BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair A
2013-2014 Regular Session B
1
3
2
AB 1327 (Gorell) 7
As Amended: May 5, 2014
Hearing date: May 13, 2014
Government Code; Penal Code
MK:sl
UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation: SB 15 (Padilla) (currently in Assembly Public
Safety)
Support: Laborers' International Union of North America Local
535
Opposition:California State Sheriffs' Association; California
Police Chiefs Association; Los Angeles District
Attorneys Association
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 63 - Noes 6
KEY ISSUES
SHOULD THE LAW GENERALLY PROHIBIT THE USE OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT
SYSTEMS BY PUBLIC AGENCIES?
SHOULD LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES BE PERMITTED TO USE AN UNMANNED
AIRCRAFT SYSTEM WHEN A WARRANT IS OBTAINED, WHEN THERE IS AN EXIGENT
(More)
AB 1327 Gorell
Page 2
CIRCUMSTANCE OR WHEN HELPING FIRST RESPONDERS?
SHOULD A PUBLIC AGENCY BE PERMITTED TO USE AN UNMANNED AIRCRAFT
SYSTEM TO ASSIST THE NON-LAW ENFORCEMENT MISSION OF THE AGENCY?
SHOULD THE IMAGES, DATA AND FOOTAGE OBTAINED BY A PUBLIC AGENCY
THROUGH THE USE OF AN UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM BE DESTROYED WITHIN
ONE YEAR UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED?
SHOULD THE IMAGES, DATA AND FOOTAGE OBTAINED BY A PUBLIC AGENCY
THROUGH THE USE OF A DRONE BE PUBLIC UNLESS IT WAS OBTAINED THROUGH
A WARRANT OR IS PART OF A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to regulate the use of unmanned
aircraft systems by public agencies and the dissemination and
use of any images, data and footage obtained by those systems.
Existing federal law , the Aviation Administration Modernization
and Reform Act of 2012 requires the Secretary of Transportation
to develop a comprehensive plan to safely accelerate the
integration of civil unmanned aircraft systems into the national
airspace system. The plan is required to provide for safe
integration of civil unmanned aircraft systems into national
airspace as soon as practicable, not later than September 30,
2015. (112 P.L. 95, 332)
Existing law authorizes the Attorney General, chief deputy
attorney general, chief assistant attorney general, district
attorney or the district attorney's designee to apply to the
presiding judge of the superior court for an order authorizing
the interception of wire or electronic communications under
specified circumstances. (Penal Code §§ 629.50 et. seq.)
Existing law prohibits wiretapping or eavesdropping on
confidential communications. (Penal Code § 630)
(More)
AB 1327 Gorell
Page 3
Existing law makes it a crime for a person, intentionally, and
without requisite consent, to eavesdrop on a confidential
communication by means of any electronic amplifying or recording
device. (Penal Code § 632.)
The US Constitution provides that "the right of the people to be
secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and
no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by
Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
searched and the persons or things to be seized." (4th Amendment
of the U.S. Constitution.)
The California Constitution provides that "the right of the
people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects
against unreasonable seizures and searches may not be violated;
and a warrant may not issue except on probable cause, supported
by oath or affirmation, particularly describing the place to be
searched and the persons and things to be seized." (Article I,
Section 13 of the California Constitution.)
Existing law defines a "search warrant" as an order in writing
in the name of the People, signed by a magistrate, directed to a
peace officer, commanding him or her to search for a person or
persons, a thing or things, or personal property, and in the
case of a thing or things or personal property, bring the same
before the magistrate. (Penal Code § 1523.)
