With some lawmakers expressing concerns about privacy rights, the Florida Senate could be poised to consider allowing law-enforcement agencies to use aerial drones to help with traffic management, collecting crime-scene evidence and eyeing large crowds.
The Senate Rules Committee on Thursday unanimously approved the bill (SB 44), positioning it to go before the full Senate.
Except in limited circumstances, state law bars police from using drones to gather information. The bill, sponsored by Sen. Tom Wright, R-New Smyrna Beach, would create additional exceptions to the law, including for traffic management and helping with collecting evidence at crime scenes or traffic-crash scenes.
But much of the attention at the committee meeting Thursday focused on part of the bill that would allow the use of drones to “provide a law enforcement agency with an aerial perspective of a crowd of 50 people or more.”
Sen. Dennis Baxley, an Ocala Republican who serves on the committee, praised the bill.
“This is an incredible breakthrough in being able to solve crimes, prevent problems, manage situations in a much more responsible way,” Baxley said. “True, you do need safeguards, and true it could be abused. But I would be far more concerned about drones that are in all kinds of people’s control outside of law enforcement.”
But in an acknowledgment of privacy issues implicated by the bill, the committee approved an amendment proposed by Sen. Jeff Brandes, R-St. Petersburg, that would require law-enforcement agencies to set policies and procedures if they want to use drones to eye crowds of 50 or more people.
That would include having guidelines to address issues such as how images of crowds would be retained and released. Also, the amendment would require heads of law-enforcement agencies to provide written authorization for the use of drones to observe crowds.
Brandes said lawmakers need to “watch this very carefully” and expressed concern about issues such as tying the use of drones to facial-recognition technology. He also offered other potential scenarios, such as police flying a drone along a beach or using a drone when people are holding a Second Amendment rally.
“These are complicated issues that we need to watch very carefully over the next few years because, as much I believe law enforcement gets to utilize this type of technology, we need to be very careful as a Legislature of how far we let this go,” Brandes said.
Sen. Audrey Gibson, D-Jacksonville, said Brandes’ amendment requiring guidelines was important to the bill.
“I totally agree with Sen. Brandes that we have to put guardrails around certain procedures that impact the lives of individuals,” Gibson said.
Wright said 37 counties have helicopters, while others do not have aerial-surveillance capabilities. He said the helicopters in the 37 counties are flying unrestricted. He said the use of drones could help protect large groups.
“If there’s a group of 50 or more … the idea to have the drones was to have the drones up to make sure there aren’t opposite people coming to the original group of 50 to do them harm and allows law enforcement an advantage to come quickly to protect both sides,” said Wright, who chairs the Senate Military and Veterans Affairs, Space and Domestic Security Committee.
A similar bill (HB 1049) has been filed in the House by Rep. Mike Giallombardo, R-Cape Coral, but has not been heard as the first week of the 60-day legislative session ends.
–Jim Turner, News Service of Florida
Reader Interactions
Comments
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
A Concerned Observer says
If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. Unfortunately, there are many out there who are out to harm others; who feel that they have the right to take what is not theirs from rightful owners; to maliciously destroy the property of others solely to gain attention for whatever cause over which those who own the property have no responsibility. For these reasons, we deserve protection from those planning to do harm. This is only too necessary in the world we now live in today. It was not always so, and I truly wish it was not necessary; but it is.
joe says
YOU!! are so true about it, but good intentions lead to bad decisions within the government of the people!!
joe says
“If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.”
While this might sound good in theory, I’m pretty sure you would not really want to live that way. If you “have nothing to hide” by your theory, I suppose you wouldn’t mind being pulled over by a police officer a few blocks from your home as you leave for work. He wants to search you and your car, and he says “If you have nothing to hide…”
He searches…finds nothing and lets you go – a few miles down the road, another officer does the same thing. I guess you’re OK with this stop as well. After all, “you have nothing to hide”, right?
This sounds like libertarian fantasy that could be highly dangerous in real life.
