BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



          SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
                             Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
                                2015 - 2016  Regular 

          Bill No:    AB 1820       Hearing Date:    June 21, 2016    
          
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Author:    |Quirk                                                |
          |-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
          |Version:   |May 19, 2016                                         |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Urgency:   |No                     |Fiscal:    |Yes              |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Consultant:|MK                                                   |
          |           |                                                     |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 


                         Subject:  Unmanned Aircraft Systems



          HISTORY

          Source:   Author

          Prior Legislation:SB 167 (Gaines) not heard 2015
                         SB 170 (Gaines) Vetoed 2015
                         SB 262 (Galgiani) Failed Senate Judiciary 2015
                         SB 263 (Gaines) not heard 2015
                         SB 271 (Gaines) Vetoed 2015
                         AB 56 (Quirk) inactive Senate Floor
                         SB 15 (Padilla) failed Assembly Public Safety  
          2014 
                         AB 1327 (Gorell) Vetoed 2014


          Support:  California Civil Liberties Advocacy; Central Coast  
                    Forest Association 

          Opposition:American Civil Liberties Union; California Police  
                    Chiefs Association; California State Sheriffs'  
                    Association; Consumer Federation of California;  
                    Consumer Watchdog; Electronic Frontier Foundation;  
                    Peace Officers Research Association of California;  
                    Privacy Rights Clearinghouse








          AB 1820  (Quirk )                                          Page  
          2 of ?
          
          
          Assembly Floor Vote:                 43 - 25


          PURPOSE
          
          The purpose of this bill is to regulate the use of unmanned  
          aircraft systems (UAS) by law enforcement agencies.
          
          Existing law provides that 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.) 

          Existing law 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. (Penal Code  1523.) 


          Existing law provides that a search warrant may be issued upon  
          any of the following grounds:

          a)  When the property was stolen or embezzled;

          b)  When the property or things were used as the means of  
          committing 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 person has  
            committed a felony;

          e)  When the property or things to be seized consist of evidence  








          AB 1820  (Quirk )                                          Page  
          3 of ?
          
          
            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, 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 to be seized includes evidence of a  
            violation of specified Labor Code sections;

           i)  When the property to be seized includes a firearm or deadly  
          weapon or any other      
            deadly weapon at the scene of a domestic violence offense;

          j)  When the property to be seized includes a firearm or deadly  
            weapon owned by a person apprehended because of his or her  
            mental condition;

          k)  When the property to be seized is a firearm in possession of  
            a person prohibited under the family code;

          l)  When the information to be received from the use of a  
            tracking device under shows a specified violation of the Fish  
            and Game Code or Public Resources Code;

          m)  When a sample of blood would show evidence of a DUI; or,

          n)  Starting January 1, 2016, when the property to be seized is  
            a firearm owned by a person subject to a gun violence  
            restraining order. (Penal Code  1524(a).)

          Existing law 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.  








          AB 1820  (Quirk )                                          Page  
          4 of ?
          
          
          (Penal Code  632 (c).) 

          Existing 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.  
          (Penal Code  633.) 

          Existing law, in the 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. (Government Code,  6250 et. seq.) 

          Existing law 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. (Government Code,  6253)

          This bill 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. 

          This bill 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. 

          This bill allows a law enforcement agency to use UAS system, or  
          use information obtained from a UAS system used by another  
          public agency, only if the law enforcement agency complies with  
          the regulations of this bill and all other applicable federal,  
          state, and local laws. 

          This bill 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 or the law enforcement agency has entered  
          into a written public agreement with the appropriate law  








          AB 1820  (Quirk )                                          Page  
          5 of ?
          
          
          enforcement agency in the other city or county. 

          This bill 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. 

          This bill requires a law enforcement agency to use the unmanned  
          aircraft system consistent with the policy developed regarding  
          UAS. 

          This bill specifies that a law enforcement agency's UAS policy  
          must include the following: 
                 The circumstances under which an unmanned aircraft  
               system may or may not be used; 
                 The rules and processes required before using an  
               unmanned aircraft system;
                 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;
                 The safeguards to protect against unauthorized use or  
               access;
                 The training required for any individual authorized to  
               use or access information collected by an unmanned aircraft  
               system;
                 The guidelines for sharing images, footage, or data with  
               other law enforcement agencies and public agencies;
                 The manner in which information obtained from another  
               public agency's use of an unmanned aircraft system will be  
               used;
                 Mechanisms to ensure that the policy is adhered to. 
                 The finalized policy developed shall be posted on the  
               law enforcement agency's public Internet Web Site
                 The law enforcement agency shall maintain an Internet  
               Web site page for public input to address civilians'  
               concerns and recommendations.

