BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair
2015-2016 Regular Session
AB 56 (Quirk)
Version: July 7, 2015
Hearing Date: July 14, 2015
Fiscal: Yes
Urgency: No
TH
SUBJECT
Unmanned Aircraft Systems
DESCRIPTION
This bill would prohibit law enforcement agencies from using an
unmanned aircraft system, obtaining an unmanned aircraft system
from another public agency by contract, loan, or other
arrangement, or using information obtained from an unmanned
aircraft system used by another public agency, unless certain
requirements are met. To use an unmanned aircraft system, among
other things, law enforcement agencies would be required to
develop and make available to the public a policy on the use of
the system, as well as comply with specified provisions in the
United States Constitution, the California Constitution,
federal, state and local law, and the unmanned aircraft system
policy developed by the law enforcement agency.
This bill would prohibit a law enforcement agency from using an
unmanned aircraft system to surveil private property unless,
among other things, the law enforcement agency obtains a search
warrant, and would require images, footage, or data obtained
through the use of an unmanned aircraft system under these
provisions to be permanently destroyed within one year, except
as specified. Unless authorized by federal law, this bill would
also prohibit a person or entity, including a public agency, or
a person or entity under contract to a public agency, from
equipping or arming an unmanned aircraft system with a weapon.
BACKGROUND
AB 56 (Quirk)
PageB of?
The development of small unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) - known
variously as "unmanned aerial vehicles," "remote piloted
aircraft," or simply "drones" - promises to transform the way
Californians interact with each other and their environment.
Just a few decades ago, small aircraft of this type were the
exclusive domain of hobbyists. Within the last decade or so,
the public has become familiar with the military's use of
unmanned aircraft to accomplish certain mission objectives.
However, in December 2013 when Amazon.com, FedEx, and UPS
announced their plans to integrate unmanned aircraft into their
logistics and delivery services, the possibility of widespread
adoption of this technology became clear.
Along with a variety of businesses, law enforcement agencies
across the country are also starting to look at how to leverage
unmanned aerial vehicle technology. According to one report:
As drones become cheaper and more capable, more police
departments across the country are asking for and getting
federal approval to use them for law enforcement. But the
Federal Aviation Administration only takes safety into
consideration when it grants a law enforcement agency approval
to use drones, leaving privacy protections to
legislation-which, depending on the state in question, may or
may not exist. Agencies as large as the Michigan State Police
and as small as the Grand Forks County [N.D.] Sheriff's
Department have received FAA approval to use drones. Most
departments use them for missions like search-and-rescue or
for photographing a crime scene or an accident site. But
unless a law enforcement agency is within one of the 14 states
that have passed privacy legislation limiting how police can
use drones, there's little in theory keeping it from using a
drone for a less innocuous end-such as surveillance without a
warrant. (Kaveh Waddell, Few Privacy Limitations Exist on How
Police Use Drones, National Journal (Feb. 5, 2105)
[as of May 6, 2015].)
At present, the use of unmanned aerial vehicles of any kind in
the skies over California is fairly restricted. Congress
effectively closed the national airspace to commercial drone use
in the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Modernization and
AB 56 (Quirk)
PageC of?
Reform Act of 2012.<1> That Act established a framework for
safely integrating unmanned aircraft into the national airspace
no later than September 30, 2015. The Act does, however, permit
certain commercial unmanned aircraft operations to take place
before the integration framework is implemented. Section 333 of
the Act authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to establish
special interim requirements for the operation of these aircraft
by designated operators, provided the aircraft and their
operators meet certain minimum standards and have applied for a
commercial use exemption. To date, a handful of commercial
operators have applied for, and received, permission to fly
commercial drones, including several film production companies,
construction, surveying, and inspection companies, and a number
of real estate firms. The Act also sets out a separate interim
operation exemption for "public unmanned aircraft," allowing
public agencies like police departments to operate drones upon
application, provided the aircraft and their operators meet
certain minimum standards.<2> According to recent media
reports, several California law enforcement agencies and other
public entities have acquired drones, but very few - if any -
have put them into service.
