BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                    AB 1820


                                                                    Page  1


          Date of Hearing:  March 15, 2016
          Counsel:               David Billingsley


                         ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY


                       Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr., Chair





          AB  
                        1820 (Quirk) - As Amended  March 8, 2016




          SUMMARY:  SUMMARY:  Regulates the use of unmanned aircraft  
          systems (UAS) by law enforcement agencies. Specifically, this  
          bill:  

          1)Defines "UAS" as an unmanned aircraft and associated elements,  
            including communication links and the components that control  
            the unmanned aircraft, that are required for the pilot in  
            command to operate safely and efficiently in the national  
            airspace system.

          2)Prohibits a law enforcement agency from using an UAS,  
            obtaining a UAS from another public agency by contract, loan  
            or other arrangement, or using information obtained from an  
            UAS used by another public agency, except as provided in the  
            provisions of this bill.

          3)Specifies that the provisions of this bill apply to all law  
            enforcement agencies and private entities when contracting  
            with or acting as the agent of a law enforcement agency for  
            the use of an UAS.

          4)Allows a law enforcement agency to use UAS system, or use  
            information obtained from a UAS system used by another public  








                                                                    AB 1820


                                                                    Page  2


            agency, only if the law enforcement agency complies with the  
            regulations of this bill and all other applicable federal,  
            state, and local laws.

          5)Requires a search warrant if the use of a UAS by a local law  
            enforcement agency involves the collection of images or data  
            from another city or county, unless an exigent circumstance  
            exists.

          6)Requires a law enforcement agency to develop and make  
            available to the public the policy on its use of the UAS, and  
            requires training of the law enforcement agency's officers and  
            employees on the policy, if they elect to use a UAS.

          7)Requires a law enforcement agency to use the unmanned aircraft  
            system consistent with the policy developed regarding UAS.

          8)States that a law enforcement agency shall present the  
            proposed UAS policy at their regularly scheduled and noticed  
            public meeting of its governing body with an opportunity for  
            public comment, before finalizing the policy.

          9)Specifies that a law enforcement agency's UAS policy must  
            include the following:

             a)   The circumstances under which an unmanned aircraft  
               system may or may not be used;

             b)   The rules and processes required before using an  
               unmanned aircraft system;

             c)   The individuals who may access or use an unmanned  
               aircraft system or the information collected by an unmanned  
               aircraft system and the circumstances under which those  
               individuals may do so;

             d)   The safeguards to protect against unauthorized use or  
               access;

             e)   The training required for any individual authorized to  
               use or access information collected by an unmanned aircraft  
               system;








                                                                    AB 1820


                                                                    Page  3



             f)   The guidelines for sharing images, footage, or data with  
               other law enforcement agencies and public agencies;

             g)   The manner in which information obtained from another  
               public agency's use of an unmanned aircraft system will be  
               used; and

             h)   Mechanisms to ensure that the policy is adhered to.

          10)Prohibits a law enforcement agency from using a UAS, or  
            information obtained from an UAS used by another public  
            agency, to surveil private property unless the law enforcement  
            has obtained a search warrant or express permission of the  
            person or entity with legal authority to authorize a search of  
            the property.

          11)Allows a law enforcement agency, without first obtaining a  
            warrant or consent from the property owner over private  
            property, to use an UAS if an exigent circumstance exists.

          12)Specifies that exigent circumstances include, but are not  
            limited to, the following:

             a)   In emergency situations if there is an imminent threat  
               to life or of great bodily harm, including, but not limited  
               to fires, hostage crises, "hot pursuit" situations if  
               reasonably necessary to prevent harm to law enforcement  
               officers or others; and search and rescue operations on  
               land or water.

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

          13)Requires images, footage, or data obtained through the use of  
            an UAS shall be permanently destroyed with one year, except in  
            the following circumstances the agency may retain the data:

             a)   For training purposes of the law enforcement agency's  
               employees in matters related to the mission of the law  
               enforcement agency;








                                                                    AB 1820


                                                                    Page  4



             b)   For academic research or teaching purposes;

             c)   If a search warrant authorized collection of the images,  
               footage, or data; and

             d)   If the images, footage, or data are evidence in any  
               claim filed or any pending litigation, internal  
               disciplinary proceeding, enforcement proceeding, or  
               criminal investigation.

