BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                      AB 56


                                                                    Page  1





          Date of Hearing:  April 30, 2015


                ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PRIVACY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION


                                  Mike Gatto, Chair


          AB 56  
           (Quirk) - As Amended April 22, 2015


          SUBJECT:  Unmanned aircraft systems


          SUMMARY:  Regulates the use of an unmanned aircraft system (UAS)  
          by state and local law enforcement and other public agencies,  
          including a requirement that a law enforcement agency obtain  
          approval from the legislative body governing the agency and a  
          restriction on the use of UAS over private property, unless a  
          search warrant or consent is present.  Specifically, this bill:   
           


          1)Requires a law enforcement agency that plans to use a UAS over  
            public lands, highways and spaces open to the public to comply  
            with all of the following:

             a)   Protections against unreasonable searches guaranteed by  
               the United States Constitution and the California  
               Constitution;

             b)   Federal law applicable to the use of a UAS, including  
               Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations;

             c)   State law applicable to any agency's use of surveillance  
               technology that can be attached to a UAS;









                                                                      AB 56


                                                                    Page  2





             d)   The law enforcement agency shall obtain prior approval  
               from the legislative body having management and control of  
               the agency;

             e)   If the use of a UAS may involve the systematic  
               collection of images from an adjacent county or city, then  
               the law enforcement agency shall obtain approval from the  
               local legislative body of that city or county; and,

             f)   The law enforcement agency must develop and share with  
               the public its UAS policy and train agency officers and  
               employees on the policy, prior to the use of the UAS. 

          2)Requires a local legislative body that considers approving law  
            enforcement agency use of UASs to provide an opportunity for  
            public comment at a regularly scheduled public meeting prior  
            to granting approval and requires the approval to specify the  
            circumstances under which the UAS may be used and the time  
            limits applicable to each type of use. 

          3)Requires a law enforcement agency that plans to use UAS to  
            surveil private property to get either a search warrant or the  
            consent of the person or entity with the legal authority to  
            grant access to the specific privacy property to be subjected  
            to surveillance. 

          4)Makes an exception to the above requirements in emergencies  
            and other circumstances as follows:

             a)   If there is an imminent threat to life or of great  
               bodily harm, such as fires, hostage crises, "hot pursuit,"  
               and search and rescue operations;

             b)   To assess or document traffic accidents and crime  
               scenes;

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








                                                                      AB 56


                                                                    Page  3






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

          5)Requires a non-law enforcement public agency ("public agency")  
            that plans to use UAS to comply with all of the following:

             a)   The agency may only use UAS to achieve the core mission  
               of the agency, not for gathering of criminal intelligence,  
               and the images, footage, and data are not used for any  
               other purpose; and,

             b)   The agency must make a one-time public announcement of  
               the agency's intent to deploy UAS and include a description  
               of the UAS's capabilities.

          6)Permits a public agency to share images, footage, or data  
            gathered with UAS as follows:

             a)   Within the public agency that collected the images,  
               footage or data; 

             b)   With another public agency if the information is related  
               to the core mission of both agencies;. or,

             c)   With a law enforcement agency if the law enforcement  
               agency has:

               i)     A search warrant, if one would have been required if  
                 the law enforcement agency were gathering the images  
                 directly; or,

               ii)    If the data is of private property, consent of the  
                 person or entity with legal authority to grant access to  
                 the property or a search warrant for the images, footage,  
                 or data.

             d)   With an outside entity if the images, footage, or data  








                                                                      AB 56


                                                                    Page  4





               are evidence in pending litigation; 

             e)   With the public if:

               i)     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 could be ascertained; and, 

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

          7)Requires destruction of images, footage, or data gathered via  
            UAS to be permanently destroyed within one year, with  
            exceptions for the following:

             a)   Training, academic research and teaching purposes;

             b)   Monitoring material assets owned by the public agency;

             c)   Environmental, public works, or land use management or  
               planning;

             d)   In cases where a search warrant authorized the  
               collection of the images, footage, or data; and,

             e)   In cases where the images, footage, or data are evidence  
               in pending litigation, an internal disciplinary proceeding,  
               or an enforcement proceeding.

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

          9)Requires a UAS to be operated to minimize the collection of  
            images, footage, or data of persons, places, or things not  








                                                                      AB 56


                                                                    Page  5





            specified with particularity in the warrant authorizing the  
            use of a UAS, or, if no warrant was obtained, for purposes  
            unrelated to the justification for the operation.

