BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                      AB 56


                                                                    Page  1


          Date of Hearing:  April 14, 2015
          Counsel:               Stella Choe



                         ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY


                                  Bill Quirk, Chair





          AB  
                         56 (Quirk) - As Amended April 8, 2015




          SUMMARY:  Regulates the use of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS)  
          by public agencies.  Specifically,  this bill  :  
          1)Defines "UAS" as an unmanned aircraft and associated elements,  
            including communication links and the components that control  
            the unmanned aircraft, that are required for the pilot in  
            command to operate safely and efficiently in the national  
            airspace system.

          2)Prohibits a public agency from using an UAS, or contracting  
            for the use of an UAS, except as provided in the provisions of  
            this bill.

          3)States that a law enforcement agency may use an UAS over  
            public lands, highways and spaces open to the public without a  
            warrant.

          4)Authorizes a law enforcement agency to use an UAS under 400  
            feet above ground level over private property if it has  
            obtained consent from the property owner or a warrant based on  
            probable cause.

          5)Allows a law enforcement agency, without first obtaining a  








                                                                      AB 56


                                                                    Page  2


            warrant or consent from the property owner over private  
            property, to use an UAS in the following circumstances:

             a)   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;

             b)   To assess the necessity of first responders and process  
               scenes in situations relating to traffic accidents;
              
             c)   To document traffic collision and crime scenes;

             d)   To inspect state parks and wilderness areas for illegal  
               vegetation or fires regardless of permanent improvements or  
               temporary human habitation; and,

             e)   To determine the appropriate response to an imminent or  
               existing environmental emergency or disaster, including,  
               but not limited to, oils spills or chemical spills.

          6)Allows a public agency, other than a law enforcement agency,  
            to use an UAS, or contract for the use of an UAS, to achieve  
            the core mission of the agency provided that the purpose is  
            unrelated to the gathering of criminal intelligence.

          7)States that a public agency that is not primarily a law  
            enforcement agency, but that employs peace officers or  
            performs functions related to criminal investigations, may use  
            an UAS without obtaining a warrant to achieve the core mission  
            of the agency, provided that the purpose is unrelated to the  
            gathering of criminal intelligence, and that the images,  
            footage, or data are not used for any purpose other than that  
            for which it was collected.

          8)Defines "criminal intelligence" as information compiled,  
            analyzed, or disseminated in an effort to anticipate, prevent,  
            monitor, or investigate criminal activity.

          9)Requires reasonable notice to be provided by a public agency  








                                                                      AB 56


                                                                    Page  3


            and a law enforcement agency prior to using an UAS, or  
            contracting for the use of an UAS, as specified below:

             a)   A public agency shall provide reasonable notice to the  
               public that, at a minimum, consists of a one-time  
               announcement regarding the agency's intent to deploy UAS  
               technology and a description of the technology's  
               capabilities to the public; and

             b)   A law enforcement agency shall provide reasonable notice  
               to the public or to the governing board, or the agency may  
               create a set of guidelines that will be made available to  
               the public, that at a minimum, consists of a one-time  
               announcement regarding the agency's intent to deploy  
               unmanned aircraft system technology, a description of the  
               technology's capabilities, and what it will and will not be  
               used for.

          10)States that, except as permitted by the provisions in this  
            bill, images, footage, or data obtained by a public agency, or  
            any entity contracting with a public agency, over private  
            property and pursuant to this bill shall not be disseminated  
            to a law enforcement agency unless the law enforcement agency  
            has obtained consent from the property owner or a warrant for  
            the images, footage, or data based on probable cause, or the  
            law enforcement agency would not have been required to obtain  
            a warrant to collect the images, footage, or data itself as  
            specified.

          11)Allows a public agency that is not primarily a law  
            enforcement agency, but that employs peace officers or  
            performs functions related to criminal investigations, to  
            disseminate images, footage, or data collected by the use of  
            an UAS if the dissemination is to others within that agency.

          12)Prohibits disseminating the images, footage, or data to  
            entities outside the collecting public agency, unless one of  
            the following circumstances applies:

             a)   To another public agency if the images, footage, or data  
               are related to the core mission of both public agencies  
               involved in the sending or receiving of the images,  








                                                                      AB 56


                                                                    Page  4


               footage, or data;

             b)   To an entity outside the collecting public agency if the  
               images, footage, or data are evidence in any claim filed or  
               any pending litigation; or 

             c)   To a private entity if both of the following conditions  
               are satisfied:

               i)     The collecting public agency is not a law  
                 enforcement agency; and,

               ii)    The images, footage, or data are related to the core  
                 function of the collecting public agency.