Existing law permits a search warrant to be issued for any of
the following grounds:
When the property subject to search was stolen or
embezzled;
When property or things were used as the means to commit
a felony;
When the property or things are in the possession of any
person with the intent to use them as a means of committing
a public offense, or in the possession of another to whom
he or she may have delivered them for the purpose of
concealing them or preventing them from being discovered;
(More)
AB 1327 Gorell
Page 4
When the property or things to be seized consist of any
item or constitute any evidence that tends to show a felony
has been committed, or tends to show that a particular
person has committed a felony;
When the property or things to be seized consist of
evidence that tends to show that sexual exploitation of a
child or possession of matter depicting sexual conduct of a
person under the age of 18 years has occurred or is
occurring;
When there is a warrant to arrest a person;
When a provider of electronic communication service or
remote computing service has records or evidence, as
specified, showing that property was stolen or embezzled
constituting a misdemeanor, or that property or things are
in the possession of any person with the intent to use them
as a means of committing a misdemeanor public offense, or
in the possession of another to whom he or she may have
delivered them for the purpose of concealing them or
preventing their discovery;
When the property or things to be seized include an item
or any evidence that tends to show a violation of a
specified section of the Labor Code, or tends to show that
a particular person has violated that section;
When the property or things to be seized include a
firearm or any other deadly weapon at the scene of, or at
the premises occupied or under the control of the person
arrested in connection with, a domestic violence incident
involving a threat to human life or a physical assault, as
specified;
When the property or things to be seized include a
firearm or any other deadly weapon that is owned by, or in
the possession of, or in the custody or control of,
specified persons;
When the property or things to be seized include a
firearm that is owned by, or in the possession of, or in
the custody or control of, a person who is subject to the
prohibitions regarding firearms, as specified, if a
(More)
AB 1327 Gorell
Page 5
prohibited firearm is possessed, owned, in the custody of,
or controlled by a person against whom a specified
protective order has been issued, the person has been
lawfully served with that order, and the person has failed
to relinquish the firearm as required by law; and,
When the information to be received from the use of a
tracking device constitutes evidence that tends to show
that either a felony, a misdemeanor violation of the Fish
and Game Code, or a misdemeanor violation of the Public
Resources Code has been committed or is being committed,
tends to show that a particular person has committed a
felony, a misdemeanor violation of the Fish and Game Code,
or a misdemeanor violation of the Public Resources Code, or
is committing a felony, a misdemeanor violation of the Fish
and Game Code, or a misdemeanor violation of the Public
Resources Code, or will assist in locating an individual
who has committed or is committing a felony, a misdemeanor
violation of the Fish and Game Code, or a misdemeanor
violation of the Public Resources Code. (Penal Code
§1524(a).)
Existing law , in the California Public Rights Act, generally
provides that access to information concerning the conduct of
the people's business is a fundamental and necessary right of
every person in this state. (Government Code § 6250 et. seq.)
This bill provides that a public agency shall not use an
unmanned aircraft system, or contract for the use of an unmanned
aircraft system, except as provided.
This bill provides that it also applies to all public and
private entities when contracting with a public agency for the
use of an unmanned aircraft system.
This bill provides that a law enforcement agency may use an
unmanned aircraft system if it has obtained a warrant based on
probable cause.
This bill provides that without a warrant a law enforcement
(More)
AB 1327 Gorell
Page 6
agency may use an unmanned aircraft system in emergency
situations if there is an imminent threat of life or great
bodily harm, including, but not limited to, fires, hostage
crises, "hot pursuit" situations if reasonably necessary to
prevent harm to law enforcement officers or others, and search
and rescue operations.
This bill provides that without a warrant a law enforcement
agency may use an unmanned aircraft system to assess the
necessity of first responders in situations relating to traffic
accidents, to inspect state parks and wilderness areas for
illegal vegetation or fires.
This bill provides that a public agency other than a law
enforcement agency may use an unmanned aircraft system or
contract for the use of an unmanned aircraft system, to achieve
the core mission of the agency provided that the purpose is
unrelated to the gathering of criminal intelligence.
This bill provides that data collected pursuant to this
subdivision shall not be disseminated to a law enforcement
agency unless the agency has obtained a warrant for the data
based on probable cause pursuant to this code.
This bill provides a public agency that uses an unmanned
aircraft system or contracts for the use of an unmanned aircraft
system shall first provide reasonable notice to the public.
Reasonable notice shall, at minimum consist of a one-time
announcement regarding the agency's intent to deploy unmanned
aircraft system technology and a description of the technology's
capabilities.
This bill provides that images, footage, or data obtained by a
public agency, or any entity contracting with a public agency,
through the use of an unmanned aircraft system shall not be
disseminated outside the collecting public agency and shall not
be used by the public agency for any purpose other than that for
which it was collected.
(More)
AB 1327 Gorell
Page 7
This bill provides that Images, footage, or data obtained
through the use of an unmanned aircraft system shall be
permanently destroyed within one year except that a public
agency may retain the images, footage or data for the purposes
of training, academic research, teaching and monitoring material
assets owned by the public agency.