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

          15)Specifies that law enforcement agencies using unmanned  
            aircraft systems shall operate them to minimize the collection  
            of images, footage, or data of persons, places, or things not  
            specified with particularity in the warrant authorizing the  
            use of an unmanned aircraft system, or, if no warrant was  
            obtained, for purposes unrelated to the justification for the  
            operation.

          16)States that none of the provisions in this bill are intended  
            to conflict with or supersede federal law, including rules and  
            regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

          17)Authorizes a local legislative body to adopt more restrictive  
            policies on the acquisition or use of unmanned aircraft  
            systems by a law enforcement agency.

          18)States that except for provisions of this bill, that  
            surveillance restrictions on electronic devices shall also  
            apply to UAS.

          19)Defines "surveil" as "the purposeful observation of a person  
            or private property with the intent of gathering criminal  
            intelligence."

          20)Defines "criminal intelligence" as "information compiled,  








                                                                    AB 1820


                                                                    Page  5


            analyzed, or disseminated in an effort to anticipate, prevent,  
            monitor, or investigate criminal activity."

          21)Defines "law enforcement agency" as "the Attorney General,  
            each district attorney, and each agency of the state or  
            subdivision of the state authorized by statute to investigate  
            or prosecute law violators and that employs peace officers."
           
          EXISTING LAW:  

          1)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. (Cal. Const., art. 1, sec. 13.)

          2)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.  (Pen. Code,  1523.)

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

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

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

             c)   When the property or things are in the possession of any  
               person with the intent to use them as a means of committing  
               a public offense, or in the possession of another to whom  
               he or she may have delivered them for the purpose of  
               concealing them or preventing them from being discovered;

             d)   When the property or things to be seized consist of any  
               item or constitute any evidence that tends to show a felony  
               has been committed, or tends to show that a particular  








                                                                    AB 1820


                                                                    Page  6


               person has committed a felony;

             e)   When the property or things to be seized consist of  
               evidence that tends to show that sexual exploitation of a  
               child or possession of matter depicting sexual conduct of a  
               person under the age of 18 years has occurred or is  
               occurring;

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

             g)   When a provider of electronic communication service or  
               remote computing service has records or evidence, as  
               specified, showing that property was stolen or embezzled  
               constituting a misdemeanor, or that property or things are  
               in the possession of any person with the intent to use them  
               as a means of committing a misdemeanor public offense, or  
               in the possession of another to whom he or she may have  
               delivered them for the purpose of concealing them or  
               preventing their discovery;

             h)   When the property or things to be seized include an item  
               or any evidence that tends to show a violation of a  
               specified section of the Labor Code, or tends to show that  
               a particular person has violated that section;

             i)   When the property or things to be seized include a  
               firearm or any other deadly weapon at the scene of, or at  
               the premises occupied or under the control of the person  
               arrested in connection with, a domestic violence incident  
               involving a threat to human life or a physical assault as  
               specified;

             j)   When the property or things to be seized include a  
               firearm or any other deadly weapon that is owned by, or in  
               the possession of, or in the custody or control of,  
               specified persons;

             aa)  When the property or things to be seized include a  
               firearm that is owned by, or in the possession of, or in  
               the custody or control of, a person who is subject to the  
               prohibitions regarding firearms, as specified, if a  
               prohibited firearm is possessed, owned, in the custody of,  