          13) Allows a public agency to make available to the public  
            images, footage, or data obtained by the public agency through  
            the use of an UAS if both of the following conditions are  
            satisfied:

             a)   The images, footage, or data do not depict or describe  
               any individual or group of individuals, or the activities  
               of any individual or group of individuals whose identity or  
               identities can be ascertained; and, 

             b)   The disclosure of the images, footage, or data is  
               required to fulfill the public agency's statutory or  
               mandatory obligations.

          14)Prohibits, except as permitted by the provisions of this  
            bill, public agencies from using images, footage, or data  
            obtained by a public agency through the use of an UAS for any  
            purpose other than that for which it was collected.

          15)Requires images, footage, or data obtained through the use of  
            an UAS to be permanently destroyed within one year, except in  
            the following circumstances:

             a)   For training purpose, as specified.

             b)   For academic research or teaching purposes, as  
               specified. 








                                                                      AB 56


                                                                    Page  5



             c)   For purposes of monitoring material assets owned by the  
               public agency.

             d)   For environmental, public works, or land use management  
               or planning by the public agency.

             e)   The images, footage or data are evidence currently being  
               used, or anticipated to be used, in a criminal proceeding.

          16)States, notwithstanding the above provision, a public agency  
            may retain beyond one year images, footage, or data in the  
            following circumstances:

             a)   If a warrant authorized the collection of the images,  
               footage, or data.

             b)   If the images, footage, or data are evidence in any  
               claim filed or any pending litigation or enforcement  
               proceeding.

          17)Prohibits a person, entity, or public agency from equipping  
            or arming an UAS with a weapon or other device that may be  
            carried by or launched from an UAS and that may cause bodily  
            injury or death or damage to, or the destruction of, real or  
            personal property, unless authorized by federal law.

          18)Provides that all UAS 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.

          19)States that none of the provisions in this bill are intended  
            to conflict with or supersede federal law, including rules and  
            regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA); and  
            authorizes a local legislative body to adopt more restrictive  
            policies on the acquisition or use of unmanned aircraft  
            systems.

          20)Prohibits a person, entity, or public agency from equipping  








                                                                      AB 56


                                                                    Page  6


            or arming an UAS with a weapon or other device that may be  
            carried by or launched from an UAS and that may cause bodily  
            injury or death or damage to, or the destruction of, real or  
            personal property.

          21)Provides that surveillance restrictions on electronic devices  
            shall also apply to UAS.

          22)States that none of the provisions above are intended to  
            conflict with or supersede federal law, including rules and  
            regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

          23)Provides that notwithstanding any other provision, images,  
            footage or data obtained through the use of the unmanned  
            aircraft system or any related 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.

          24)Clarifies that nothing in this bill or any other law requires  
            the disclosure of images, footage, or data obtained through  
            the use of an UAS, or any related record that identify any  
            person or entity that subsequently obtains or requests records  
            of that system, to the extent that disclosure of the images,  
            footage, data, or records would endanger the safety of a  
            person involved in an investigation, or would endanger the  
            successful completion of the investigation.

          EXISTING FEDERAL LAW:  The Aviation Administration Modernization  
          and Reform Act of 2012 provides for the integration of civil  
          UAS, commonly known as drones, into the national airspace system  
          by September 30, 2015.  The Act requires the Administrator of  
          the FAA to develop and implement operational and certification  
          requirements for the operation of public UAS in the national  
          airspace by December 31, 2015. (H.R. 658 2011-12, Section 332.)

          EXISTING STATE LAW: 

          1)States that a search warrant is 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  








                                                                      AB 56


                                                                    Page  7


            case of a thing or things or personal property, bring the same  
            before the magistrate.  (Pen. Code,  1523.)

          2)Permits a search warrant to be issued for any of the following  
            grounds:

             a)   When the property subject to search was stolen or  
               embezzled;

             b)   When property or things were used as the means to commit  
               a felony;

             c)   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;

             d)   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;

             e)   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;

             f)   When there is a warrant to arrest a person;

             g)   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;

             h)   When the property or things to be seized include an item  








                                                                      AB 56


                                                                    Page  8


               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;

             i)   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;

             j)   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;

             aa)  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  
               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; 

             bb)  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;

             cc)  When a sample of the blood of a person constitutes  








                                                                      AB 56


                                                                    Page  9


               evidence that tends to show a violation of specified  
               provisions in the Vehicle Code relating to driving under  
               the influence offenses and the person from whom the sample  
               is being sought has refused an officer's request to submit  
               to, or has failed to complete, a blood test as specified;  
               and,

             dd)  Beginning January 1, 2016, the property or things to be  
               seized are firearms or ammunition or both that are owned  
               by, in the possession of, or in the custody or control of a  
               person who is the subject of a gun violence restraining  
               order, as specified.  (Pen. Code,  1524, subd. (a).)