This bill provides that the public agency shall retain any
image, footage, or data if a warrant authorized its collection
or if the images, footage or data are evidence in any claim
filed or any pending litigation.
This bill provides that images, footage or data retained for
training purposes shall be used only for the education and
instruction of an agency's employees in matters related to the
mission of the agency and for no other purpose.
This bill provides that images, footage or data retained for
academic research or teaching purposes shall be used only for
the advancement of research and teaching conducted by
California's public colleges and universities and matters
related to the mission of the institution and for no other
purpose.
This bill prohibits arming an unmanned aircraft system with a
weapon or other device that may be carried or launched from an
unmanned aircraft system and that is intended to cause bodily
injury or death, or damage to, or the destruction of, real or
personal property.
This bill provides that all unmanned aircraft systems shall be
operated so as to minimize the collection of images, footage or
data of persons, places or things not specified with
particularity in the warrant authorizing the use of an unmanned
aircraft system or, if no warrant was obtained, for purposes
unrelated to the justification for the operation.
This bill specifically states it intended to conflict with or
supersede federal law.
(More)
AB 1327 Gorell
Page 8
This bill provides that a local legislative body may adopt more
restrictive policies on the acquisition or use of unmanned
aircraft systems.
This bill provides that restrictions on electronic devices shall
apply to unmanned aircraft systems.
Existing law provides public records are open to inspection at
all times during the office hours of the state or local agency
and every person has a right to inspect any public record,
except as hereafter provided. Any reasonably segregable portion
of a record shall be available for inspection by any person
requesting the record after deletion of the portions that are
exempted by law. (Government Code § 6253)
This bill provides that notwithstanding any other provision,
images, footage or data obtained through the use of the unmanned
aircraft system or any record, including but not limited to,
usage logs or logs that identify any person or entity that
subsequently obtains or requests records of that system, are
public records subject to disclosure.
This bill provides that notwithstanding the above, records
obtained through the use of drones are not public records
subject to disclosure if the law enforcement used a warrant or
if the images, footage, data or records pertain to a pending
criminal investigation.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation
relating to conditions of confinement. On May 23, 2011, the
United States Supreme Court ordered California to reduce its
prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity within two
years from the date of its ruling, subject to the right of the
state to seek modifications in appropriate circumstances.
(More)
AB 1327 Gorell
Page 9
Beginning in early 2007, Senate leadership initiated a policy to
hold legislative proposals which could further aggravate the
prison overcrowding crisis through new or expanded felony
prosecutions. Under the resulting policy, known as "ROCA"
(which stands for "Receivership/ Overcrowding Crisis
Aggravation"), the Committee held measures that created a new
felony, expanded the scope or penalty of an existing felony, or
otherwise increased the application of a felony in a manner
which could exacerbate the prison overcrowding crisis. Under
these principles, ROCA was applied as a content-neutral,
provisional measure necessary to ensure that the Legislature did
not erode progress towards reducing prison overcrowding by
passing legislation, which would increase the prison population.
In January of 2013, just over a year after the enactment of the
historic Public Safety Realignment Act of 2011, the State of
California filed court documents seeking to vacate or modify the
federal court order requiring the state to reduce its prison
population to 137.5 percent of design capacity. The State
submitted that the, ". . . population in the State's 33 prisons
has been reduced by over 24,000 inmates since October 2011 when
public safety realignment went into effect, by more than 36,000
inmates compared to the 2008 population . . . , and by nearly
42,000 inmates since 2006 . . . ." Plaintiffs opposed the
state's motion, arguing that, "California prisons, which
currently average 150% of capacity, and reach as high as 185% of
capacity at one prison, continue to deliver health care that is
constitutionally deficient." In an order dated January 29,
2013, the federal court granted the state a six-month extension
to achieve the 137.5 % inmate population cap by December 31,
2013.
The Three-Judge Court then ordered, on April 11, 2013, the state
of California to "immediately take all steps necessary to comply
with this Court's . . . Order . . . requiring defendants to
reduce overall prison population to 137.5% design capacity by
December 31, 2013." On September 16, 2013, the State asked the
Court to extend that deadline to December 31, 2016. In
(More)
AB 1327 Gorell
Page 10
response, the Court extended the deadline first to January 27,
2014 and then February 24, 2014, and ordered the parties to
enter into a meet-and-confer process to "explore how defendants
can comply with this Court's June 20, 2013 Order, including
means and dates by which such compliance can be expedited or
accomplished and how this Court can ensure a durable solution to
the prison crowding problem."