A Concerned Observer says
Joe, you are missing the point of this article. It is not about police pulling me or anyone else anyone over for no reason. However, even if were in that situation, surveillance cameras are my friend, not my enemy. This is about monitoring public spaces for anyone in trouble or causing trouble top others. If I am having a medical issue or if I am being targeted by one or more people bent on doing me harm or taking or destroying my property I WANT someone looking out for me. I am to old to fight and too crippled to run. I appreciate someone looking out for my well being. Many people complain loud and often about traffic cameras infringing on their privacy. That is, until another vehicle hits their vehicle, possibly injuring them and flees like the selfish coward that they are. Suddenly, it’s “Where are the cameras? Who’s going to pay for my car, my medical bills?” If I am involved in an accident, I will stop, provide aid to any other drivers or passengers and wait for law enforcement to investigate the accident. If I am found to be responsible, I am adequately insured to cover what damage and injuries I may have caused. I don’t drive under the influence of drugs or alcohol. I don’t rob others. I Do Not break the law or harm others. I have nothing to fear from any surveillance cameras!
Ken says
He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn
what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two
gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right,
everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.
Ray W. says
About 15 years ago, the Supreme Court reviewed a constitutional challenge to a policy adopted by police. The government supported its argument by providing the number of convictions that had been obtained via the policy. Justice Scalia sarcastically asked government counsel just how many more convictions would be necessary to make an unconstitutional action constitutional. The government lost. Individual rights won. Necessity will always be argued by those who would undermine individual rights.
I am not arguing that the legislature lacks the power to enact laws that narrowly define police powers to utilize drones in furtherance of law enforcement; it does possess such power. I am arguing that such laws must be narrowly crafted and include remedies to address the inevitable overreaches that will occur when officers attempt to implement the new drone policies. The only reason we have an exclusionary rule that throws out illegally obtained evidence is because the police repeatedly ignored prior Supreme Court rulings that lacked the exclusionary remedy. In 1914, the Supreme Court found that illegal searches violated the Constitution, but held that the remedy should be a civil claim before a jury. When that didn’t work, in 1948, the Supreme Court created the exclusionary rule, but limited it to federal cases. Remember that the exclusionary remedy was crafted only three short years after we defeated Nazi Germany, which had trampled any ideas of individual rights. When that didn’t work, in 1964, the Supreme Court expanded the exclusionary rule to state cases. The remedy always anticipated that it would be withdrawn once law enforcement could prove that it would no longer violate the Constitution. It’s been 57 years and not one prosecutor has been able to persuade a court that police will no longer violate the Constitution. The idea that police will not violate the Constitution when implementing any new drone legislation seems farfetched in light of the historical model.
As an aside, during my 1986 interview with Mr. Boyles, the elected State Attorney, he asked me about the history of the exclusionary rule. I correctly answered his question and he immediately hired me. I suppose it was important to him that I understood that whatever powers he delegated to me would carry limitations, and my knowledge of the history of the exclusionary remedy was an important limitation to know.
Michael Cocchiola says
What they’ll likely pass is a law that specifically excludes pro-gun, pro-Trump, anti-abortion, and anti-Black Lives Matter rallies.
Remember when conservatives lost their minds over red-light cameras?
Agkistrodon says
We are watching you. DO NOT deviate from the accepted speech and words or you WILL be silenced. Gotta love the ring to those words. Better hope they don’t come back to haunt you.
Pogo says
@The Gods must be crazy
“…Sen. Dennis Baxley, an Ocala Republican who serves on the committee, praised the bill.
“This is an incredible breakthrough in being able to solve crimes, prevent problems, manage situations in a much more responsible way,” Baxley said. “True, you do need safeguards, and true it could be abused. But I would be far more concerned about drones that are in all kinds of people’s control outside of law enforcement.”…”
Great balls of fire – the NRA’s undertaker praised the bill! What’s next – a BOLO for flying pigs?!
“…But in an acknowledgment of privacy issues implicated by the bill, the committee approved an amendment proposed by Sen. Jeff Brandes, R-St. Petersburg, that would require law-enforcement agencies to set policies and procedures if they want to use drones to eye crowds of 50 or more people.
That would include having guidelines to address issues such as how images of crowds would be retained and released. Also, the amendment would require heads of law-enforcement agencies to provide written authorization for the use of drones to observe crowds.
Brandes said lawmakers need to “watch this very carefully” and expressed concern about issues such as tying the use of drones to facial-recognition technology. He also offered other potential scenarios, such as police flying a drone along a beach or using a drone when people are holding a Second Amendment rally…”
That’s more like it! Brandes, the delegate for the Cayman Islands (also, NRA tool, and friend of the average millionaire) has your back. Order in the universe is restored.