This bill would prohibit a law enforcement agency from using an
unmanned aircraft system unless it first adopts a policy
governing its use and presents that policy to its governing body
and allows for public comment. This bill would require a law
enforcement agency to obtain a warrant before using a UAS in
another city or county, or before surveiling private property,
except in specified circumstances. This bill would also
prohibit the weaponization of drones, and would require images
and other data obtained by a UAS to be destroyed within one
year, except as specified.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
---------------------------
<1> H.R. 658, 112th Congress (2011-2012). In general, the FAA
is tasked with regulating aircraft operations conducted in the
national airspace under 49 U.S.C. Sec. 40103. This authority
extends to unmanned aircraft operations, which, by definition,
are considered to be "aircraft." (See 49 U.S.C. Sec.
40102(a)(6), which defines an "aircraft" as "any contrivance
invented, used, or designed to navigate, or fly in, the air.")
<2> See Section 334 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of
2012.
AB 56 (Quirk)
PageD of?
Existing law , the California Constitution, provides that all
people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable
rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and
pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy. (Cal.
Const, art. I, Sec. 1.)
Existing federal and state law provide 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., 4th Amend.; Cal. Const, art. I,
Sec. 13.)
Existing federal law provides that the Federal Aviation
Administration shall regulate aircraft operations conducted in
the national airspace, including unmanned aircraft operations.
(49 U.S.C. Sec. 40103; 49 U.S.C. Sec. 40102(a)(6).)
Existing law makes it a crime for any person to intentionally
and without the consent of all parties to a confidential
communication, by means of any electronic amplifying or
recording device, eavesdrop upon or records the confidential
communication, whether the communication is carried on among the
parties in the presence of one another or by means of a
telegraph, telephone, or other device. (Pen. Code Sec. 632.)
Existing law provides that any person who trespasses on property
for the purpose of committing any act, or attempting to commit
any act, in violation of the above provision shall be punished
by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars
($2,500), by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one
year or in the state prison, or by both that fine and
imprisonment. (Pen. Code Sec. 634.)
Existing law provides that no person or entity in this state
shall use an electronic tracking device to determine the
location or movement of a person, but also provides that this
section shall not apply to the lawful use of an electronic
tracking device by a law enforcement agency. (Pen. Code Sec.
637.7.)
This bill would prohibit a law enforcement agency from using an
AB 56 (Quirk)
PageE of?
unmanned aircraft system, obtaining an unmanned aircraft system
from another public agency by contract, loan, or other
arrangement, or using information obtained from an unmanned
aircraft system used by another public agency, except as
authorized in this bill. This bill would apply to all law
enforcement agencies and private entities when contracting with
or acting as the agent of a law enforcement agency.
This bill would authorize a law enforcement agency to use an
unmanned aircraft system, or use information obtained from an
unmanned aircraft system used by another public agency, if the
law enforcement agency complies with all of the following:
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 by an agency, including, but not limited to,
regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration; and
state and local law applicable to any agency's use of
surveillance technology that can be attached to an unmanned
aircraft system.
This bill states that if the use of an unmanned aircraft system
by a local law enforcement agency may involve the collection of
images, footage, or data from another county, city, or city and
county, the law enforcement agency shall obtain a warrant based
on probable cause, unless an exigent circumstance exists.
This bill would prohibit a law enforcement agency from using an
unmanned aircraft system, or information obtained from an
unmanned aircraft system used by another public agency, to
surveil private property unless the law enforcement agency has
obtained a search warrant based on probable cause, the express
permission of the person or entity with the legal authority to
authorize a search of the specific private property, or is using
the system under specified exigent circumstances.
This bill would require, before a law enforcement agency may use
an unmanned aircraft system, that the agency develop and make
available to the public a policy on the use of the unmanned
aircraft system and train the law enforcement agency's officers
and employees on the policy. Law enforcement agency use of the
unmanned aircraft system must be consistent with this policy.
This bill would require a law enforcement agency's policy on the
use of an unmanned aircraft system to specify, at a minimum, the
AB 56 (Quirk)
PageF of?
following:
the circumstances under which an unmanned aircraft system may
and may not be used;
the time limits applicable to each circumstance;
the rules and processes required before such use;
the individuals who may access or use an unmanned aircraft
system or its collected information and the circumstances
under which they may do so;
the safeguards to protect unauthorized use or access;
training required for any individual authorized to use or
access the sharing or information;
the sharing of images, data, or footage with other law
enforcement agencies and public agencies;
the manner in which information obtained from another public
agency will be used; and
mechanisms to ensure the policy is followed.