          10)States that none of the provisions in this bill are intended  
            to conflict with or supersede federal law, including rules and  
            regulations of the FAA.

          11)Authorizes a local legislative body to adopt more restrictive  
            policies on the acquisition or use of UAS.

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

          13)Defines "law enforcement agency" to include the Attorney  
            General, district attorneys, and any agency authorized by  
            statute to investigate or prosecute law violators.

          14)Defines "public agency" to include state and local agencies,  
            and distinguishes them from law enforcement agencies. =

          15)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.

          EXISTING  
          LAW:  


          1)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."  (U.S.  
            Const. amend. IV,)   








                                                                      AB 56


                                                                    Page  6







          2)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." (CA Const. art. I,  
            Section 13.)
             
           3)Requires, under the Federal Aviation Administration  
            Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, the FAA to integrate UAS  
            into the national airspace system by September 30, 2015, and  
            to develop and implement certification requirements for the  
            operation of UAS in the national airspace system by December  
            31, 2015.  (Public Law Number 112-095)  


           4)Makes it a crime for a person to look through a hole or  
            opening or otherwise view, by means of any instrumentality,  
            the interior of bedrooms, bathrooms, and various other areas  
            in which an occupant has a reasonable expectation of privacy,  
            with the intent to invade the privacy of one or more persons  
            inside.  (PC 647(j)(1).)

          5)Requires law enforcement, in certain instances, to obtain a  
            warrant to search a person or a person's property and 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  
            case of a thing or things or personal property, bring the same  
            before the magistrate.  (PC Section 1523)

          6)Defines physical invasion of privacy in terms of trespassing  
            in order to capture an image, sound recording or other  
            impression in certain circumstances.  It also defines  
            constructive invasion of privacy as attempting to capture such  
            an impression under circumstances in which the plaintiff had a  








                                                                      AB 56


                                                                    Page  7





            reasonable expectation of privacy.  (California Civil Code  
            Section 1708.8)  


           FISCAL EFFECT:  Unknown


          COMMENTS:  


           1)Purpose of this bill  .  This bill is intended to establish a  
            comprehensive set of parameters for the use of UAS, commonly  
            known as "drones," by law enforcement and public agencies over  
            public and private spaces in California.  This measure is  
            author-sponsored. 

           2)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 a 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 track 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  








                                                                      AB 56


                                                                    Page  8





            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."





           3)What is a UAS  ? The FAA defines a UAS as an unmanned aircraft  
            and all of the associated support equipment, control station,  
            data links, telemetry, communications and navigation equipment  
            necessary to operate the unmanned aircraft.  A UAS is flown  
            either by a pilot via a ground control system or autonomously  
            through use of an on-board computer, communication link and  
            any additional equipment used to operate the UAS. 

           4)FAA regulation of UAS  .  Current FAA rules prohibit UAS use in  
            FAA airspace but allow commercial users to apply for an  
            exemption from the FAA rules along with an FAA Certificate of  
            Authorization (COA) permitting commercial uses, such as real  
            estate marketing, wedding photography, television, film,  
            mapping, and land surveys.  Federal, state and local  
            government agencies, law enforcement, and public colleges and  
            universities can also receive a COA from the FAA authorizing  
            specific uses of UAS for specific time periods.   



          On February 15, 2015, the FAA published proposed a new framework  
            of regulations for the use of UAS in national airspace, i.e.,  








                                                                      AB 56


                                                                    Page  9





            above 400 feet, which would allow the routine use of certain  
            small UAS (under 55 pounds).  The proposed rules would limit  
            flights to non-recreational, daylight, visual-line-of-sight  
            operations.  The rules also address height restrictions,  
            operator certification, aircraft registration and marking, and  
            operational limits. The proposed rules discuss the possibility  
            of a more flexible regulatory framework for "micro" UAS (under  
            4.4 pounds).  This bill deals with regulation of UAS below FAA  
            airspace, i.e., below 400 feet.

           5)The potential and the peril of UAS  .  Despite the media and  
            public attention on the use of UAS in the context of weapons  
            deployment and terrorism, UAS have myriad practical  
            applications.  For example, UAS can be used to survey damage,  
            locate victims, and assess threats in natural and manmade  
            disasters without risking the lives of rescue workers.  UAS  
            can be used in agriculture to observe and measure crops while  
            conserving resources and avoiding the use of heavy equipment.   
            UAS can also give the media safe, economical, and  
            environmentally-friendly access to aerial views for news  
            broadcasts when compared to the current use of helicopters and  
            other manned aircraft.  Some law enforcement agencies have  
            acquired UAS for the intended use in emergency situations such  
            as hostage-taking, school shootings, and kidnapping-related  
            crimes.  



