Drones
The rules for watching people from the air were written when flying meant a helicopter: loud, expensive and rare. A drone that lives on a rooftop dock and launches on routine calls is none of those things, and the courts have not revisited the question.
Updated
In one sentence
An unmanned aircraft carrying a camera, flown by a public agency. Where a state classes drones as military equipment, as California does, a public policy and a governing-body vote are required before an agency uses one.
How they are used
Most agency drones are small multi-rotor aircraft with a camera on a gimbal, flown by an officer with a remote control and a screen. Typical uses are looking at a scene from above before officers approach, photographing collisions and crime scenes, and searching open ground for a missing person.
A newer model, usually called drone as first responder, changes the pattern. The aircraft lives on a rooftop dock. A pilot listening to live emergency calls launches it, and it streams video back while patrol units are still driving. The aircraft goes up on routine calls rather than on request, which means it is in the air far more often than a drone an officer has to decide to fetch.
What the camera can see
Height is the whole difference. From a few hundred feet a camera sees over fences and hedges into spaces that are deliberately closed off from the street, and a zoom lens narrows that view to a single window or vehicle.
Constitutional protection here rests on old cases. In 1989 the Supreme Court held in Florida v. Riley that a police helicopter circling at 400 feet did not need a warrant to look into a partially covered greenhouse. Part of the reasoning was that any member of the public could lawfully have flown there and seen the same thing, and that the helicopter caused no undue noise, wind or dust. Both of those observations were about helicopters. Neither has been tested against an aircraft that costs a few thousand dollars and launches from a dock on a rooftop.
What the record should show
In California an agency that flies a drone should have left a trail: an ordinance on a council or board agenda, a published military equipment policy, and an annual report on how the equipment was used. Those documents are the starting point for any question about a local program, and their absence from an agency’s website is itself something to ask about at a meeting.
Why agencies say they need it
-
Agency statement
The Chula Vista Police Department in California, which has flown drones to emergency calls since 2018, says pilots listening to live 911 calls launch an aircraft that often reaches the scene first. The department reports that in about a quarter of these responses the ground units were returned to service before they arrived, and its chief has said the program has allowed incidents to be resolved without dispatching officers at all. [1]
What the concerns are
-
A camera in the air sees what a patrol car cannot
An aircraft overhead can see back gardens, courtyards and windows that are shielded from the street. The governing case is from 1989, when the Supreme Court held in Florida v. Riley that a police helicopter circling at 400 feet did not need a warrant to look into a partially covered greenhouse. Four justices reasoned that it mattered that any member of the public could lawfully have flown there and seen the same thing. [2]
-
The precedent was written for aircraft that no longer exist
The Riley plurality also noted that the helicopter caused no undue noise, wind, dust or threat of injury. Helicopters in 1989 were loud, expensive and rare, which limited how often anyone could be observed from the air. A drone launched from a rooftop dock is none of those things, and the Supreme Court has not revisited the question. [2]
-
Flights are recorded, and retention is set by policy
Most programs record what the camera sees. What happens to footage of people who were never suspected of anything is governed by each department's own policy rather than by a statute written for aerial recording. [3]
-
California requires a public policy and a vote, and the record does not always show one
Since 2022 an agency has needed its governing body to approve a military equipment use policy by ordinance before using a drone, and must publish an annual report on how the equipment was used. In the counties we have researched we have found agencies flying without a policy we could locate on the agency or county website. [4]
What the law requires
| State | Law | What it requires |
|---|---|---|
| California | AB 481 (2021), Government Code 7070 and following | Drones are classed as military equipment. A law enforcement agency must obtain its governing body's approval of a military equipment use policy by ordinance before funding, acquiring or using one, publish an annual report on the equipment's use on its website, and hold a community meeting within 30 days of releasing that report. [4] |
| Oregon | ORS 837.300 to 837.390 | A law enforcement agency may not operate a drone, acquire information with one or disclose that information except as the statute allows; a warrant may authorize operation for at most 30 days, and evidence gathered in violation is inadmissible. Any public body operating a drone must register it with the Oregon Department of Aviation, file an annual report on how often and for what purposes its aircraft flew, and publish its policies for the use, storage, sharing and retention of drone data. [5] |
Only the states we have researched appear here. A state's absence from this table means we have not checked it yet, not that it has no law.
Where we have found it
29 counties documented so far. Each new county is added here as its research publishes.
