15. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, a person who owns or lawfully occupies real property in this state may bring an action against any person or public body that operates a drone that is flown at a height of less than 400 feet over the property if: (a) The operator of the drone has flown the drone over the property at a height of less than 400 feet on at least one previous occasion; and (b) The person notified the owner or operator of the drone that the person did not want the drone flown over the property at a height of less than 400 feet. (2) A person may not bring an action under this section if: (a) The drone is lawfully in the flight path for landing at an airport, airfield or runway; and (b) The drone is in the process of taking off or landing. (3) A prevailing plaintiff may recover treble damages for any injury to the person or the property by reason of a trespass by a drone as described in this section, and may be awarded injunctive relief in the action. (4) A prevailing plaintiff may recover attorney fees under ORS 20.080 if the amount pleaded in an action under this section is $10,000 or less. (5) The Attorney General, on behalf of the State of Oregon, may bring an action or claim for relief alleging nuisance or trespass arising from the operation of a drone in the airspace over this state. A court shall award reasonable attorney fees to the Attorney General if the Attorney General prevails in an action under this section. APPLICABILITY TO ARMED FORCES SECTION 16. Sections 1 to 17 of this 2013 Act do not apply to the Armed Forces of the United States as defined in ORS 351.642. PREEMPTION OF LOCAL LAWS REGULATING DRONES SECTION 17. Except as expressly authorized by state statute, the authority to regulate the ownership or operation of drones is vested solely in the Legislative Assembly. Except as expressly authorized by state statute, a local government, as defined ORS 174.116, may not enact an ordinance or resolution that regulates the ownership or operation of drones or otherwise engage in the regulation of the ownership or operation of drones.

REPORT TO LEGISLATURE SECTION 18. On or before November 1, 2014, the Oregon Department of Aviation shall report to a joint interim committee of the Legislative Assembly related to the judiciary, or other appropriate interim committees, on: (1) The status of federal regulations relating to unmanned aerial vehicles; and Enrolled House Bill 2710 (HB 2710-ACCA) Page 4

(2) Whether unmanned aerial vehicles operated by private parties should be registered in Oregon in a manner similar to that required for other aircraft. CAPTIONS SECTION 19. The unit captions used in this 2013 Act are provided only for the conven- ience of the reader and do not become part of the statutory law of this state or express any legislative intent in the enactment of this 2013 Act. EMERGENCY CLAUSE SECTION 20. This 2013 Act being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist, and this 2013 Act takes effect on its passage.

Tennessee:

Bill Summary

This bill prohibits law enforcement agencies from using drones to gather evidence or other information, except as otherwise provided below. A “drone” is a powered, aerial vehicle that:

(1) Does not carry a human operator;
(2) Uses aerodynamic forces to provide vehicle lift;
(3) Can fly autonomously or be piloted remotely;
(4) Can be expendable or recoverable; and
(5) Can carry a lethal or nonlethal payload.

This bills states that it does not prohibit the use of a drone:

(1) To counter a high risk of a terrorist attack by a specific individual or organization if the United States secretary of homeland security determines that credible intelligence indicates that there is such a risk;
(2) If the law enforcement agency first obtains a search warrant signed by a judge authorizing the use of a drone; or
(3) If the law enforcement agency possesses reasonable suspicion that, under particular circumstances, swift action is needed to prevent imminent danger to life.

A party aggrieved by a violation of this bill may initiate a civil action against a law enforcement agency to obtain all appropriate relief, as determined by the court, in order to prevent or remedy a violation of this section. Evidence obtained or collected in violation of this bill will not be admissible as evidence in a criminal prosecution in any court of law in this state.

ON APRIL 11, 2013, THE SENATE ADOPTED AMENDMENT #1 AND PASSED SENATE BILL 796, AS AMENDED.

AMENDMENT #1 redefines “drone” to include that it is operated without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the aircraft and remove the provision regarding carrying a lethal or nonlethal payload. This amendment adds that a drone may be used to provide continuous aerial coverage when law enforcement is searching for a fugitive or escapee or is monitoring a hostage situation or to provide more expansive aerial coverage when deployed for the purpose of searching for a missing person.