This bill would require, before the policy is finalized, that a
law enforcement agency present the proposed policy at a
regularly scheduled and noticed public meeting of its governing
body with an opportunity for public comment.
This bill would require images, footage, or data obtained
through the use of an unmanned aircraft system to be permanently
destroyed within one year, unless the images, footage, or data
were obtained pursuant to a search warrant or are used for the
following purposes:
for training purposes;
for academic research or teaching purposes; and
for use as evidence in any claim filed or any pending
litigation, internal disciplinary proceeding, enforcement
proceeding, or criminal investigation.
This bill would specify that images, footage, or data obtained
through the use of an unmanned aircraft system or any related
record, including 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, except as
specified.
This bill would require all unmanned aircraft systems to 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
AB 56 (Quirk)
PageG of?
unrelated to the justification for the operation.
This bill would state that unless authorized by federal law, a
person or entity shall not equip or arm an unmanned aircraft
system with a weapon or other device that may be carried by, or
launched or directed from, an unmanned aircraft system and that
is intended to cause incapacitation, bodily injury or death, or
damage to, or the destruction of, real or personal property.
This bill would specify that a local legislative body may adopt
more restrictive policies than those specified in state law on
the acquisition, use, or retention of unmanned aircraft systems.
This bill would define the following terms:
"law enforcement agency" means the Attorney General, each
district attorney, and each agency of the state or political
subdivision of the state authorized by statute to investigate
or prosecute law violators; and
"unmanned aircraft system" means 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.
COMMENT
1.Stated need for the bill
The author writes:
Drones are inherently different from manned aircrafts, both in
size and flying capability. Some unmanned aircraft weigh
1,900 pounds and can remain aloft for 30 hours or more because
there is no need for them to land to change pilots. Some are
6 inches long. Others can perform dangerous missions without
risking loss of life.
Commercially used drones can serve many societal benefits
including assessing hostage situations, addressing bomb
threats and detecting forest fires. Despite the possible
benefits, there is potential for misuse without clearly
established policies that protect privacy rights.
There is no California law or regulation governing the use of
drones and no guidelines on how public agencies can acquire
them. Several jurisdictions have already purchased drones
AB 56 (Quirk)
PageH of?
with very little, if any, public announcement or discussion.
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.
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
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 that law enforcement
agencies must follow if they choose to operate a drone. Law
enforcement agencies will be required to develop policies
regarding privacy protections, data sharing, and unauthorized
use of a drone that must be followed when operating a drone in
a public and private space. Law enforcement agencies must
also present these policies at a regularly scheduled meeting
of their governing board and allow for public comment before
they are officially adopted. In addition, this bill places
additional restrictions when using a drone over private spaces
to protect the privacy of individuals. Finally, this bill
allows local governments to enact stricter guidelines on the
acquisition, retention and use of drones.
AB 56 recognizes that drones can be a beneficial tool, but at
the same time they can be abused without guidance on their
use. Drones are a new and continuously evolving technology;
this bill seeks to establish a baseline on their use to allow
the Legislature to build upon as needed.
AB 56 (Quirk)
PageI of?
2.Fundamental Right to Privacy
The California Constitution provides that all people have
inalienable rights, including the right to pursue and obtain
privacy. (Cal. Const., art. I, Sec. 1.) This "right of privacy
is vitally important. It derives, in this state, not only from
the protections against unreasonable searches and seizures
guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment and article I, section 13,
but also from article I, section 1, of our State Constitution.
Homage to personhood is the foundation for individual rights
protected by our state and national Constitutions." (In re
William G. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 550, 563.) Because of their
inherent maneuverability and the ease with which they may enter
spaces infeasible for manned aircraft, the growth of unmanned
aerial vehicle technology presents a challenge to maintaining
traditional boundaries that separate public and private spheres,
and to preserving the fundamental right to privacy in
California.