          However, the need for a comprehensive set of laws governing the  
            use of UAS is undisputed in light of the profound effect an  
            UAS could have on personal privacy.  UAS equipped with  
            cameras, microphones, Internet or wireless connections, and  
            remote controls have enormous potential to invade personal  
            space if used, for example, to hover at low heights over  
            fenced backyards, outside the windows of homes, or over the  
            heads of individuals standing, walking, or sitting alone or in  
            groups in public or even private spaces. Among other things,  
            UAS could be used to capture close up images faces, body  
            parts, or the personal property a person carries with them,  








                                                                      AB 56


                                                                    Page  10





            and could be used to listen to private conversations carried  
            on outdoors between people moving in public and private  
            spaces.
            
           6)Regulating law enforcement's use of UAS  .  This bill was  
            amended prior to this hearing to allow local law enforcement  
            agencies to use UAS in public spaces only if the law  
            enforcement agency obtains approval from the local governing  
            body, i.e. city council or county board of supervisors.  Under  
            this bill, a state law enforcement agency, e.g., the Attorney  
            General, would obtain approval from the Legislature before  
            implementing a UAS program.  For surveillance of private  
            property, this bill requires a law enforcement agency to get  
            either a search warrant or the consent of the person or entity  
            with the legal authority to grant access to the property.  The  
            bill makes exceptions from these rules for emergencies. 



          While the prior version of this bill would have only required  
            law enforcement to provide a one-time public notice before  
            using UAS, the current version of the bill establishes  
            stronger protections for personal privacy and more public  
            accountability by requiring a governing board to approve law  
            enforcement's use of UAS.  The approval must happen at a  
            regularly scheduled meeting where public comments can be made,  
            and the approval must specify both the circumstances and the  
            time limits on UAS use for each circumstance.  
           


          7)Regulating public agency use of UAS  .  This bill permits state  
            and local agencies that are not law enforcement agencies to  
            use UAS as long as the use comports with the core mission of  
            the agency and the data gathered is not used for other  
            purposes.  Under this bill, public agencies must provide a  
            one-time public announcement on the planned use and provide  
            details on how the UAS technology works. 
           








                                                                      AB 56


                                                                    Page  11







          8)Restricting UAS data sharing  .  This bill restricts public  
            agencies from sharing data collected using UAS, except in  
            certain circumstances, and requires agencies to destroy UAS  
            data after one year, with certain exceptions.  Law enforcement  
            can get access to data collected by a non-law enforcement  
            agency if law enforcement would not have needed a search  
            warrant to collect the data directly.  If the data to be  
            shared is about private property, then this bill requires law  
            enforcement to present a search warrant or get consent from  
            the person or entity with legal authority to grant access to  
            the private property, which may be an owner or a tenant in the  
            case of leased property.  This bill allows public agencies to  
            share UAS data with the public if it is required by law and as  
            long as 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 could be ascertained from the images.

           9)Prohibition on weaponized UAS  .  UAS have the capability of  
            being armed with weapons, lethal and nonlethal.  The U.S. has  
            used armed UAS to target militants in military operations  
            abroad.  ("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 drones to fire  
            rubber bullets and tear gas.  ("Drones over US to get  
            weaponized - so far, non-lethally," RT.com, May 24, 2012)   
            This bill would ban law enforcement agencies from arming UAS  
            with weapons, launchable devices, or other capabilities that  
            may cause incapacitation, injury, death, or property damage.



           10)The Fourth Amendment and new technologies  :  The U.S.  
            Constitution and the California Constitution guarantee the  
            right of all persons to be secure from unreasonable searches  
            and seizures.  This protection applies to all unreasonable  
            government intrusions into legitimate expectations of privacy.  








                                                                      AB 56


                                                                    Page  12





             (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  








                                                                      AB 56


                                                                    Page  13





            "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."   
            (Id. at pp. 955-956.)

