BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1327
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 15, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mike Gatto, Chair
AB 1327 (Gorell) - As Amended: April 29, 2013
Policy Committee: Public
SafetyVote: 4-2
Local Government 8-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill creates standards for the use of unmanned aerial
systems (UAS) - drones - by state and local agencies.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)While it is not clear whether and to what extent state
agencies are planning to utilize drones in the near future,
annual reports to the governor (and the bill should be amended
to include the Legislature) from the many agencies that could
use drones - Cal-Fire, CHP, Office of Emergency Services,
Corrections, Caltrans, Food and Agriculture, Water Resources,
Boating and Waterways, Fish and Wildlife, etc. - could
cumulatively cost in the range of $200,000.
2)Requiring every public agency that intends to use UAS to
provide notice to the public is a reimbursable state mandate
that could easily exceed $150,000, given the thousands of
local agencies, from local governments, to police departments,
to water boards, to mosquito abatement districts.
3)Unknown, likely minor state trial court costs to the extent
that new requirements regarding warrants and court orders
occupy court time. For example, 100 hours of court time would
create new costs of less than $50,000.
4)While it does not appear any local law enforcement agency is
currently using drones, (several have investigated, purchased
and proposed usage), creating prospective standards that
restrict their uses, including making acquisition subject to a
AB 1327
Page 2
vote of a city council or county board, and requiring
destruction of data, could reduce law enforcement efficiency.
The cost of such reduced efficiency is not quantifiable.
SUMMARY CONTINUED
Specifically, this bill:
1)Defines UAS as unmanned aircraft and associated elements,
including communication links and components required to
operate safely and efficiently in the national airspace
system.
2)Provides a public agency shall not use UAS except as specified
as follows:
a) A law enforcement agency may use UAS if it has a
reasonable expectation UAS will collect evidence relating
to criminal activity and it has obtained a warrant based on
probable cause.
b) A law enforcement agency, without a warrant, may use UAS
in emergency situations if there is an imminent threat to
life.
c) A law enforcement agency, without a warrant, may use UAS
to help first responders in situations relating to traffic
accidents or to inspect state parks for "illegal
vegetation."
d) A law enforcement agency may use UAS to block
communication signals if it has obtained a court order, as
specified. If a government entity determines an emergency
situation exists that involves immediate threat of death,
and there is insufficient time to obtain a court order, the
government entity may interrupt communications, provided
the interruption meets the grounds for a court order, and
provided the entity applies for a court order without
delay.
e) A public agency other than a law enforcement agency may
use UAS for geological inspections related to the mission
of the agency or for the purpose of detecting oil spills.
f) CAL-FIRE may use USA for fire-related activities.
AB 1327
Page 3
3)Specifies data may not be disseminated outside the collecting
agency or provided to a law enforcement agency unless the
agency has obtained a warrant.
4)Specifies the acquisition of UAS is subject to the approval of
the public agency's legislative body and subject to public
disclosure requirements, as specified.
5)Requires a state agency that uses UAS to annually report to
the Governor, as specified.
6)Specifies data obtained by a public agency via UAS may not be
shared outside the agency and may not be used for a purpose
other than that for which it was collected. UAS-obtained data
must be destroyed within 10 days, unless retained for training
purposes or per a warrant.
7)Prohibits arming UAS.
8)Specifies that this bill is not intended to conflict with or
supersede federal law, including rules and regulations of the
Federal Aviation Administration, and that nothing in this bill
prohibits a local agency from adopting more restrictive
policies on UAS.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . The author asserts that the UAS market and
utilization of drones is about to take off and that scores of
issues surrounding the use of UAS need to be addressed.
According to the author, "While the potential benefits of UAVs
in our communities and state can be tremendous, there are
privacy concerns that must be acknowledged and addressed. AB
1327 establishes boundaries and restrictions that protect the
privacy rights of Californians. When used responsibly, UAVs
can benefit a number of industries, some of which already use
various forms of UAVs. This legislation allows governmental
entities to use drones in non-intrusive ways, including
agricultural purposes, traffic accident investigation,
detection of oil spills, fire prevention, and search and
rescue operations. Due to the uncharted territory that will be
created by the significant increase of UAVs in the
intermediate future, this bill provides protections of the
freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution (4th amendment) and
AB 1327
Page 4
anticipates the potential privacy vulnerabilities that can
surface due to the continual advancement of UAV technology."
2)Some 85 drone bills introduced in 39 states this year,
according to a May 7 report in Politico. "Legislators who fear
the "surveillance state" are seeking to limit the use of the
unmanned, unarmed aircraft in the name of privacy rights,
clashing with police and industry organizations that argue the
efforts unfairly stigmatize a still-developing, widely
misunderstood and potentially useful technology that has an
unfortunate link to the killing of terrorists in faraway
deserts."
3)Opposition . According to the California State Sheriffs'
Association, "While we understand the privacy concerns that
may arise from the misuse of unmanned aircraft, we believe
that it is inappropriate to impose requirements beyond what is
necessary under the Fourth Amendment of the United States
Constitution to protect against unreasonable searches.
"In addition, AB 1327 would also require law enforcement to
destroy information within 10 days of it being obtained by an
UAS. Unfortunately, criminal investigations do not neatly
fall into timelines. We recognize the desire to protect and
keep this data private, but the requirement to purge the data
after 10 days will severely hamper investigations for law
enforcement.
"Finally, this measure seeks to require local legislative
approval for law enforcement to purchase or to enter a
contract for an UAS. There is no reason why the purchase of
such equipment should differ from any other purchase and
approval process by individual counties and law enforcement
agencies."
The American Civil Liberties Union has withdrawn its
opposition per the latest amendments.
4)Related Legislation .
a) AB 737 (Fox) requires the Governor's Office of Business
and Economic Development to prepare and submit a proposal
for an unmanned aircraft test site to the FAA on or before
May 6, 2013. AB 737 is pending policy hearing in the
Senate.
AB 1327
Page 5
b) AB 1326 (Gorell) establishes a sales tax exemption for
tangible personal property used in UAS manufacturing, and
allows UAS manufacturers an income tax credit. AB 1326 is
pending in the Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee;
c) SB 15 (Padilla) states a constructive invasion of
privacy may occur through the use of a device contained
within UAS; amends criminal prohibitions relating to
eavesdropping and privacy to include the use of devices
affixed to or contained within UAS; prohibits UAS from
being equipped with a weapon; requires a search warrant, as
specified. SB 15 is pending in Senate Appropriations.
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916)
319-2081