California's constitutional right to privacy restricts the
government and others from infringing upon legally protected
privacy interests of California residents. The California
Supreme Court has found that "[l]egally recognized privacy
interests are generally of two classes: (1) interests in
precluding the dissemination or misuse of sensitive and
confidential information (informational privacy); and (2)
interests in making intimate personal decisions or conducting
personal activities without observation, intrusion, or
interference (autonomy privacy). (Hill v. National Collegiate
Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 35 [internal quotation marks
omitted].) The latter of these - informational privacy - is
"the core value" furthered by the constitutional right of
privacy. (Id.) "A particular class of information is private
when well-established social norms recognize the need to
maximize individual control over its dissemination and use to
prevent unjustified embarrassment or indignity. Such norms
create a threshold reasonable expectation of privacy in the data
at issue." (Id.) The Court has held that "the usual sources of
positive law governing the right to privacy -- common law
development, constitutional development, [and] statutory
enactment"-- illuminate "[w]hether established social norms
safeguard a particular type of information . . . from public or
private intervention." (Id. at 36.)
AB 56 (Quirk)
PageJ of?
Recent Fourth Amendment jurisprudence strongly suggests that
information subject to collection by unmanned aircraft operated
by law enforcement agencies, such as locational information and
surveillance data, falls within the class of information
safeguarded by established social norms. In United States v.
Jones (2012) 132 S. Ct. 945, for example, the U.S. Supreme Court
examined the significant privacy concerns raised by locational
tracking technology. The Jones case considered whether the
attachment of a Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking device
to an individual's vehicle, and the subsequent use of that
device to track the vehicle's movements on public streets,
constituted a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
In her concurring opinion, Justice Sotomayor made the following
observations:
Awareness that the Government may be watching chills
associational and expressive freedoms. And the Government's
unrestrained power to assemble data that reveal private
aspects of identity is susceptible to abuse. The net result
is that GPS monitoring--by making available at a relatively
low cost such a substantial quantum of intimate information
about any person whom the Government, in its unfettered
discretion, chooses to track--may alter the relationship
between citizen and government in a way that is inimical to
democratic society.
I would take these attributes of GPS monitoring into account
when considering the existence of a reasonable societal
expectation of privacy in the sum of one's public movements.
I would ask whether people reasonably expect that their
movements will be recorded and aggregated in a manner that
enables the Government to ascertain, more or less at will,
their political and religious beliefs, sexual habits, and so
on. (United States v. Jones (2012) 132 S. Ct. 945, 955-956
[internal citations and quotation marks omitted].)
Use of unmanned aircraft to track the location of individuals
and gather surveillance data is arguably more invasive than GPS
tracking of a vehicle's movements on public streets. Unlike GPS
tracking, unmanned aircraft can collect data on a wide range of
individuals at the same time, and in areas far removed from
public streets.
This bill proposes a number of safeguards that would help ensure
law enforcement agencies operate unmanned aircraft systems in a
AB 56 (Quirk)
PageK of?
manner that respects Californian's fundamental right to privacy.
First, this bill would prohibit the use of these vehicles until
after a law enforcement agency both develops a usage policy
disclosing how drone systems will be deployed and how
information gathered through these systems will be used or
shared, and presents this usage policy to the agency's governing
board for public discussion. Second, the bill includes warrant
requirements for use of unmanned aircraft in cities or counties
outside a local law enforcement agency's home jurisdiction, and
over private property when surveiling that property, subject to
specified exceptions. Third, the bill contains provisions that
require law enforcement officers to minimize the collection of
images and data via an unmanned aircraft system to only that
specified in an authorizing warrant or, in the case no warrant
was issued, to only that which is necessary to carry out the
operation prompting use of the aircraft. The bill also would
require law enforcement agencies to delete data collected by a
drone within a year of its collection, unless needed for such
things as prosecution of a criminal investigation or unless it
was collected pursuant to a warrant.
While these provisions would help to ensure that law enforcement
drones are operated in a manner respectful of the fundamental
right to privacy, the author may wish to consider amending the
bill to explicitly require UAS usage policies to describe how
authorized uses are consistent with respect for individual
privacy and civil liberties, and to explicitly prohibit the use
of these aircraft for the sole purpose of monitoring individuals
exercising constitutionally guaranteed rights, such as the right
to speak or peaceably assemble under the First Amendment.
Additionally, the author may wish to consider amending the bill
to ensure that its requirements are enforceable by a broad range
of stakeholders, and that aggrieved parties are given adequate
remedies to redress harms in the event of non-compliance.