            As technology evolves, the Legislature must consider how new  
            technologies should be used in a way that carefully balances  
            the need for public safety against the right to personal  
            privacy.  The Court's decisions in Kyllo and Jones provide  
            some clues as to how courts may rule on law enforcement's use  
            of drones.  Eventually, the courts may rule that the use of  
            drones to conduct surveillance without a warrant is restricted  
            by the Fourth Amendment.  But until a case rises to the 9th  
            Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court, any restrictions on the use  
            of UAS by law enforcement and other public agencies are left  
            up to the Legislature and local governments.   


           11)Constitutional law on the use of aircraft over private  
            property  .  In considering the specific question of when a  
            person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the airspace  
            around his or her home, courts have consistently held that  
            while the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects  
            citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures, it does not  
            guarantee privacy.  For example, the U.S. Supreme Court in  
            1986 ruled that police did not violate the Fourth Amendment  
            when they rented a private plane and viewed the defendant's  
            yard (where he was growing marijuana) from an altitude of  
            1,000 feet, despite the fact that the yard was surrounded by a  
            6-foot outer fence and a 10-foot inner fence.  (Cal. v.  
            Ciraolo (1986) 476 U.S. 207, 209.)  The Court observed that  
            the defendant's expectation of privacy in his backyard was  
            unreasonable. 



          That the backyard and its crop were within the "curtilage" of  








                                                                      AB 56


                                                                    Page  14





            respondent's home did not itself bar all police observation.   
            The mere fact that an individual has taken measures to  
            restrict some views of his activities does not preclude an  
            officer's observation from a public vantage point where he has  
            a right to be and which renders the activities clearly  
            visible.  The police observations here took place within  
            public navigable airspace, in a physically nonintrusive  
            manner.  (Id. at p. 215.)
           12)California local government action on UAS  .  Several local  
            governments in California are considering allowing law  
            enforcement to use UAS in their jurisdictions.  On April 8,  
            2015, the San Jose Neighborhoods Commission endorsed a  
            12-month pilot project allowing the San Jose police department  
            to test UAS.  The San Jose City Council is expected to approve  
            the pilot project, which would begin in 2017. ("Controversial  
            Police Drone Inches Closer To Flight In San Jose," San Jose  
            Mercury News, April 9, 2015.) 





            In 2014, the Los Angeles (L.A.) Police Department acquired two  
            UAS from the Seattle Police Department.  Following public  
            criticism, the L.A. City Council called on the L.A. Police  
            Commission to develop a policy on the use of UAS before LAPD  
            deploys them.  The city's policy is still in development.  
            ("LAPD's 2 Drones Will Remain Grounded During Policy Review,  
            Police Commission Says Amid Protest," KTLA5, September, 14,  
            2014; and "LA City Council Instructs LAPD, Commission, To  
            Create Drone-Use Criteria," ABC7, October 28, 2014.) 



            In 2013, the Alameda County Sheriff's Department purchased two  
            UAS using the Department's own funds and without public notice  
            or approval from the Alameda County Board of Supervisors.   
            ("Alameda County Sheriff Reveals that He's Bought 2 Drones,"  
            S.F. Gate (Dec. 3, 2014). 








                                                                      AB 56


                                                                    Page  15






            Generally speaking, local communities throughout California  
            have become very involved in debates over the use of UAS,  
            which arguably should help shape UAS uses and restrictions to  
            suit a local community's particular needs and concerns.  Some  
            city councils and county boards of supervisors may ultimately  
            find specific uses of UAS appropriate and acceptable.  In  
            2014, the Legislature passed AB 1327 (Gorell), which would  
            have required all law enforcement agencies to obtain a search  
            warrant before any use of UAS, except for certain emergencies.  
             However, AB 1327 was vetoed by the Governor on the grounds  
            that the exceptions for emergencies were too narrowly drafted.  
             

            Given the deliberative process local governments are  
            undertaking with regard to the use of UAS, this bill may be an  
            appropriate approach to the regulation of UAS.

           13)The Governor's veto of AB 1327 (Gorell)  .  As noted above,  
            Governor Jerry Brown vetoed AB 1327 (Gorell) of 2014, which  
            would have required law enforcement agencies to obtain a  
            warrant, except in emergencies such as a hostage situation or  
            a fire, before deploying UAS.  In his veto message, Governor  
            Brown stated: 



            "This bill prohibits law enforcement from using a drone  
            without obtaining a search warrant, except in limited  
            circumstances.

            "There are undoubtedly circumstances where a warrant is  
            appropriate.  The bill's exceptions, however, appear to be too  
            narrow and could impose requirements beyond what is required  
            by either the 4th Amendment or the privacy provisions in the  
            California Constitution."











