BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 56
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 13, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Jimmy Gomez, Chair
AB
56 (Quirk) - As Amended April 22, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy | Public Safety |Vote:| 6 -0 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | Privacy and Consumer | | 9 - 1 |
| |Protection | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: YesReimbursable:
No
SUMMARY:
This bill regulates the use of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS),
as defined, by public agencies. Specifically, this bill:
AB 56
Page 2
1)Requires reasonable notice, as specified, to be provided by a
public agency and a law enforcement agency prior to using UAS
or contracting for the use of UAS.
2)Specifies conditions for the use of UAS by a law enforcement
agency, without consent from the property owner or without
obtaining a warrant, over private property.
3)Regulates the use of images, footage, or data obtained by a
public agency through the use of UAS.
FISCAL EFFECT:
1)Requiring every public agency or law enforcement agency that
intends to use UAS to provide notice to the public could
easily exceed $150,000, given the thousands of local agencies,
from local governments, to police departments, to water
boards, to mosquito abatement districts. However, this is not
a reimbursable state mandated cost.
2)Likely minor state trial court costs to the extent that new
requirements regarding warrants and court orders occupy court
time.
COMMENTS:
1)Background: 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.
AB 56
Page 3
Current state law permits a search warrant to be issued for a
variety of reasons. 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.
Current law also prohibits wiretapping or eavesdropping on
confidential communications. However, current law 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.
2)Purpose. 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."
"Over the last few years, a number of law enforcement agencies
have purchased drones with no public input and little
transparency in the process. This has stirred feelings of
frustration, skepticism and concern from Californians
AB 56
Page 4
regarding how drones will be operated. Though some agencies
have indicated that they are not intending to deploy them
anytime soon, allowing for some form of public forum as they
develop their policies and guidelines would help ease tensions
and help to build trust."
"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)Prior Legislation:
a) AB 1327 (Gorell), of the 2013-2014 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, Governor
Brown expressed privacy concerns.
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 and 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. SB 15 was held in Assembly
Public Safety.
Analysis Prepared by:Pedro R. Reyes / APPR. / (916)
319-2081
AB 56
Page 5