This amendment revises this bill’s provision whereby evidence obtained or collected in violation of this bill will not be admissible as evidence in a criminal prosecution in any court of law in this state to instead provide that no data collected on an individual, home, or areas other than the target that justified deployment may be used, copied or disclosed for any purpose. Such data must be deleted as soon as possible, and in no event later than 24 hours after collection. This amendment adds that the use of a drone to gather evidence or information will constitute a search. Any law enforcement agency that uses a drone, or other substantially similar device to gather evidence or obtain information, must comply in all respects with the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States and article I, section 7, of the Constitution of Tennessee. Absent exigent circumstances or another authorized exception to the warrant requirement, evidence obtained or collected in violation of this bill as amended will not be admissible as evidence in a criminal prosecution in any court of law in this state.

Texas:

AN ACT

 
  relating to images captured by unmanned aircraft and other images
  and recordings; providing penalties.
         BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
         SECTION 1.  This Act shall be known as the Texas Privacy Act.
         SECTION 2.  Subtitle B, Title 4, Government Code, is amended
  by adding Chapter 423 to read as follows:
 

CHAPTER 423. USE OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT

         Sec. 423.001.  DEFINITION. In this chapter, “image” means
  any capturing of sound waves, thermal, infrared, ultraviolet,
  visible light, or other electromagnetic waves, odor, or other
  conditions existing on or about real property in this state or an
  individual located on that property.
         Sec. 423.002.  NONAPPLICABILITY. (a)  It is lawful to
  capture an image using an unmanned aircraft in this state:
               (1)  for purposes of professional or scholarly research
  and development by a person acting on behalf of an institution of
  higher education, as defined by Section 61.003, Education Code,
  including a person who:
                     (A)  is a professor, employee, or student of the
  institution; or
                     (B)  is under contract with or otherwise acting
  under the direction or on behalf of the institution;
               (2)  in airspace designated as a test site or range
  authorized by the Federal Aviation Administration for the purpose
  of integrating unmanned aircraft systems into the national
  airspace;
               (3)  as part of an operation, exercise, or mission of
  any branch of the United States military;
               (4)  if the image is captured by a satellite for the
  purposes of mapping;
               (5)  if the image is captured by or for an electric or
  natural gas utility:
                     (A)  for operations and maintenance of utility
  facilities for the purpose of maintaining utility system
  reliability and integrity;
                     (B)  for inspecting utility facilities to
  determine repair, maintenance, or replacement needs during and
  after construction of such facilities;
                     (C)  for assessing vegetation growth for the
  purpose of maintaining clearances on utility easements; and
                     (D)  for utility facility routing and siting for
  the purpose of providing utility service;
               (6)  with the consent of the individual who owns or
  lawfully occupies the real property captured in the image;
               (7)  pursuant to a valid search or arrest warrant;
               (8)  if the image is captured by a law enforcement
  authority or a person who is under contract with or otherwise acting
  under the direction or on behalf of a law enforcement authority:
                     (A)  in immediate pursuit of a person law
  enforcement officers have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to
  suspect has committed an offense, not including misdemeanors or
  offenses punishable by a fine only;
                     (B)  for the purpose of documenting a crime scene
  where an offense, not including misdemeanors or offenses punishable
  by a fine only, has been committed;
                     (C)  for the purpose of investigating the scene
  of:
                           (i)  a human fatality;
                           (ii)  a motor vehicle accident causing death
  or serious bodily injury to a person; or
                           (iii)  any motor vehicle accident on a state
  highway or federal interstate or highway;
                     (D)  in connection with the search for a missing
  person;
                     (E)  for the purpose of conducting a high-risk