                                                                      AB 56


                                                                    Page  16





           14)Arguments in opposition  .  The California State Sheriff's  
            Association states in opposition that "we must oppose the  
            provisions that require prior approval from a local governing  
            body before the use of [UAS].  First, we believe that such  
            prior approval would hinder the deployment of [UAS] during  
            emergency situations such as search and rescue operations and  
            wildfires.  Moreover, the provisions requiring permission from  
            adjacent counties or cities would likewise hinder responses  
            when [UAS] are used to provide mutual aid and assistance to  
            other counties.  Finally, we believe this would set an  
            unwarranted and inappropriate precedent by limiting the  
            authority of a duly elected sheriff to manage the functions of  
            his or her own agency."



            The American Civil Liberties Union of California stated in  
            opposition to a prior version of the bill which would have  
            only required a one-time notice prior to law enforcement UAS  
            use, "AB 56 would grant 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."



           15)Related legislation  .  AB 14 (Waldron) creates the Unmanned  
            Aircraft Systems Task Force, comprised of 10 members; requires  
            the task force to research, develop, and formulate a  








                                                                      AB 56


                                                                    Page  17





            comprehensive state policy for UAS; and requires the task  
            force to submit a policy draft and suggested legislation  
            pertaining to UAS to the Governor, the Governor's Office of  
            Business and Economic Development, and the Legislature on an  
            ongoing basis or before January 1, 2018.  AB 14 failed passage  
            in the Assembly Transportation Committee on a 5-9 vote.

            SB 142 (Jackson) extends liability for wrongful occupation of  
            real property and damages to a person who without permission  
            operates an UAS below the navigable airspace overlaying the  
            real property.  SB 142 is currently pending on the Senate  
            Floor. 


           


             SB 170 (Gaines) creates a felony crime for the use of an UAS  
            to deliver contraband into a prison or county jail and creates  
            a misdemeanor crime for the use of UAS over a prison or  
            capture images of a prison.  SB 170 is currently pending in  
            the Senate Appropriations Committee, where it will be heard on  
            May 4, 2015.





            SB 262 (Galgiani) is similar in part to this bill, because it  
            authorizes a law enforcement agency to use an UAS if obtains  
            approval from its governing body.  For surveillance of private  
            property, SB 262 requires either a warrant or permission from  
            the person or entity with the legal authority to grant access  
            to the property, but makes exceptions to these rules in  
            emergencies. SB 262 passed the Senate Public Safety Committee  
            April 14, 2015 on a 5-1 vote, and is currently pending in the  
            Senate Judiciary Committee, where it will be heard on May 5,  
            2015.









                                                                      AB 56


                                                                    Page  18







           16)Prior legislation  .   AB 1327 (Gorell) of 2014 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 by the Governor.

            AB 1326 (Gorell) would have provided tax exemptions relative  
            to the construction of new manufacturing plants and for the  
            purchase of machinery used to manufacture UAS.  AB 1326 failed  
            passage in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.





            AB 2306 (Chau), Chapter 858, Statutes of 2014, expanded a  
            person's potential liability for constructive invasion of  
            privacy, by removing the limitation that the person use a  
            visual or auditory enhancing device, and instead made the  
            person liable when using any device to engage in the specified  
            unlawful activity.


            AJR 6 (Fox), Resolution Chapter 78, Statutes of 2013,  
            requested the FAA to consider California as one of the six  
            planned test sites for UAS and integration of those systems  
            into the next generation air transportation system.  

            SB 15 (Padilla) of 2013 would have imposed a search warrant  
            requirement on law enforcement agency use of a UAS in certain  
            circumstances, would have applied existing civil and criminal  
            law to prohibited activities with devices or instrumentalities  
            affixed to, or contained within a UAS, and would have  
            prohibited equipping a UAS with a weapon, and would have  
            prohibited using an UAS to invade a person's privacy.  SB 15  
            failed passage in the Assembly Public Safety Committee.  

            17)Double-referral  .  This bill was double-referred to the  








                                                                      AB 56


                                                                    Page  19





            Assembly Public Safety Committee, where it was heard on April  
            14, 2015, and passed on a 6-0 vote. 
          REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:




          Support




          None on file.




          Opposition


          California State Sheriffs' Association 


          American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) (4/8/2015 version)




          Analysis Prepared by:Jennie Bretschneider / P. & C.P. / (916)  
          319-2200

















                                                                      AB 56


                                                                    Page  20