BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular Session
AB 56 (Quirk) - Unmanned aircraft systems
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Version: July 16, 2015 |Policy Vote: PUB. S. 4 - 2, |
| | JUD. 5 - 2 |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Urgency: No |Mandate: Yes |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Hearing Date: August 17, 2015 |Consultant: Jolie Onodera |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill
Summary: AB 56 would establish procedural and privacy
protection standards under which a law enforcement agency may
use, obtain, or use information from, an unmanned aircraft
system (UAS), as specified.
Fiscal
Impact:
Significant one-time and ongoing non-reimbursable local law
enforcement agency costs (Local Funds) to adhere to the
standards and protections provided for under this measure
including but not limited to the development of policies,
procedures, training, data security, collection, and
retention, and public access.
One-time and ongoing potentially significant future cost
pressure (General Fund/Special Fund) to the extent UAS are
utilized in the future by state agencies including but not
limited to the Department of Justice (DOJ), the California
AB 56 (Quirk) Page 1 of
?
Highway Patrol (CHP), and the Department of Fish and Wildlife
(DFW).
Background: An unmanned aircraft system, also referred to as "unmanned
aerial vehicle," "remote piloted aircraft," or "drone," is an
aircraft without a human pilot that is either controlled
remotely or fully automated. Along with a variety of businesses,
law enforcement agencies across the country are considering how
this technology could assist in their operations. 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 (February 5, 2015).)
This bill seeks to establish procedural and privacy protection
standards should law enforcement agencies choose to utilize this
technology.
Proposed Law:
This bill would prohibit a law enforcement agency from using a
UAS, obtaining a UAS from another public agency by contract,
loan, or other arrangement, or using information obtained from a
UAS used by another public agency, except as authorized below:
Provides that the bill's provisions apply to all law
enforcement agencies and private entities when contracting
AB 56 (Quirk) Page 2 of
?
with or acting as the agent of a law enforcement agency.
Authorizes a law enforcement agency to use a UAS, or use
information obtained from a UAS used by another public agency,
if the law enforcement agency complies with protections
against unreasonable searches guaranteed by the U.S.
Constitution and the California Constitution, as well as all
applicable federal state, and local laws including, but not
limited to, regulations of the Federal Aviation
Administration.
States that if the use of a UAS 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 must obtain a warrant based on probable
cause, unless an exigent circumstance exists.
Prohibits a law enforcement agency from using a UAS or
information obtained from a UAS 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.
Requires, before a law enforcement agency may use a UAS, that
the agency develop and make available to the public, as
specified, a policy on the use of the UAS and train the law
enforcement agency's officers and employees on the policy.
Requires a law enforcement agency's policy on the use of a UAS
to include numerous specified provisions, and requires the
policy to be reviewed at least once every three years to
evaluate whether changes are needed.
Requires, 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.
Requires images, footage, or data obtained through the use of
a UAS to be permanently destroyed within one year, unless the
images, footage, or data were obtained pursuant to a search
warrant or are used for specified purposes.
Specifies that images, footage, or data obtained through the
use of a UAS 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.
Requires all UAS to be operated so as to minimize the
AB 56 (Quirk) Page 3 of
?
collection of images, footage, or data of persons, places, or
things not 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.
States that unless authorized by federal law, a person or
entity shall not equip or arm a UAS with a weapon or other
device that may be carried by, or launched or directed from, a
UAS, as specified.]
Requires a law enforcement agency that operates a UAS to keep
a record of the use of that system, to include information on
whether a search warrant was sought before the system was
used, and, in situation where a warrant was sought, whether
the warrant was granted or denied.
Specifies that a local legislative body may adopt more
restrictive policies than those specified in state law on the
acquisition, use, or retention of UAS.
Defines 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.
"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.
Related
Legislation: AB 1327 (Gorell) 2014 would have prohibited law
enforcement agencies from using UAS, with certain exceptions for
law enforcement agencies acting pursuant to a warrant. This bill
would have required notice by public agencies intending to
deploy UAS. This bill was vetoed by the Governor with the
following message:
I am returning Assembly Bill 1327 without my signature. 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
AB 56 (Quirk) Page 4 of
?
either the 4th Amendment or the privacy provisions in the
California Constitution.
SB 15 (Padilla) 2013 would have required law enforcement
agencies to obtain search warrants when using UAS, and would
have required that an application for a search warrant specify
the intended purpose for which the UAS would be used. This bill
failed in the Assembly Committee on Public Safety.
Staff
Comments: By requiring local law enforcement agencies to comply
with additional rules and regulations regarding the use of UAS,
this bill imposes a state mandated local program. However, as
local law enforcement agencies are not mandated to utilize UAS
technology, any costs to local agencies are estimated to be
non-reimbursable.
Although state agencies including the DOJ, CHP, and the DFW
currently do not utilize UAS, this bill creates significant
future cost pressure, as these agencies would potentially incur
both one-time and ongoing costs to comply with the provisions of
this measure should these agencies opt to utilize UAS technology
at some point in the future.
-- END --