  tactical operation that poses a threat to human life; or
                     (F)  of private property that is generally open to
  the public where the property owner consents to law enforcement
  public safety responsibilities;
               (9)  if the image is captured by state or local law
  enforcement authorities, or a person who is under contract with or
  otherwise acting under the direction or on behalf of state
  authorities, for the purpose of:
                     (A)  surveying the scene of a catastrophe or other
  damage to determine whether a state of emergency should be
  declared;
                     (B)  preserving public safety, protecting
  property, or surveying damage or contamination during a lawfully
  declared state of emergency; or
                     (C)  conducting routine air quality sampling and
  monitoring, as provided by state or local law;
               (10)  at the scene of a spill, or a suspected spill, of
  hazardous materials;
               (11)  for the purpose of fire suppression;
               (12)  for the purpose of rescuing a person whose life or
  well-being is in imminent danger;
               (13)  if the image is captured by a Texas licensed real
  estate broker in connection with the marketing, sale, or financing
  of real property, provided that no individual is identifiable in
  the image;
               (14)  of real property or a person on real property that
  is within 25 miles of the United States border;
               (15)  from a height no more than eight feet above ground
  level in a public place, if the image was captured without using any
  electronic, mechanical, or other means to amplify the image beyond
  normal human perception;
               (16)  of public real property or a person on that
  property;
               (17)  if the image is captured by the owner or operator
  of an oil, gas, water, or other pipeline for the purpose of
  inspecting, maintaining, or repairing pipelines or other related
  facilities, and is captured without the intent to conduct
  surveillance on an individual or real property located in this
  state;
               (18)  in connection with oil pipeline safety and rig
  protection; or
               (19)  in connection with port authority surveillance
  and security.
         (b)  This chapter does not apply to the manufacture,
  assembly, distribution, or sale of an unmanned aircraft.
         Sec. 423.003.  OFFENSE: ILLEGAL USE OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT TO
  CAPTURE IMAGE. (a) A person commits an offense if the person uses an
  unmanned aircraft to capture an image of an individual or privately
  owned real property in this state with the intent to conduct
  surveillance on the individual or property captured in the image.
         (b)  An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor.
         (c)  It is a defense to prosecution under this section that
  the person destroyed the image:
               (1)  as soon as the person had knowledge that the image
  was captured in violation of this section; and
               (2)  without disclosing, displaying, or distributing
  the image to a third party.
         (d)  In this section, “intent” has the meaning assigned by
  Section 6.03, Penal Code.
         Sec. 423.004.  OFFENSE: POSSESSION, DISCLOSURE, DISPLAY,
  DISTRIBUTION, OR USE OF IMAGE. (a) A person commits an offense if
  the person:
               (1)  captures an image in violation of Section 423.003;
  and
               (2)  possesses, discloses, displays, distributes, or
  otherwise uses that image.
         (b)  An offense under this section for the possession of an
  image is a Class C misdemeanor. An offense under this section for
  the disclosure, display, distribution, or other use of an image is a
  Class B misdemeanor.
         (c)  Each image a person possesses, discloses, displays,
  distributes, or otherwise uses in violation of this section is a
  separate offense.
         (d)  It is a defense to prosecution under this section for
  the possession of an image that the person destroyed the image as
  soon as the person had knowledge that the image was captured in
  violation of Section 423.003.
         (e)  It is a defense to prosecution under this section for
  the disclosure, display, distribution, or other use of an image
  that the person stopped disclosing, displaying, distributing, or
  otherwise using the image as soon as the person had knowledge that
  the image was captured in violation of Section 423.003.
         Sec. 423.005.  ILLEGALLY OR INCIDENTALLY CAPTURED IMAGES NOT
  SUBJECT TO DISCLOSURE.  (a)  Except as otherwise provided by
  Subsection (b), an image captured in violation of Section 423.003,
  or an image captured by an unmanned aircraft that was incidental to
  the lawful capturing of an image:
               (1)  may not be used as evidence in any criminal or
  juvenile proceeding, civil action, or administrative proceeding;
               (2)  is not subject to disclosure, inspection, or
  copying under Chapter 552; and
               (3)  is not subject to discovery, subpoena, or other
  means of legal compulsion for its release.
         (b)  An image described by Subsection (a) may be disclosed
  and used as evidence to prove a violation of this chapter and is
  subject to discovery, subpoena, or other means of legal compulsion
  for that purpose.
         Sec. 423.006.  CIVIL ACTION.  (a)  An owner or tenant of
  privately owned real property located in this state may bring
  against a person who, in violation of Section 423.003, captured an
  image of the property or the owner or tenant while on the property
  an action to:
               (1)  enjoin a violation or imminent violation of
  Section 423.003 or 423.004;
               (2)  recover a civil penalty of:
                     (A)  $5,000 for all images captured in a single
  episode in violation of Section 423.003; or
                     (B)  $10,000 for disclosure, display,
  distribution, or other use of any images captured in a single
  episode in violation of Section 423.004; or
               (3)  recover actual damages if the person who captured
  the image in violation of Section 423.003 discloses, displays, or
  distributes the image with malice.
         (b)  For purposes of recovering the civil penalty or actual
  damages under Subsection (a), all owners of a parcel of real
  property are considered to be a single owner and all tenants of a
  parcel of real property are considered to be a single tenant.
         (c)  In this section, “malice” has the meaning assigned by
  Section 41.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
         (d)  In addition to any civil penalties authorized under this
  section, the court shall award court costs and reasonable
  attorney’s fees to the prevailing party.
         (e)  Venue for an action under this section is governed by
  Chapter 15, Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
         (f)  An action brought under this section must be commenced
  within two years from the date the image was:
               (1)  captured in violation of Section 423.003; or
               (2)  initially disclosed, displayed, distributed, or
  otherwise used in violation of Section 423.004.
         Sec. 423.007.  RULES FOR USE BY LAW ENFORCEMENT.  The
  Department of Public Safety shall adopt rules and guidelines for
  use of an unmanned aircraft by a law enforcement authority in this
  state.
         Sec. 423.008.  REPORTING BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY. (a) Not
  earlier than January 1 and not later than January 15 of each
  odd-numbered year, each state law enforcement agency and each
  county or municipal law enforcement agency located in a county or
  municipality, as applicable, with a population greater than
  150,000, that used or operated an unmanned aircraft during the
  preceding 24 months shall issue a written report to the governor,
  the lieutenant governor, and each member of the legislature and
  shall:
               (1)  retain the report for public viewing; and
               (2)  post the report on the law enforcement agency’s
  publicly accessible website, if one exists.
         (b)  The report must include:
               (1)  the number of times an unmanned aircraft was used,
  organized by date, time, location, and the types of incidents and
  types of justification for the use;
               (2)  the number of criminal investigations aided by the
  use of an unmanned aircraft and a description of how the unmanned
  aircraft aided each investigation;
               (3)  the number of times an unmanned aircraft was used
  for a law enforcement operation other than a criminal
  investigation, the dates and locations of those operations, and a
  description of how the unmanned aircraft aided each operation;
               (4)  the type of information collected on an
  individual, residence, property, or area that was not the subject
  of a law enforcement operation and the frequency of the collection
  of this information; and
               (5)  the total cost of acquiring, maintaining,
  repairing, and operating or otherwise using each unmanned aircraft
  for the preceding 24 months.
         SECTION 3.  The change in law made by this Act applies only
  to the capture, possession, disclosure, display, distribution, or
  other use of an image that occurs on or after the effective date of
  this Act.
         SECTION 4.  The provisions of this Act or the applications of
  those provisions are severable as provided by Section 311.032(c),
  Government Code.
         SECTION 5.  This Act takes effect September 1, 2013.

