BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1820
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 4, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Lorena Gonzalez, Chair
AB
1820 (Quirk) - As Amended April 11, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Public Safety |Vote:|7 - 0 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| |Privacy and Consumer | |4 - 6 |
| |Protection | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| |Privacy and Consumer | |6 - 5 |
| |Protection | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: YesReimbursable:
No
SUMMARY:
This bill regulates the use of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS)
AB 1820
Page 2
by state and local law enforcement agencies by requiring that a
law enforcement agency, if it wishes to deploy UAS, to develop a
policy on the use of UAS, disclose the proposed policy to the
public, and train the agency's officers and staff on the policy
before UAS is deployed.
FISCAL EFFECT:
1)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.
2)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
Highway Patrol (CHP), and the Department of Fish and Wildlife
(DFW), and the Office of Emergency Services (OES).
COMMENTS:
1)Background. Several local governments in California are
considering allowing law enforcement to use UAS in their
jurisdictions. For example, 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.
AB 1820
Page 3
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.
2)Purpose. According to the author, "Technology has played a
critical role in helping law enforcement groups strategize new
ways to fight crime. An unmanned aircraft system (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."
This bill is intended to protect personal privacy and promote
transparency in law enforcement by establishing a set of
public parameters for law enforcement use of UAS, commonly
known as "drones," over public and private spaces in
California.
3)Support. The California Civil Liberties Advocacy (CCLA)
writes in support, "CCLA strongly feels that AB 1820 properly
balances the privacy interests of individual citizens with law
enforcement's need to detect, prevent, and prosecute crime by
requiring sound usage and data retention policies, and by
requiring law enforcement to obtain a search warrant in
connection with footage obtained for a criminal
AB 1820
Page 4
investigation."
4)Opposition. The American Civil Liberties Union of California
(ACLU) contends that police should not use UAS without a
warrant, stating that, "Drones represent a revolutionary new
technology that has the potential to be a useful law
enforcement tool but which also creates serious new threats to
privacy that must be subject to the controls of a search
warrant."
5)Related Legislation.
a) AB 56 (Quirk) regulates the use of UAS by public
agencies, including law enforcement. AB 56 passed the
Assembly on a 61-12 vote and is pending on the Senate
Inactive File.
b) SB 262 (Galgiani) would have authorized a law
enforcement agency to use a UAS if it complied with the
U.S. Constitution and the California Constitution, federal
law applicable to the use of UAS by a law enforcement
agency, state law applicable to a law enforcement agency's
use of surveillance technology that can be attached to a
UAS, and provided the local governing board approved the
use. SB 262 was held in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
c) SB 868 (Jackson) proposes the State Remote Piloted
Aircraft Act containing numerous UAS regulations. SB 868
is pending before the Senate Public Safety Committee.
AB 1820
Page 5
1)Prior Legislation. 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 a UAS to invade a person's
privacy. SB 15 failed passage in the Assembly Public Safety
Committee.
Analysis Prepared by:Pedro Reyes / APPR. / (916)
319-2081