          This bill provides that if a law enforcement agency elects to  
          permit another law enforcement agency to use an UAS within the  
          jurisdiction by means of an agreement, the agency shall post a  
          copy of the agreement on its Internet Web site.  The agreement  
          shall at minimum specify that the policies developed by the law  
          enforcement agency that owns the UAS will be complied with by  








          AB 1820  (Quirk )                                          Page  
          6 of ?
          
          
          the law enforcement agency in the jurisdiction in which the UAS  
          is used.

          This bill 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. 

          This bill 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. 

          This bill specifies that exigent circumstances include, but are  
          not limited to, the following: 
                     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. 
                     To determine the appropriate response to an imminent  
                 or existing environmental emergency or disaster,  
                 including, but not limited to, oils spills or chemical  
                 spills. 

          This bill 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:
                     For training purposes of the law enforcement  
                 agency's employees in matters related to the mission of  
                 the law enforcement agency;
                     For academic research or teaching purposes; 
                     If a search warrant authorized collection of the  
                 images, footage, or data; and
                     If the images, footage, or data are evidence in any  
                 claim filed or any pending litigation, internal  
                 disciplinary proceeding, enforcement proceeding, or  
                 criminal investigation. 

          This bill prohibits a person, entity, or public agency from  








          AB 1820  (Quirk )                                          Page  
          7 of ?
          
          
          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. 

          This bill 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.

          This bill 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) 

          This bill authorizes a local legislative body to adopt more  
          restrictive policies on the acquisition or use of unmanned  
          aircraft systems by a law enforcement agency. 

          This bill states that except for provisions of this bill,  that  
          surveillance restrictions on electronic devices shall also apply  
          to UAS. 

          This bill defines "surveil" as "the purposeful observation of a  
          person or private property with the intent of gathering criminal  
          intelligence." 

          This bill defines "criminal intelligence" as "information  
          compiled, analyzed, or disseminated in an effort to anticipate,  
          prevent, monitor, or investigate criminal activity." 

          This bill 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."

          This bill 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.









          AB 1820  (Quirk )                                          Page  
          8 of ?
          
          
                    RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION

          For the past several years this Committee has scrutinized  
          legislation referred to its jurisdiction for any potential  
          impact on prison overcrowding.  Mindful of the United States  
          Supreme Court ruling and federal court orders relating to the  
          state's ability to provide a constitutional level of health care  
          to its inmate population and the related issue of prison  
          overcrowding, this Committee has applied its "ROCA" policy as a  
          content-neutral, provisional measure necessary to ensure that  
          the Legislature does not erode progress in reducing prison  
          overcrowding.   

          On February 10, 2014, the federal court ordered California to  
          reduce its in-state adult institution population to 137.5% of  
          design capacity by February 28, 2016, as follows:   

                 143% of design bed capacity by June 30, 2014;
                 141.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2015; and,
                 137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2016. 

          In December of 2015 the administration reported that as "of  
          December 9, 2015, 112,510 inmates were housed in the State's 34  
          adult institutions, which amounts to 136.0% of design bed  
          capacity, and 5,264 inmates were housed in out-of-state  
          facilities.  The current population is 1,212 inmates below the  
          final court-ordered population benchmark of 137.5% of design bed  
          capacity, and has been under that benchmark since February  
          2015."  (Defendants' December 2015 Status Report in Response to  
          February 10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC, 3-Judge  
          Court, Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn. omitted).)  One  
          year ago, 115,826 inmates were housed in the State's 34 adult  
          institutions, which amounted to 140.0% of design bed capacity,  
          and 8,864 inmates were housed in out-of-state facilities.   
          (Defendants' December 2014 Status Report in Response to February  
          10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC, 3-Judge Court, Coleman  
          v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn. omitted).)  
           
          While significant gains have been made in reducing the prison  
          population, the state must stabilize these advances and  
          demonstrate to the federal court that California has in place  
          the "durable solution" to prison overcrowding "consistently  
          demanded" by the court.  (Opinion Re: Order Granting in Part and  
          Denying in Part Defendants' Request For Extension of December  








          AB 1820  (Quirk )                                          Page  
          9 of ?
          
          
          31, 2013 Deadline, NO. 2:90-cv-0520 LKK DAD (PC), 3-Judge Court,  
          Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (2-10-14).  The Committee's  
          consideration of bills that may impact the prison population  
          therefore will be informed by the following questions:

              Whether a proposal erodes a measure which has contributed  
               to reducing the prison population;
              Whether a proposal addresses a major area of public safety  
               or criminal activity for which there is no other  
               reasonable, appropriate remedy;
              Whether a proposal addresses a crime which is directly  
               dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there  
               is no other reasonably appropriate sanction; 
              Whether a proposal corrects a constitutional problem or  
               legislative drafting error; and
              Whether a proposal proposes penalties which are  
               proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other  
               reasonably appropriate remedy.

          COMMENTS
          1.  Need for This Bill
          
          According to the author:

               Per 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. 

               Current 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.   








          AB 1820  (Quirk )                                          Page  
          10 of ?
          