          3)Prohibits wiretapping or eavesdropping on confidential  
            communications, which excludes communications made in public  
            or in any circumstance that the parties may reasonably expect  
            that the communication may be overheard or recorded.  (Pen.  
            Code,  632, subd. (c).)

          4)Provides that nothing in the sections prohibiting  
            eavesdropping or wiretapping prohibits specified law  
            enforcement officers or their assistants or deputies acting  
            within the scope of his or her authority, from overhearing or  
            recording any communication that they could lawfully overhear  
            or record.  (Pen. Code,  633.)

          5)California Public Records 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. (Gov. Code,  6250 et. seq.)

          6)Provides that 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 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. (Gov. Code,  6253)

          FISCAL EFFECT:  Unknown

          COMMENTS:  








                                                                      AB 56


                                                                    Page  10



          1)Author's Statement:  According to the author, "We live in a  
            culture that is extremely sensitive to the idea of preventing  
            unnecessary government intrusion into any facet of our lives.   
            Drones, as with other technologies, can be of great asset to  
            the state and improve public safety.  For example, the  
            California Military Department provided firefighters with  
            aerial surveillance while battling the massive Rim Fire in  
            2013 along the foothills of the Sierra Nevada.  This aerial  
            surveillance allowed firefighters to tract the fire in real  
            time, allowed commanders to move firefighters out of harm's  
            way and reposition firefighters as the wind shifted the fire  
            across the mountainside.  However, privacy concerns are an  
            issue that must be dealt with effectively if the public is to  
            support the use of drones by their local law enforcement  
            agencies.
            
            "In 2013, my local Sheriff attempted to purchase a drone and  
            hide it from the public.  When the public found out, the  
            frustration, concern and backlash forced my sheriff to abandon  
            his pursuit of the drone.  While he eventually did succeed in  
            purchasing a drone, this time he is working on an operations  
            manual to inform the public on the guidelines his department  
            will follow when deploying a drone.  Though still being  
            drafted, it will be made public.
            
            "AB 56 will establish a set of parameters for the use of  
            drones in public and private spaces.  It restricts the sharing  
            of data between agencies (public and law enforcement) to  
            prevent the roundabout tracking of individuals.  Additionally,  
            this bill will create accountability within the law  
            enforcement community by requiring that they provide notice to  
            their governing agency or public on what they intend to use  
            (and not to use) drones for.  This bill recognizes that drones  
            can be a beneficial tool, but at the same time they can be  
            abused without the proper oversight or guidance on their use."

          2)Fourth Amendment Considerations: Technology and Warrantless  
            Searches:  Both the United States and the California  
            constitutions guarantee the right of all persons to be secure  
            from unreasonable searches and seizures. (U.S. Const., amend.  
            IV; Cal. Const., art. 1, sec. 13.)  This protection applies to  








                                                                      AB 56


                                                                    Page  11


            all unreasonable government intrusions into legitimate  
            expectations of privacy.  (United States v. Chadwick (1977)  
            433 U.S. 1, 7, overruled on other grounds by California v.  
            Acevedo (1991) 500 U.S. 565.)  In general, a search is not  
            valid unless it is conducted pursuant to a warrant. The mere  
            reasonableness of a search, assessed in light of the  
            surrounding circumstances, is not a substitute for the warrant  
            required by the Constitution.  (Arkansas v. Sanders (1979) 442  
            U.S. 753, 758, overruled on other grounds by California v.  
            Acevedo, supra.)  There are exceptions to the warrant  
            requirement, but the burden of establishing an exception is on  
            the party seeking one.  (Arkansas v. Sanders (1979) 442 U.S.  
            753, 760, overruled on other grounds by California v. Acevedo,  
            supra.)