Potential Amendments:
require law enforcement unmanned aircraft system use to
comply with all applicable law, including the fundamental
right to privacy;
require law enforcement use policies to describe:
o how unmanned aircraft system use will respect
privacy and civil liberties;
o the authorized purposes for using unmanned aircraft
systems and for collecting information or data using that
technology;
AB 56 (Quirk)
PageL of?
o the employees who are authorized to use or access
information or data collected by an unmanned aircraft
system;
o how the use of an unmanned aircraft system will be
monitored to ensure compliance with all applicable
privacy laws;
o measures that will be used to ensure the accuracy of
information or data collected; and
o the purpose of, and process for, sharing or
disseminating information or data gathered through the
use of an unmanned aircraft system.
prohibit the use of unmanned aircraft systems solely for
the purpose of monitoring activities protected by the First
Amendment or the lawful exercise of other rights secured by
the United States Constitution, the California
Constitution, and federal and state law;
require law enforcement use policies to be periodically
reviewed; and
provide adequate remedies for individuals harmed by the
improper use of unmanned aircraft systems.
The addition of "privacy" to the list of unalienable rights in
the California Constitution "was intended to strengthen the
right of privacy, "and "[t]he elevation of the right to be free
from invasions of privacy to constitutional stature was
apparently intended to be an expansion of the [existing] privacy
right." (Cent. Valley Ch. 7th Step Found. v. Younger (1989) 214
Cal.App.3d 145, 160.) "[The] principal 'mischiefs' at which the
amendment is directed are: (1) 'government snooping' and the
secret gathering of personal information; (2) the overbroad
collection and retention of unnecessary personal information by
government and business interests; (3) the improper use of
information properly obtained for a specific purpose, for
example, the use of it for another purpose or the disclosure of
it to some third party; and (4) the lack of a reasonable check
on the accuracy of existing records." (Id.) The policy
question for this Committee to consider is, without more, does
this bill provide enough guidance to law enforcement agencies to
avoid the "mischiefs" the privacy amendment sought to curtail?
1.Data Use and Security
As discussed in Comment 2, the type of information collected
through the use of an unmanned aircraft system (UAS) could be
highly sensitive. For example, locational data gathered by a
AB 56 (Quirk)
PageM of?
UAS, especially over time, can be used to determine a person's
political and religious beliefs, known associates, frequented
places, and even their medical conditions. Other recent bills
regulating law enforcement's use of surveillance technologies
considered by this Committee have included provisions addressing
security and operational protocols to ensure that collected data
remains confidential and is protected from unauthorized access
or use. (See e.g. Sen. Com. on Judiciary, Analysis of Sen. Bill
No. 34 (2015-2016 Reg. Sess.) as introduced, [for hearing on
Apr. 14, 2015].) This bill would require a law enforcement
agency's usage policy to describe, among other things,
"safeguards to protect unauthorized use or access." However,
the bill does not impose any direct requirements to ensure that
collected data is protected from misuse or data breach, or that
the permissible use of collected data is restricted by
appropriate safeguards to ensure respect for individual privacy
and civil liberties.
Insufficient data security and use protocols for UAS collected
information may risk infringing upon an individual's
constitutional right to privacy in much the same way as improper
"front-end" collection practices. Under this bill, law
enforcement agencies will be confronted with determining such
things as what purposes images, footage, or data obtained
through the use of a UAS should be used for, whether this
information should be used for purposes other than that for
which they were originally collected, and whether it should be
shared with other public and private entities. Similarly, law
enforcement agencies will have to determine how such information
should be protected from misuse or improper access and who
should have access to it. The policy question for this
Committee to consider is whether the Legislature ought to
provide more direct guidance to law enforcement agencies faced
with these critical issues of data security and privacy
protection. To this end, the Committee may wish to amend this
bill to provide explicit data use and security standards that
directly protect individual privacy and civil liberties.
Potential Amendments:
ensure that information and data gathered through the use of
an unmanned aircraft system is protected with reasonable
operational, administrative, technical, and physical
safeguards to ensure its confidentiality and integrity; and
implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and
practices in order to protect information and data gathered
AB 56 (Quirk)
PageN of?
through the use of that system from unauthorized access,
destruction, use, modification, or disclosure.
1.Opposition Concerns
The American Civil Liberties Union of California, in opposition,
states:
As amended, 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 authorized 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.