The parties were not able to reach an agreement during the
meet-and-confer process. As a result, the Court ordered
briefing on the State's requested extension and, on February 10,
2014, issued an order extending the deadline to reduce the
in-state adult institution population to 137.5% design capacity
to February 28, 2016. The order requires the state to meet the
following interim and final population reduction benchmarks:
143% of design bed capacity by June 30, 2014;
141.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2015; and,
137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2016.
If a benchmark is missed the Compliance Officer (a position
created by the February 10, 2016 order) can order the release of
inmates to bring the State into compliance with that benchmark.
In a status report to the Court dated February 18, 2014, the
state reported that as of February 12, 2014, California's 33
prisons were at 144.3 percent capacity, with 117,686 inmates.
8,768 inmates were housed in out-of-state facilities.
The ongoing prison overcrowding litigation indicates that prison
capacity and related issues concerning conditions of confinement
remain unresolved. While real gains in reducing the prison
population have been made, even greater reductions may be
required to meet the orders of the federal court. Therefore,
the Committee's consideration of ROCA bills -bills that may
impact the prison population - will be informed by the following
questions:
(More)
AB 1327 Gorell
Page 11
Whether a measure erodes realignment and impacts the
prison population;
Whether a measure addresses a crime which is directly
dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there
is no other reasonably appropriate sanction;
Whether a bill corrects a constitutional infirmity or
legislative drafting error;
Whether a measure proposes penalties which are
proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other
reasonably appropriate remedy; and,
Whether a bill addresses a major area of public safety
or criminal activity for which there is no other
reasonable, appropriate remedy.
COMMENTS
1. Need for the Bill
According to the author:
The FAA is mandated to integrate unmanned aerial
systems into the national airspace by 2015 (FAA
Modernization and Reform Act of 2012). The number of
potential civil and commercial uses for unmanned aerial
vehicles in society is vast and will certainly prove to
be beneficial tools. But these tools can also be
susceptible to abuse without appropriate oversight and
rules. The Federal Aviation Administration predicts
that 30,000 drones will fill the nation's skies in less
than 20 years.
There is a potential for misuse without clear policies
that protect the privacy rights of individuals. There
are currently no California laws governing drone usage,
and without action from the Legislature, there will be
no restrictions on how law enforcement and local and
state agencies can and will use drones in California.
AB 1327 provides appropriate oversight and rules to
address the public's concerns in anticipation of this
(More)
AB 1327 Gorell
Page 12
technology being integrated into Californians' lives
after the FAA authorizes drones for use in 2015.
The provisions of AB 1327 are the product of over a
year of discussions with privacy advocates legal
scholars, professors, law enforcement, and a wide range
of public agencies and industry representatives. The
Assembly Public Safety also held an informational
hearing in 2013 around privacy issues related to
unmanned aerial systems (UAS). In addition, the author
hosted a three-day UAS symposium to discuss and
consider input from subject matter experts.
2. Unmanned Aircraft Systems
This bill would use the term "unmanned aircraft systems," as
defined, to reference what are commonly known as drones. That
term, also used by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),
would be defined to include the unmanned aircraft itself (the
drone) and the associated elements (which include the components
that control the aircraft). Regarding the types of aircraft
that may be considered unmanned aircraft systems, the FAA's fact
sheet notes:
Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) come in a variety of
shapes and sizes and serve diverse purposes. They may
have a wingspan as large as a Boeing 737 or smaller than
a radio-controlled model airplane. Regardless of size,
the responsibility to fly safely applies equally to
manned and unmanned aircraft operations.
Because they are inherently different from manned
aircraft, introducing UAS into the nation's airspace is
challenging for both the FAA and aviation community. UAS
must be integrated into a National Airspace System (NAS)
that is evolving from ground-based navigation aids to a
GPS-based system in NextGen. Safe integration of UAS
(More)
AB 1327 Gorell
Page 13
involves gaining a better understanding of operational
issues, such as training requirements, operational
specifications and technology considerations.