            Courts have been confronted with questions of how evolving  
            technology intersects with the Fourth Amendment.  In Kyllo v.  
            United States (2001) 533 U.S. 27, the U.S. Supreme Court  
            considered whether the use of a thermal imager, which detects  
            infrared radiation invisible to the naked eye, to determine  
            whether the defendant was growing marijuana in his apartment,  
            was a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment.  The Court  
            held that "[w]here, as here, the Government uses a device that  
            is not in general public use, to explore details of the home  
            that would previously have been unknowable without physical  
            intrusion, the surveillance is a 'search' and is presumptively  
            unreasonable without a warrant." (Id. at p. 40.)

            In United States v. Jones (2012) 132 S. Ct. 945, the Supreme  
            Court was presented with a Fourth Amendment challenge to the  
            use of a Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking device by  
            law enforcement officers to monitor the movements of a  
            suspected drug trafficker's vehicle over a period of 28 days.   
            The Court held that the government's installation of the GPS  
            device on the defendant's private property for the purpose of  
            conducting surveillance constituted a "search" under the  
            Fourth Amendment.  GPS technology is intrusive because it  
                                                                         "generates a precise, comprehensive, record of a person's  
            public movements that reflects a wealth of detail about her  
            familial, political, professional, religious, and sexual  
            associations. The Government can store such records and  
            efficiently mine them for information years into the future."   








                                                                      AB 56


                                                                    Page  12


            (Id. at pp. 955-956.)

            Because technology is always evolving it is important to  
            consider how new technology should be regulated in order to  
            avoid governmental abuse. The Court's decisions in prior cases  
            provide some guidance on how new technology may be evaluated  
            within the framework of the Fourth Amendment's protections  
            against unreasonable searches and seizures. As illustrated in  
            Kyllo and Jones, even in a public space, the use of advanced  
            technology to conduct surveillance without a warrant may be  
            restricted by the Fourth Amendment. 

          3)Reasonable Notice Requirement: This bill requires a public  
            agency to provide reasonable notice to the public before  
            deploying UAS technology.  The bill specifies that at minimum,  
            reasonable notice requires the agency to provide a one-time  
            announcement regarding the agency's intent to deploy UAS  
            technology and a description of the technology's capabilities  
            to the public.  A law enforcement agency must provide  
            reasonable notice to the public or to the governing board.   
            Alternatively, the law enforcement agency may create a set of  
            guidelines that will be made available to the public.  The  
            reasonable notice by a law enforcement agency must, at a  
            minimum, consist of a one-time announcement regarding the  
            agency's intent to deploy unmanned aircraft system technology,  
            a description of the technology's capabilities, and what it  
            will and will not be used for.
          
          The proposed use of UAS by law enforcement has been a divisive  
            issue for some local jurisdictions. Public outcry against the  
            unrestrained use of UAS by the government has led some  
            counties to reconsider their use.  In 2013, the sheriff of  
            Alameda County attempted to request funding for UAS by the  
            County Board of Supervisors. The sheriff pulled the item from  
            consideration after public criticism. At the end of 2014, it  
            was revealed that the Alameda County Sheriff went ahead and  
            purchased the UAS using the department's own funds.  Critics,  
            including the American Civil Liberties Union, described the  
            issue as "'a troubling example of law enforcement trying to  
            acquire invasive and extremely unpopular surveillance  
            technology in secret."' (Lee, Alameda County Sheriff Reveals  
            that He's Bought 2 Drones, S.F. Gate (Dec. 3, 2014).) 








                                                                      AB 56


                                                                    Page  13



          San Jose, after purchasing an UAS, was also met with a hostile  
            response for not informing the public of the device either  
            before or after its purchase.  San Jose police issued a  
            statement acknowledging that the department 'should have done  
            a better job of communicating the purpose and acquisition of  
            the (drone) to [the] community. The community should have the  
            opportunity to provide feedback, ask questions, and express  
            their concerns before we move forward with this project.'  
            (Lee, Alameda County Sheriff Reveals that He's Bought 2  
            Drones, S.F. Gate (Dec. 3, 2014).)

          This bill requires reasonable notice to be provided to the  
            public or the governing board, specifically requiring agencies  
            to provide information on the technological capabilities of  
            the UAS and the purpose of using the UAS.  The bill does  
            specifically require input from the public, however, providing  
            notice will provide the public a chance evaluate the proposal.  
             It may also trigger the public to reach out to members of  
            their local legislative body to express concerns over the use  
            of UAS.  The local legislative body is expressly authorized  
            under the provisions of this bill to adopt more restrictive  
            policies on the acquisition or use of unmanned aircraft  
            systems.  