                                                                    AB 1820


                                                                    Page  7


               or controlled by a person against whom a specified  
               protective order has been issued, the person has been  
               lawfully served with that order, and the person has failed  
               to relinquish the firearm as required by law; 

             bb)  When the information to be received from the use of a  
               tracking device constitutes evidence that tends to show  
               that either a felony, a misdemeanor violation of the Fish  
               and Game Code, or a misdemeanor violation of the Public  
               Resources Code has been committed or is being committed,  
               tends to show that a particular person has committed a  
               felony, a misdemeanor violation of the Fish and Game Code,  
               or a misdemeanor violation of the Public Resources Code, or  
               is committing a felony, a misdemeanor violation of the Fish  
               and Game Code, or a misdemeanor violation of the Public  
               Resources Code, or will assist in locating an individual  
               who has committed or is committing a felony, a misdemeanor  
               violation of the Fish and Game Code, or a misdemeanor  
               violation of the Public Resources Code;

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

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

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

          5)Provides that nothing in the sections prohibiting  
            eavesdropping or wiretapping prohibits specified law  








                                                                    AB 1820


                                                                    Page  8


            enforcement officers or their assistants or deputies acting  
            within the scope of his or her authority, from overhearing or  
            recording any communication that they could lawfully overhear  
            or record.  (Pen. Code,  633.)

          6)California Public Records Act generally provides that access  
            to information concerning the conduct of the people's business  
            is a fundamental and necessary right of every person in this  
            state. (Gov. Code,  6250 et. seq.)

          7)Provides that public records are open to inspection at all  
            times during the office hours of the state or local agency and  
            every person has a right to inspect any public record, except  
            as provided. Any reasonably segregable portion of a record  
            shall be available for inspection by any person requesting the  
            record after deletion of the portions that are exempted by  
            law. (Gov. Code,  6253)

          FISCAL EFFECT:  Unknown

          COMMENTS:  

          1)Author's Statement:  According to the author, "Technology has  
            played a critical role in helping law enforcement groups  
            strategize new ways to fight crime. A UAS, or drone, can be a  
            great asset to the state and can play an important role in  
            improving 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. 

          "Drones may also be able to observe areas that are difficult or  
            dangerous for officers to enter, they can help assess  
            dangerous situations (such as a hostage situation or bomb  
            threat) and assist in strategizing responses to these  
            incidents. 

          "Though drone technology is growing quickly, high-tech  








                                                                    AB 1820


                                                                    Page  9


            capabilities (such as detailed imagine from high altitudes,  
            ability to travel large distances) are still under development  
            or cost prohibitive for law enforcement agencies. However,  
            without parameters to guide the use of these devices, the  
            possibility for abuse exists.  

          "AB 1820 will establish a set of parameters for the use of  
            drones by law enforcement agencies. Specifically, the bill  
            requires law enforcement agencies to develop a set of policies  
            to govern the use of drones that will be presented as a  
            regularly scheduled meeting of the governing body to allow for  
            public comment. 

          "Additionally, AB 1820 indicates instances in which a warrant is  
            needed for the use of a drone and how long the images captured  
            by a drone must be retained before they can be destroyed."

          2)Background:  According to the Federal Aviation Administration  
            (FAA), an unmanned aircraft system (UAS) is 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. 

          An UAS is 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 six  
            inches long. Others can perform dangerous missions without  
            risking loss of life. However, most UAS currently available  
            for purchase by law enforcement lack the capability to do more  
            than simply hover for small periods of time before needing to  
            recharge.  

          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  








                                                                    AB 1820


                                                                    Page  10


            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.  

          California lacks any law or regulation governing the acquisition  
            and use of UAS by law enforcement agencies. Several  
            jurisdictions have already purchased drones with very little,  
            if any, public announcement or discussion.

          3)FAA Regulatory Action on UAS:  The FAA has proposed a  
            framework of regulations that would allow routine use of  
            certain small UAS in today's aviation system, while  
            maintaining flexibility to accommodate future technological  
            innovations. The FAA proposal offers safety rules for small  
            UAS (under 55 pounds) conducting non-recreational operations.  
            The rule would limit flights to daylight optional use of a  
            visual observer, aircraft registration and marking, and  
            operational limits. (  https://www.faa.gov/uas/nprm/)  

          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.  

