Greenfield Police | Drone as first responder
Approved as a resolution titled "Approving the Purchase a Drone". The minutes record a staff report, two comments from the public, a discussion of maintenance and size, and a unanimous vote. No vendor, no cost, no policy.
At a glance
- What the council approved
- Resolution #2024-144, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Greenfield Approving the Purchase a Drone" [1]
- Vote
- All in favor, motion carried, on 10 December 2024 [1]
- Vendor
- Paladin Drones Inc, named in the warrant register and not in the minutes [1]
- Amount paid
- $38,500.00, warrant 323576 dated 3 January 2025, described as "PD DRONE AND SOFTWARE" [1]
- Which budget
- Fund 200, Supplemental Law Enforcement [1]
- Recorded discussion of data or retention
- none. The minutes record a question about use at community events, a comment that it was pricey, and a discussion of maintenance, size and how long it had been sold [1]
- Policy governing the drone
- we could not find one on the city website. That is what we looked for and did not find, not a finding that none exists [1]
- Number of aircraft
- the resolution title is singular. Trade coverage of the launch describes two. No city document we read gives a count [1]
How it happened
- Decision
The council approves the purchase
Resolution #2024-144, on a staff report from the Chief of Police. A member of the public asked whether the drone could be used during community events and the Chief said yes. Another said it was pricey but would be worth it. The council and staff discussed maintenance, size and how long the aircraft had been on sale. The motion carried with all in favor. [1]
- Procurement
The city pays Paladin Drones
Warrant 323576 records $38,500.00 to Paladin Drones Inc, against the account line "PD DRONE AND SOFTWARE", drawn on Fund 200, Supplemental Law Enforcement. [1]
The whole record of the decision
This is the entire minuted account of how Greenfield came to have a drone programme. Nothing has been left out:
ADOPT A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GREENFIELD APPROVING THE PURCHASE A DRONE RESOLUTION #2024-144 Staff report was given by Chief Mixer. [A member of the public] asked if the drone could be used during community events. Chief Mixer stated yes. [Another] stated that it was pricey, but it would be worth it. There was discussion among the City Council and staff regarding the drone’s maintenance, size, how long it has been sold, etc.
The motion carried with all in favor. We have replaced the names of the two residents who spoke with descriptions; they are in the public minutes, and reproducing them here adds nothing to what happened.
What is in it, and what is not
There is a staff report, which means the council was given more than the minutes record. There is a question from the public and a direct answer. There is a discussion of maintenance and size. The vote is unanimous and on the record. By the standards of small-city minutes this is not thin.
What is absent is everything about data. No retention period. No rule about what the drone records or who may watch it. No policy adopted alongside the purchase. No mention of the words that would normally attach to an aircraft with a camera on it.
The one question anyone asked about scope was whether it could be used at community events, and the answer was yes.
The vendor is in the warrant register, not the minutes
The resolution says “Purchase a Drone”. Two paragraphs of a warrant register in the same packet say what was bought:
| Vendor | Warrant | Date | Description | Amount |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PALADIN DRONES INC | 323576 | 3 January 2025 | PD DRONE AND SOFTWARE | $38,500.00 |
The fund heading above that row reads “Fund: 200 - SUPPLEMENTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT”, a state allocation for local policing rather than the city’s general fund.
Paladin sells drone-as-first-responder services: aircraft that launch automatically on a call and arrive before an officer does. “Drone and software” is the shape of that purchase. None of that is in the resolution, whose title describes buying an object.
We are not suggesting the council was misled. A staff report was given, and we have not read it; it may have described the whole programme in detail. What we can say is that the document that carries the decision forward, the one titled and numbered and voted on, describes a purchase.
Why the distinction matters
A drone bought as equipment is a thing a department owns. A drone-as-first-responder programme is a standing practice: aircraft dispatched automatically, recording as they go, over a city of 19,000 people.
The second needs answers the first does not. How long is footage kept. Who can request it. What happens to recordings of people who were not the reason for the flight. Whether it flies at community events, which someone did ask.
Those answers may exist. We looked on the city’s website and did not find them, and that is a statement about our search rather than about the department. It is a request worth making, and this page will say so as soon as anyone makes it.
What we do not know
- Whether any policy governs what the drone records, how long footage is kept, who may watch it and when it may be flown. We looked on the city website and did not find one.
- Whether the $38,500 was a one-off purchase or the first payment of a recurring service. The warrant covers "drone and software" and a drone-as-first-responder service is normally a subscription. A later 2025 council packet mentions the vendor again and we have not read it.
- How many aircraft the department operates. The resolution says a drone. Trade coverage of the May 2025 launch describes two.
- What the staff report said. The minutes record that one was given. We have not read it, so we do not know what the council was told about cost, capability or data.
- Whether the drone is in fact used at community events, and whether anything recorded there is kept.
What you can do
Show up
Systems like this one are approved by boards, councils and committees that meet in public. We have not yet confirmed where each of them meets in Monterey County.
What we have documented in Monterey County →Protect yourself
Practical steps to shrink your personal data trail. Our guides publish at launch; until then, EFF's Surveillance Self-Defense is the best starting point.
Surveillance Self-Defense →Sources
- 1.
Get the digest
A regular digest of what changed in the world of surveillance: the counties we published, the devices that appeared on the map, and the public meetings where these decisions get made. We send it when there is enough to report.
One click to unsubscribe. What we do with your address is on the newsletter page.