RESOLUTION  ON DRONE AIRCRAFT I. NAVIGABLE  AIRSPACE AND DRONE AIRCRAFT WHEREAS, the former City Councilor and Mayor of Northampton, Calvin Coolidge, as President of the  United States, signed into law the Air Commerce Act of 1926 1

WHEREAS, this act declared that the airspace above the m inimum safe altitudes of flight, generally  understood to be  about  500 feet or more above the surface , establishing the national airspac e system  in the United States; and 2

WHEREAS,  aircraf t, includ ing drone aircraft ,  is “navigable airspace” ; and 3 , have the “ public  right of transit” through navigable  airspace 4

WHEREAS, navigable airspac e i s preempted by federal laws ; and 5

WHEREAS, Congress and the FAA  now  appear to be  expanding navigable airspace down to the ground  in order to accommodate low – flying  drone aircraft and therefore not  generally  subject to state and local control; and 6

WHEREAS,  such  an expansion of navigable a irspace  threatens long – standing property rights,  expectations of privacy, and state and  local sovereignty; and ; and 7

WHEREAS,  such  an  expansion of navigable airspace  could  give the FAA  unprecedented authority to  restrict any landowner activit y that could potentially  interfere with low – flying drone aircraft 8

WHEREAS,  such  an expansion of naviga ble airspace is contrary to the findings of the landmark 1946  Supreme Court case,  United States v. Causby , which affirmed that  the landowner “must have exclusive  control over the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere”  and that “the  landowner owns  at least  as mu ch of the airspace as they can occupy or use in connection with the land” ; and 9

WHEREAS,  such  an expansion of navigable airspace is contrary to the aviation statutes in Title 49 of  the United States Code ; and 10 II.  SURVEILLANCE AND WEAPONIZED DRONE AIRCRAFT , which have been in force, largely un changed, since President Coolidge first  signed them into law in 1926; and

WHEREAS, drone aircraft are poised to gain unprecedented access to private property at any altitude  and for any purpose, including but not limited to purposes of advertising, news reporting, environmental  monitoring, package delivery, recreation, and private investigations; and

WHEREAS, police departments  in the United States  have begun  using drone  aircraft in the  absen ce of  clear guidance from lawmakers; and

WHEREAS,  some  drone aircraf t being marketed  to law enforcement agencies  are designed to carry  weapons  including  tear gas,  rubber buckshot , and firearms 11

WHEREAS, the rapid  development  of drone  aircraft  technology, driven largely by manufacturers  producing drone aircraft for military  u se, poses a serious threat to the privacy and constitutional rights of  the American people, including the residents of Northampton; and and  the introduction of such technology send s a chilling message  to the  American people ; and

WHEREAS, the federal use of weaponized drone aircraft overseas is a poor precedent for  their domestic  use, in that  the e xtrajudicial use of drones has turned public opinion against the U.S.  g overnment in  Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Afghanistan; and

WHERE AS drone aircraft strikes have killed more non – targeted people than those targeted, including  men, women, and children,  some known by name and others unidentified; 12

BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Northampton call s on the U.S. government to immediately end its  practice of extrajudicial killing by armed drone aircraft ; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of  Northampton affirms that , within the city limits,  the  navigable airspace  for drone aircraft s hall not be expanded below the long – established airspace  for  manned aircraft; and

BE IT  FURTHER  RESOLVED ,  that  th e City of Nor thampton  affirms that within the city limits,  landowners  subject to state  laws and local ordinances have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of  the airspace and that no drone aircraft  shall have the “public right of transit” through this  private  property ; and

BE IT FURTH ER RESOLVED, that the City of Northampton calls on the United States Congress, the  Federal Aviation Administration,  and the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to  respect legal precedent and constitutional guarantees of privacy, property  rights, and local sovereignty in  all matters pertaining to drone aircraft and navigable airspace.

1 Air Commerce Act of 1926 (44 Stat. 568), May 20, 1926 2 Griggs v. Allegheny  County, 369 U.S. 84 (1962) ;  California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986) ;  Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445  (1989) ;  Argent v. United States, 124 F. 3d 1277 (1997) 3 The term “drone aircraft” in this resolution includes the classes of aerial vehicles defined by the FAA as “unmanned  aircraft”, “small unmanned aircraft”, “model aircraft”, and “remotely piloted aircraft”. 4 United States Code, Title 49, § 40103 (a) (2).  The “public right of transit” through navigable airspace applies to aircraft  that are being ope rated by U.S. citizens in accordance with FAA safety regulations. Under reciprocal agreements with  other nations, foreign aircraft may also be navigated through U.S. airspace. 5 For example, see  MacPherson, R., “Letter to Mr. Don Marcostica, Executive Di rector Colorado Office of Economic  Development and International Trade,” Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations at the Federal Aviation Administration,  July 9, 2010. 6 The  FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 20 12, Public Law 112 – 95, Sec. 332 , allows gove rnment public safety agencies  to operate small unmanned aircraft at altitudes of “ less than 400 feet above the ground ” without any mention of privacy  or property. This language implies that the minimum safe altitude for these new “aircraft” is at ground l evel and  therefore all airspace is navigable and subject to the “public right of transit”. Under the provisions of PL 112 – 95,  commercial unmanned aircraft could soon be allowed to operate with similar autonomy. 7 Les Dorr, Media Specialist, Federal Aviat ion Administration, “…any altitudes mandated in the [Federal Aviation  Regulations] are conside red navigable airspace”, email communication with Paul Voss , July 11 , 2012. 8 United States Code, Title 49, § 40103 (b) (2) (A – D) 9 United States v. Causby , 328 U.S. 256 (1946) 10 United States Code, Title 49, § 4010 2 (a) (32) 11 “VANGUARD SHADOWHAWK.” Tactical Life . N.p., 1 Feb. 2012. Web. 18 June 2013. 12 Kilcullen, David, and Andrew McDonald Exum. “Death From Above, Outrage Down Below.” New York Times. New Yor k  Times, 16 May 2009. Web.