          For public aircraft operations, the FAA issues a Certificate of  
            Waiver or Authorization (COA) that permits public agencies and  
            organizations to operate a particular aircraft, for a  
            particular purpose, in a particular area. The COA allows an  
            operator to use a defined block of airspace and includes  
            special safety provisions unique to the proposed operation.  
            COAs usually are issued for a specific period - up to two  
            years in many cases.  
            (  https://www.faa.gov/uas/public_operations  /)








                                                                    AB 1820


                                                                    Page  11



          The FAA works with these organizations to develop conditions and  
            limitations for UAS operations to ensure they do not  
            jeopardize the safety of other aviation operations. The  
            objective is to issue a COA with parameters that ensure a  
            level of safety equivalent to manned aircraft. Usually, this  
            entails making sure that the UAS does not operate in a  
            populated area and that the aircraft is observed, either by  
            someone in a manned aircraft or someone on the ground to  
            ensure separation from other aircraft in accordance with  
            right-of-way rules. Common public uses today include law  
            enforcement, firefighting, border patrol, disaster relief,  
            search and rescue, military training, and other government  
            operational missions.

          The FAA manages public aircraft COAs through its COA Online  
            system. Before the FAA grants an agency access to COA Online,  
            the agency will be asked to provide the FAA with a  
            "declaration letter" from the city, county, or state  
            attorney's office assuring the FAA that the proponent is  
            recognized as a political subdivision of the government of the  
            State, as specified, and that the proponent will operate its  
            unmanned aircraft in accordance with federal law.  
            (  https://www.faa.gov/uas/public_operations  /)

          4)Fourth Amendment Considerations: Technology and Warrantless  
            Searches:  Both the United States and the California  
            Constitutions guarantee the right of all persons to be secure  
            from unreasonable searches and seizures. (U.S. Const., amend.  
            IV; Cal. Const., art. 1, sec. 13.)  This protection applies to  
            all unreasonable government intrusions into legitimate  
            expectations of privacy.  (United States v. Chadwick (1977)  
            433 U.S. 1, 7, overruled on other grounds by California v.  
            Acevedo (1991) 500 U.S. 565.)  In general, a search is not  
            valid unless it is conducted pursuant to a warrant. The mere  
            reasonableness of a search, assessed in light of the  
            surrounding circumstances, is not a substitute for the warrant  
            required by the Constitution.  (Arkansas v. Sanders (1979) 442  
            U.S. 753, 758, overruled on other grounds by California v.  
                                                                                   Acevedo, supra.)  There are exceptions to the warrant  
            requirement, but the burden of establishing an exception is on  
            the party seeking one.  (Arkansas v. Sanders (1979) 442 U.S.  








                                                                    AB 1820


                                                                    Page  12


            753, 760, overruled on other grounds by California v. Acevedo,  
            supra.)

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

            In United States v. Jones (2012) 132 S. Ct. 945, the Supreme  
            Court was presented with a Fourth Amendment challenge to the  
            use of a Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking device by  
            law enforcement officers to monitor the movements of a  
            suspected drug trafficker's vehicle over a period of 28 days.   
            The Court held that the government's installation of the GPS  
            device on the defendant's private property for the purpose of  
            conducting surveillance constituted a "search" under the  
            Fourth Amendment.  GPS technology is intrusive because it  
            "generates a precise, comprehensive, record of a person's  
            public movements that reflects a wealth of detail about her  
            familial, political, professional, religious, and sexual  
            associations. The Government can store such records and  
            efficiently mine them for information years into the future."   
            (Id. at pp. 955-956.)

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









                                                                    AB 1820


                                                                    Page  13


          5)Reasonable Notice Requirement:  The proposed use of UAS by law  
            enforcement has been a divisive issue for some local  
            jurisdictions. Public outcry against the unrestrained use of  
            UAS by the government has led some counties to reconsider  
            their use.  In 2013, the sheriff of Alameda County attempted  
            to request funding for UAS by the County Board of Supervisors.  
            The sheriff pulled the item from consideration after public  
            criticism. At the end of 2014, it was revealed that the  
            Alameda County Sheriff went ahead and purchased the UAS using  
            the department's own funds.  Critics, including the American  
            Civil Liberties Union, described the issue as "'a troubling  
            example of law enforcement trying to acquire invasive and  
            extremely unpopular surveillance technology in secret."' (Lee,  
            Alameda County Sheriff Reveals that He's Bought 2 Drones, S.F.  
            Gate (Dec. 3, 2014).) 