Although not always thought of when the word "drone" is used,
hobby-size airplanes and helicopters that are equipped with
digital cameras are becoming more and more affordable for the
average consumer. Those hobby aircraft may be used for pure
novelty, surveying one's yard, or even checking to see the
condition of a roof. With respect to the treatment of model
aircraft as an unmanned aircraft system, the FAA has issued the
following clarification:
The current FAA policy for UAS operations is that no
person may operate a UAS in the National Airspace System
without specific authority. For UAS operating as public
aircraft the authority is the [Certificate of Waiver or
Authorization], for UAS operating as civil aircraft the
authority is special airworthiness certificates, and for
model aircraft the authority is AC 91-57 [(the model
aircraft operating standards)].
The FAA recognizes that people and companies other than
modelers might be flying UAS with the mistaken
understanding that they are legally operating under the
authority of AC 91-57. AC 91-57 only applies to
modelers, and thus specifically excludes its use by
persons or companies for business purposes.
3. Limitations on Use of Drones by Public Agency
This bill generally prohibits the use of an unmanned aircraft
(drone) by a public agency or a private agency contracting with
a public agency except under specified circumstances.
4. Law Enforcement Use of a Drone
(More)
AB 1327 Gorell
Page 14
a. With a warrant:
As the technology for "drones" advances, law enforcement
has and will continue to seek ways technology can assist
them. The issue that arises when law enforcement and other
governmental agencies use drones is how and when they
should be used and when a warrant should be necessary for
their use. By stating that law enforcement agency may use
a drone if it has obtained a warrant based on probable
cause this bill clearly states that a warrant is necessary
for use of a drone.
b. In exigent circumstances:
The bill would also allow law enforcement to use a drone in
emergency situations if there is an imminent threat to life
or of great bodily harm, including but not limited to
fires, hostage crises, "hot pursuit" situations if
reasonably necessary to prevent harm to law enforcement
officers or others, and search and rescue operations on
land or water. These are consistent with exceptions to
warrant requirements under 4th Amendment jurisprudence.
c. Assisting first responders:
This bill also would allow law enforcement to use a drone
without a warrant to assess the necessity of first
responders in situations relating to traffic accidents, to
inspect state parks and wilderness areas for illegal
vegetation and to look for fires.
5. Public Agency Use of Drones
This bill would allow a public agency, other than a law
enforcement agency, to use a drone or contract for the use of a
drone to achieve the core mission of the agency provided that
the purpose is unrelated to the gathering of criminal
intelligence. So under this exception the Department of
Transportation could send a drone to inspect a bridge or the
(More)
AB 1327 Gorell
Page 15
Resources Agency could send a drone to check levees or other
similar things within a public entities scope.
If a warrant is not required to use a drone, a public agency may
not share the information with a law enforcement agency unless
that law enforcement agency has obtained a warrant for the data
or a warrant would not have been needed if the law enforcement
agency had collected the data.
The bill requires that if a public agency uses a drone or
contracts for the use of the drone they must provide notice to
the public that shall at a minimum, consist of a one-time
announcement regarding the agency's intent to use a drone and
what the drone is capable of.
6. Retention of Images, Footage or Data
This bill requires that images, footage or data obtained by a
public agency through the use of a drone shall not be
disseminated outside the public agency and shall not be used for
any purpose other than that for which it was collected. The
bill further requires that the images, footage or data obtained
through use of a drone be destroyed within one year with a
couple of exceptions. The public agency may retain them for
purposes of training, academic research, teaching and monitoring
of material assets owned by the public agency. The images,
footage or data shall also be retained if its collection was
authorized by a warrant or if they are evidence in a claim or
pending litigation.
Is one year an appropriate length of time to keep the images
etcetera. before they are permanently destroyed? Is there a
reason the images should be kept longer or for a shorter period
of time?
The academic research or teaching purposes is limited to
California public college and universities. Is there a reason
(More)
AB 1327 Gorell
Page 16
private universities in California should not be able to use
information collected by a public agency for research purposes?
7. Prohibition on Arming a Drone
This bill provides that, unless authorized by a federal agency,
a drone used by a public agency or its contractor shall not be
armed with a weapon or other device that may be carried by or
launched by the drone that is capable of injury, death or
destruction to people or property.