- Alameda County, CA 1 system
- Active Drones [Alameda County Sheriff]
- Butte County, CA 2 systems
- Active Drones [Butte County Sheriff]
- Active Drones [Chico Police]
- Contra Costa County, CA 1 system
- Active Drones [Antioch Police]
- El Dorado County, CA 2 systems
- Active Drones [El Dorado County Sheriff]
- Active Drones [South Lake Tahoe Police]
- Imperial County, CA 1 system
- Active Drones [Imperial County Sheriff]
- Inyo County, CA 1 system
- Active Drones and ground robots [Inyo County Sheriff]
- Los Angeles County, CA 1 system
- Active Drones [LA County Sheriff]
- Marin County, CA 1 system
- Active Drones [Marin County Sheriff]
- Mariposa County, CA 2 systems
- Active Drones [Mariposa County District Attorney]
- Active Drones [Mariposa County Sheriff]
- Merced County, CA 3 systems
- Active Drones [Los Banos Police]
- Active Drones [Merced Police]
- Active Drones [Merced County Sheriff]
- Mono County, CA 2 systems
- Active Drone [Mammoth Lakes Police]
- Approved Drones [Mono County Sheriff]
- Monterey County, CA 1 system
- Active Drone as first responder [Greenfield Police]
- Napa County, CA 1 system
- Active Drones [Napa County Sheriff]
- Nevada County, CA 2 systems
- Active Drones [Nevada County Sheriff]
- Active Drones [Truckee Police]
- Placer County, CA 3 systems
- Active Drones [Placer County Sheriff]
- Active Drones [Placer County Probation]
- Active Drones [Placer County DA]
- San Bernardino County, CA 1 system
- Active Drones [San Bernardino Sheriff]
- San Francisco County, CA 1 system
- Expanding Drones [San Francisco Police]
- San Joaquin County, CA 1 system · 1 also listed
- Active Drones [San Joaquin County Sheriff]
- Santa Cruz County, CA 1 system
- Active Drones [Santa Cruz County Sheriff]
- Solano County, CA 1 system
- Active Drones [Solano County Sheriff]
- Sonoma County, CA 2 systems
- Active Code enforcement drones [Permit Sonoma]
- Active Drones [Sonoma County Sheriff]
- Tulare County, CA 1 system
- Active Drones [Visalia Police]
- Tuolumne County, CA 1 system
- Active Drones [Tuolumne County Sheriff]
- Yolo County, CA 2 systems
- Active Drones [Woodland Police]
- Active Drones [Yolo County Sheriff]
- Lane County, OR 1 system
- Active Drones [Lane County Sheriff]
- Marion County, OR 1 system
- Active Drones [Marion County Sheriff]
- Washington County, OR 1 system
- Active Drones [Washington Co. Sheriff (OR)]
- Clark County, WA 1 system
- Active Drones [Clark County Sheriff]
- King County, WA 1 system
- Active Drones [King County Sheriff]
This list covers the counties we have researched, which is not the same as everywhere this technology operates. Counties we have not published say nothing either way.
Questions
- Can a police drone look into my back garden?
- From navigable airspace, courts have generally allowed it without a warrant. In Florida v. Riley the Supreme Court upheld a warrantless helicopter observation of a partially covered greenhouse from 400 feet, reasoning in part that any member of the public could lawfully have flown there. That decision is from 1989 and predates cheap drones. Some states have added limits beyond that constitutional floor. [2]
- Does my county sheriff need permission to fly a drone?
- In California, yes. AB 481 requires the governing body to approve a military equipment use policy by ordinance before the agency uses the equipment, and the policy has to be published. [4]
- How do I find out whether my agency flies drones?
- The military equipment use policy and the annual report are public records and are usually posted on the agency or county website. The agency must also hold a community meeting within 30 days of releasing the annual report, which is a place to ask about it in person. Where we have researched a county, what we found is linked on this page. [4]
What you can do
Civic action
Purchases and policies for this technology are decided at public meetings any resident can attend and speak at. Start with your county's record.
Go to the Alameda County hub →Personal protection
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. Chula Vista Police Department, unmanned aircraft system drone program · Primary document · accessed · archived copy
- 2. Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989) · Law · · accessed · archived copy
- 3.
- 4. California AB 481 (2021), Government Code 7070 and following · Law · · accessed · archived copy
- 5.