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

          This bill requires a law enforcement agency to provide its UAS  
            policy to the public before deploying UAS technology.  This  
            bill also requires the law enforcement agency to present its  
            proposed UAS policy at a regularly scheduled and noticed  
            meeting of its governing body with an opportunity for public  
            comment.

          6)Weaponized UAS:  UAS devices have the capability of being  
            armed with weapons, lethal and nonlethal.  The United States  
            has used armed UAS to target militants in military operations  
            abroad.  (Christopher Drew, Drones Are Weapons of Choice in  
            Fighting Qaeda, New York Times (Mar. 17, 2009).)   
            Domestically, there has been a push by some law enforcement  
            agencies to arm UAS to fire rubber bullets and tear gas.  (See  
            Drones over US to get weaponized - so far, non-lethally,  








                                                                    AB 1820


                                                                    Page  14


            RT.com (May 24, 2012).)  This bill would prohibit the  
            equipping or arming of an UAS with a weapon or other  
            launchable device that may cause injury, death, or property  
            damage, unless authorized by federal law.

          7)Argument in Opposition:  According to California State  
            Sheriffs' Association, ". . ., we are concerned with the  
            bill's provision that would prohibit the use of a UAV in  
            another city or county absent a warrant or exigent  
            circumstances.  There is no reason to prohibit the use of a  
            UAV during a search and rescue mission, for example, because  
            the local law enforcement agency with jurisdiction does not  
            own one.  Moreover, it is simply impractical that a UAV that  
            is operating on the edge of the jurisdictional boundaries of  
            an authorized city or county could limit the collection of  
            date or images to those found solely within that jurisdiction.  
             If anything, the use of UAVs in neighboring counties should  
            be governed by mutual aid agreements or be allowed in  
            multijurisdictional task forces.

          "In addition, we must oppose the provisions that would require  
            the promulgation of specific law enforcement polices before  
            the legislative body with "jurisdiction" over the law  
            enforcement agency seeking to use a UAV.  While public input  
            is appreciated and is often sought, the state Legislature  
            should not mandate the method in which law enforcement  
            policies are adopted at the local level.  We do not believe  
            the public comment period at a board of supervisors meeting -  
            assuming a board of supervisions can be considered the  
            governing body of the office of the elected sheriff - would be  
            conducive to creating appropriate policies and procedures."

          8)Related Legislation:  AB 56 Quirk, of the 2015-2016  
            Legislative Session, would authorize a law enforcement agency  
            to use an UAS if the law enforcement agency complies with  
            specified requirements.  AB 56 is on the Senate Inactive File

          9)Prior Legislation:  

             a)   SB 262 (Galgiani), of the 2015-2016 Legislative Session,  
                would have authorize a law enforcement agency to use UAS  
               if the use of the UAS complies with protections against  








                                                                    AB 1820


                                                                    Page  15


               unreasonable searches guaranteed by the United States  
               Constitution and the California Constitution, federal law,  
               and state law applicable to a law enforcement agency's use  
               of an UAS. 

             b)   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.

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


          REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

          Support

          None

          Opposition
          
          American Civil Liberties Union of California
          California State Sheriffs' Association
            Specifically, this bill:  > 

          EXISTING LAW:  >

          FISCAL EFFECT:  Unknown

          COMMENTS:  >

          10)Author's Statement:  According to the author, ">

          11)Argument in Support:  According to >








                                                                    AB 1820


                                                                    Page  16



          12)Argument in Opposition:  According to >

          13)Related Legislation:  >

          14)Prior Legislation:  >


          REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

          Support

          >

          Opposition
          
          >
          Analysis Prepared  
          by:              David Billingsley / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744