8. Public Records Act
This bill provides that images, footage or data obtained through
the use of a drone by a public agency and any record on the use
of the drone are subject to public disclosure except in the
following instances:
If the unmanned aircraft was used pursuant to a warrant;
or,
If the images, footage, data or records pertain to a
pending criminal investigation.
9. Opposition
The Los Angeles District Attorney opposes this bill stating:
AB 1237 is an inappropriate attempt to impose search
and seizure requirements on California law enforcement
agencies beyond what is required by the 4th Amendment
of the United States Constitution. Under the
California Constitution's "Truth-In-Evidence" clause,
suppression of evidence on 4th (or 5th, 6th, or 14th)
Amendment grounds is permissible "only if exclusion is
mandated by the federal constitution?[as] articulated
by the United States Supreme Court" (People v. Robinson
(2010) 47 Cal.4th 1104, 1119.) or by a statute enacted
by a two-thirds vote of both houses of the Legislature.
(AB 1327 is a majority vote bill)
(More)
AB 1327 Gorell
Page 17
Under California law, surveillance constitutes a
"search" if the suspect reasonably believed that the
incriminating evidence would not have been observed.
Conversely, surveillance does not constitute a search
if the suspect knew, or should have known, that both of
the following circumstances existed:
(1)Plausible vantage point: There was a vantage
point from which officers could have seen the evidence
without violating the suspect's Fourth Amendment
rights.
(2) Reasonable effort: The effort that was
necessary to make the observation was not beyond that
which would have been expended by a moderately
inquisitive person utilizing generally available
resources.
Because public property is the quintessential
"plausible vantage point," an observation of evidence
that could have been seen from a public place is not a
search. This is true of electronic aerial visual
surveillance technology as well. A search warrant for
the use of electronic aerial visual surveillance is not
required if an aircraft or UAS is flown in accordance
with FAA regulations and the aircraft or UAS is not
flown in a physically intrusive manner. The test as to
whether or not a warrant is required is if officers
utilized technology that merely permitted them to see
things they could have seen from a plausible vantage
point, although less clearly and with somewhat more
effort. Nor if a warrant is required merely because a
surveillance device was "sophisticated" or
technologically complex.
(More)
AB 1327 Gorell
Page 18
The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held
that the type of electronic aerial visual surveillance
technology available on a law enforcement aircraft or
UAS does not constitute search or require a search
warrant in most circumstances. In Dow Chemical Co. v.
US (1986) 476 US 227, 238 the USSC held, "The mere fact
that human vision is enhanced somewhat, at least to the
degree here [a "precision aerial mapping camera"], does
not give rise to constitutional problems." and in US
v. Knotts (1983) 460 US 276, 282 the USSC held,
"Nothing in the Fourth Amendment prohibited the police
from augmenting the sensory faculties bestowed upon
them at birth with such enhancement as science and
technology afforded them in this case."
(More)
In US v. Ishmael (5C 1995) 48 F3 850, 855 the federal
courts held, "While technology certainly gives law
enforcement a leg up on crime, the Supreme Court has
never equated police efficiency with
unconstitutionality.", and in US v. Scott (1C 1992) 975
F2 927, 930 the courts held, "There is no
constitutional requirement that police techniques in
the detection of crime must remain stagnant while those
intent on keeping their nefarious activities secret
have the benefit of new knowledge." In California v.
Ciraolo (1986) 476 US 207, 215, the USSC held, "The
Fourth Amendment simply does not require the police
traveling in the public airways to obtain a warrant in
order to observe what is visible to the naked eye."
Nor may a defendant assert a reasonable expectation of
privacy from a lawful aerial observation. (People v.
Venghiattis (1986) 185 CA3 326, 331)
Our office does believe that a search warrant would be
required if the surveillance would reveal activity
inside a home or other private structure. However,
because the type of surveillance AB 1327 does not meet
the definition of a search under California law, our
office strongly believes that it is inappropriate to
require a search warrant for this type of activity.
10. SB 15 (Padilla)
Last year this Committee passed SB 15 (Padilla) which also deals
with drones. SB 15 requires a warrant for the use of a drone in
circumstances when a warrant would otherwise be required for
entry or search of a property without a drone. SB 15 also
addresses private use of drones by making it a crime for an
individual to use a drone to spy or peep on another and also
provides for civil liability. SB 15 (Padilla) failed Assembly
Public Safety but was granted reconsideration.
***************
(More)
AB 1327 Gorell
Page 20