          4)Weaponized UAS:  UAS devices have the capability of being  
            armed with weapons, lethal and nonlethal.  The United States  
            has used armed UAS to target militants in military operations  
            abroad.  (Christopher Drew, Drones Are Weapons of Choice in  
            Fighting Qaeda, New York Times (Mar. 17, 2009).)   
            Domestically, there has been a push by some law enforcement  
            agencies to arm UAS to fire rubber bullets and tear gas.  (See  
            Drones over US to get weaponized - so far, non-lethally,  
            RT.com (May 24, 2012).)  This bill would prohibit the  
            equipping or arming of an UAS with a weapon or other  
            launchable device that may cause injury, death, or property  
            damage.  

           5)Argument in Support:  None submitted. 

          6)Argument in Opposition:  According to the American Civil  
            Liberties Union of California, "As amended, AB 56 would grant  








                                                                      AB 56


                                                                    Page  14


            unprecedented and unconstitutional surveillance powers to the  
            state.  For example, by allowing unlimited use of a drone over  
            all public lands, highways, and spaces open to the public, law  
            enforcement would be able to track anyone, including by  
            following them around any time they are in public, which would  
            appear to include all commercial areas open to the general  
            public, without any judicial oversight or cause to suspect  
            wrongdoing.  Additionally, AB 56 would authorize warrantless  
            surveillance of activities protected by the First Amendment,  
            such as protest rallies, which has led to documented abuses by  
            law enforcement.  Law enforcement should not be authorized to  
            perform such wide-ranging surveillance without a warrant  
            supported by probable cause.

          "By creating a categorical warrant exception for any law  
            enforcement use of drones over public lands, AB 56 implies  
            there is no expectation of privacy from being surveilled by a  
            drone so long as the drone is over a public area - even for  
            people in their bedrooms.  As amended, the bill appears to  
            allow law enforcement officers to look into upper story  
            windows without a warrant being provided that the drone is  
            over a public street.  The right to privacy in personal areas  
            should not be lost simply because the drone is over public  
            land.  This kind of invasive spying authorized by AB 56 is not  
            consistent with reasonable expectations of privacy and appears  
            to be in violations of both article 1  1 of the California  
            Constitution and the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution.

          . . . 

          "We also note that the public-notice provision of Section 14351  
            is so negligible as to be irrelevant.  Drones present a  
            fundamentally new and intrusive threat to privacy that should  
            be subject to initial controls and ongoing oversight by  
            elected officials following a full assessment of the privacy  
            impacts and informed public input before money is sought for  
            their purchase of their use is authorized.  The ACLU of  
            California conducted a comprehensive assessment of  
            surveillance technology and issued a report outlining  
            essential processes and minimum standards for local adoption  
            of drones and other intrusive devices.  (Making Smart  
            Decisions About Surveillance:  A Guide for Communities.)  AB  








                                                                      AB 56


                                                                    Page  15


            56 falls far short of the minimum requirements and approvals  
            that should be in place before police are permitted to use  
            drones.  In addition, the bill omits any requirement for  
            public notice and input prior to the use of drones that are  
            borrowed from another police department or other agency."

          7)Related Legislation: SB 262 (Galgiani) would authorize a law  
            enforcement agency to use UAS if the use of the UAS complies  
            with protections against unreasonable searches guaranteed by  
            the United States Constitution and the California  
            Constitution, federal law applicable to the use of an unmanned  
            aircraft system, a law enforcement agency, state law  
            applicable to a law enforcement agency's use of surveillance  
            technology that can be attached to an UAS. SB 262 is pending  
            hearing by the Senate Committee on Public Safety.

          8)Prior Legislation:  

             a)   AB 1327 (Gorell), of the 2013 to 2014 Legislative  
               Session, would have regulated the use of UAS by public  
               agencies and the dissemination and use of any images, data  
               and footage obtained by those systems.  AB 1327 was vetoed.

             b)   SB 15 (Padilla), of the 2013-2014 Legislative Session,  
               would have required law enforcement to get a warrant for  
               drone use if it implicated a legitimate expectation of  
               privacy.  Would have limited drone use by public agencies  
               to within the scope of the agencies authority and prevented  
               public agencies from providing drone information to law  
               enforcement without a warrant.  Would have directed public  
               agencies to destroy drone information after one year except  
               as specified.  SB 15 was held in this Committee.

          REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

          Support


          None


          Opposition








                                                                      AB 56


                                                                    Page  16




          American Civil Liberties Union of California


          Analysis Prepared  
          by:              Stella Choe / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744