A RESOLUTION

Authorizing the City of Evanston to Establish a Moratorium on the Use of Unregulated Drone Technology

WHEREAS, the implementation of drone (unmanned aerial system) technology in the United States implicates the privacy and constitutional rights of United States residents, including the residents of Evanston, Illinois; and

WHEREAS, the federal government and the State of Illinois have yet to enact reasonable regulation on the use of drones within the United States; and

WHEREAS, police departments in the United States have begun to deploy drone technology absent any regulation on the appropriate use of such technology, although the Evanston Police Department has not.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EVANSTON, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, THAT:

SECTION 1: That the foregoing recitals are hereby found as fact and incorporated herein by reference.

SECTION 2: The City of Evanston establishes a moratorium on the use of drones in the City of Evanston in the absence of reasonable state and federal regulation of the use of drone technology which will expire without further action by the City Council two years from the date of this resolution; with the following exemptions:

1) for Hobby and Model Aircraft, defined as an unmanned aircraft that is— a) capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere;

b) flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and

c) flown for hobby or recreational purposes; and
2) the Research and Development of “Experimental Aircraft” for non-Department of Defense contracts.

SECTION 3: The City of Evanston establishes a moratorium on the use of drones in the City of Evanston in the absence of reasonable state and federal regulation of the use of drone technology; and

SECTION 4: The City of Evanston supports efforts in the Illinois General Assembly, the Illinois Senate, and the United States Congress to enact legislation (1) prohibiting information obtained from the domestic use of drones from being introduced into a federal or state court, and (2) precluding the domestic use of drones equipped with anti-personnel devices (meaning any projectile, chemical, electrical, directed- energy), or other device designed to harm, incapacitate, or otherwise negatively impact a human being.

SECTION 5: The City of Evanston jointly resolves, with the Associated Student Government (“ASG”) of Northwestern University, as evidenced by the attached resolution of the ASG (Exhibit 1), to provide that the moratorium on drone use extends to all areas of Northwestern University.

SECTION 6: Copies of this Resolution will be sent to Illinois Governor Pat Quinn, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, U.S. Senators Dick Durbin and Mark Kirk, U.S. Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, Illinois State Senators Daniel Biss and Heather Steans, and Illinois State Representatives Robyn Gabel, Kelly Cassidy and Laura Fine.

SECTION 7: This resolution 27-R-13 shall be in full force and effect from and after the date of its passage and approval in the manner provided by law.

WHEREAS, the rapid implementation of drone technology throughout the United States poses a serious threat to the privacy and constitutional rights of the American people, including the residents of Charlottesville; and

WHEREAS, the federal government and the Commonwealth of Virginia have thus far failed to provide reasonable legal restrictions on the use of drones within the United States; and

WHEREAS, police departments throughout the country have begun implementing drone technology absent any guidance or guidelines from law makers;

NOW, THEREFORE, LET IT BE RESOLVED, that the City Council of Charlottesville, Virginia, endorses the proposal for a two year moratorium on drones in the state of Virginia; and calls on the United States Congress and the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia to adopt legislation prohibiting information obtained from the domestic use of drones from being introduced into a Federal or State court, and precluding the domestic use of drones equipped with anti-personnel devices, meaning any projectile, chemical, electrical, directed-energy (visible or invisible), or other device designed to harm, incapacitate, or otherwise negatively impact a human being; and pledges to abstain from similar uses with city-owned, leased, or borrowed drones.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,436 other followers