In contrast, the California State Sheriffs' Association and the
California Police Chiefs Association (Chiefs), also in
opposition, suggest that the warrant requirements in this bill
are too burdensome, raising specific concerns about restricting
the use of unmanned aerial vehicles in adjacent cities or
counties without a warrant. According to the Chiefs, "if an
agency is operating an unmanned aircraft system in a hot pursuit
situation, the agency would have to terminate the system's use
if the suspect crossed a jurisdictional boundary." They
suggest, instead, that the same exceptions to the warrant
requirement provided for the use of UAS systems over private
property should be applied to multijurisdictional operations.
Support : Central Coast Forest Association
Opposition : American Civil Liberties Union of California;
California Police Chiefs Association; California State Sheriffs'
Association
HISTORY
AB 56 (Quirk)
PageO of?
Source : Author
Related Pending Legislation :
SB 170 (Gaines, 2015) would provide that a person who knowingly
and intentionally operates an unmanned aircraft on or above the
grounds of a state prison or a jail is guilty of a misdemeanor,
except as specified. This bill is pending in the Assembly
Public Safety Committee.
SB 142 (Jackson, 2015) would clarify that the operation of an
unmanned aerial vehicle less than 350 feet above the property of
another, without permission or legal authority, constitutes
trespass. This bill is pending in the Assembly Judiciary
Committee.
SB 262 (Galgiani, 2015) would authorize law enforcement agencies
to use unmanned aircraft systems provided such use complies with
certain conditions, including: search and seizure protections in
the U.S. and California Constitutions; federal law applicable to
unmanned aircraft systems; and state law applicable to law
enforcement agency use of surveillance technology. This bill
would also require law enforcement agencies to receive approval
from their local governing body prior to using unmanned aircraft
systems, and would restrict the use of such systems for
conducting surveillance of private property. This bill is
pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
SB 271 (Gaines, 2015) would make it an infraction to operate an
unmanned aircraft on the grounds of, or less than 350 feet above
ground level within the airspace overlaying, a public school
providing instruction in kindergarten or grades 1 to 12 during
school hours and without permission of school officials. This
bill would exempt specified media and news personnel unless they
receive a request from school officials to cease using an
unmanned aircraft above a school, and would also exempt law
enforcement. This bill is pending in the Assembly Education
Committee.
AB 14 (Waldron, 2015) would create the Unmanned Aircraft Systems
Task Force, which would be required to research, develop, and
formulate a comprehensive policy for unmanned aircraft systems
in California. The task force would be required to submit,
among other things, a policy draft and suggested legislation
pertaining to unmanned aircraft systems to the Legislature and
AB 56 (Quirk)
PageP of?
the Governor on or before January 1, 2018. This bill is pending
reconsideration in the Assembly Transportation Committee.
Prior Legislation :
AB 1327 (Gorell, 2014) would have prohibited public agencies
from using unmanned aircraft systems, or contracting for the use
of these systems, with certain exceptions for law enforcement
agencies acting pursuant to a warrant and in certain other
cases, including when the use or operation of the unmanned
aircraft system achieves the core mission of the agency and the
purpose of use is unrelated to the gathering of criminal
intelligence. The bill would have also required notice by
public agencies intending to deploy unmanned aircraft, would
have required images, footage, or data obtained through the use
of such aircraft to be permanently destroyed within one year
except as specified, and would have prohibited equipping
unmanned aircraft with weapons. This bill was vetoed by
Governor Brown.
SB 15 (Padilla, 2013) would have, among other things, required
law enforcement agencies to obtain search warrants when using
unmanned aircraft, and would have required that an application
for the search warrant specify the intended purpose for which
the unmanned aircraft would be used. The bill would have also
restricted data collection by unmanned aircraft and would have
prohibited equipping unmanned aircraft with weapons. This bill
died in the Assembly Public Safety Committee.
AB 1524 (Waldron, 2013) would have required any entity that owns
or operates an unmanned aircraft to place identifying
information or digitally store identifying information on the
aircraft. The bill would have exempted model aircraft, and
would have made a person or entity that violates its provisions
liable for a civil fine not to exceed $2,500. This bill was set
for hearing in the Assembly Transportation Committee, but the
hearing was cancelled at the author's request.
Prior Vote :
Senate Public Safety Committee (Ayes 4, Noes 2)
Assembly Floor (Ayes 61, Noes 12)
Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 17, Noes 0)
Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee (Ayes 9, Noes
1)
AB 56 (Quirk)
PageQ of?
Assembly Public Safety Committee (Ayes 6, Noes 0)
**************