          


               On February 15, 2015, the FAA published a proposed a  
               new framework of regulations for the use of UAS in  
               national airspace (above 400 feet), which would allow  
               the routine use of certain small UAS (under 55 pounds).  
                The proposed rules would limit flights to  
               non-recreational, daylight, visual-line-of-sight  
               operations.  The rules also address height  
               restrictions, operator certification, aircraft  
               registration and marking, and operational limits. 

               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 6 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 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.









          AB 1820  (Quirk )                                          Page  
          11 of ?
          
          
               In response to the lack of direction on the use of this  
               new technology, AB 1820 requires law enforcement  
               agencies to develop policies on the use of unmanned  
               aircraft systems. Areas that must be covered in the  
               policy include the following:
                     Circumstances under which an unmanned aircraft  
                 system may or may not be used
                     The individuals who may access the unmanned  
                 aircraft system and training requirements
                     Safeguards to protect against unauthorized use  
                 or access
                     Guidelines for sharing images, footage or data  
                 with other law enforcement agencies and public  
                 agencies
                     Mechanics to ensure the policies are ensured

               AB 1820 requires law enforcement agencies to post the  
               policies on their website and to allow for public to  
               comment on any concerns or suggestions on their use. 

               With limited exceptions, data captured by unmanned  
                                                                                         aircraft systems must be destroyed within a year. 

               AB 1820 requires law enforcement agencies to operate  
               unmanned aircraft systems in a way that minimizes the  
               inadvertent collection of images, footage and data.

               Additionally, the bill prohibits the use of a drone  
               over private property unless access to the property is  
               granted, or, pending an exigent circumstance, a warrant  
               is obtained.  

          2.  Technology and the 4th Amendment 

          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 where a person has a reasonable  
          expectation of privacy. The mere reasonableness of a search,  








          AB 1820  (Quirk )                                          Page  
          12 of ?
          
          
          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. 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  








          AB 1820  (Quirk )                                          Page  
          13 of ?
          
          
          technology to conduct surveillance without a warrant may be  
          restricted by the Fourth Amendment.



          3.  Use of UAS by a Law Enforcement Agency

          Generally, this bill requires allows a law enforcement agency to  
          use a UAS on public lands when specified requirements are met  
          and requires a warrant, permission or exigent circumstance for  
          an UAS to be used on private property.

          It would require a law enforcement agency to develop a public  
          policy on the use of an UAS and train its officers and employees  
          in the use before using an UAS. The bill specifies what issues  
          at minimum the policy must address and requires that the policy  
          be posted on the law enforcement agency's website.

          The bill also provides that if an agency uses an UAS from  
          another jurisdiction they may only do so if an exigent  
          circumstance exist or if the law enforcement agency has entered  
          into a written, public agreement with the appropriate law  
          enforcement agency in the other jurisdiction and that the other  
          law enforcement agencies complies with the requirements of the  
          law.

          4.  Use on Private Property
          
          This bill provides that a law enforcement agency shall not use  
          an UAS or borrow a UAS to surveil private property unless the  
          law enforcement agency has either obtained a search warrant or  
          has the express permission of the person or entity with the  
          legal authority to authorize a search of the property.  However  
          if there is an exigent circumstance, including an emergency  
          situation where there is an imminent threat to life or of great  
          bodily harm or a need to determine the appropriate response to  
          an imminent or existing environmental emergency or disaster.

          5.  Retention of Data
          
          This bill provides that a law enforcement agency using a UAS  
          should make a good faith effort to operate the system so as to  
          minimize the collection of images, footage, or data of persons,  
          places or things not specified with particularity in the warrant  








          AB 1820  (Quirk )                                          Page  
          14 of ?
          
          
          authorizing the use or for purposes unrelated to the  
          justification for the operation.

          This bill provides that images, footage or data obtained through  
          the use of an UAS shall be permanently destroyed within one year  
          unless:

                 The data, images etc. are to be use for educational and  
               training of the law enforcement agency's employees.
                 The data, images etc. are to be used for academic  
               research or teaching purposes.
                 If a search warrant authorized the collection of images,  
               data etc.
                 If the images, data etc. are evidence in any claim filed  
               or any pending litigation, internal disciplinary  
               proceeding, enforcement proceeding or criminal  
               investigation.

          5.  Arming of a UAS
          
          This bill prohibits equipping or arming an UAS with a weapon or  
          other device that may be carried by, or launched or directed  
          from, an UAS and that is intended to cause incapacitation,  
          bodily injury or death, or damage to, or the destruction of,  
          real or personal property.



          6.  Support
          
          The California Civil Liberties Advocacy supports this bill  
          stating:

               The CCLA believes that law enforcement should never be  
               permitted to use unmanned aerial vehicles absent a  
               warrant based on probable cause. Nor should they be  
               allowed to disseminate images or video footage of  
               persons or property captured by such vehicles to other  
               agencies or to the public absent a warrant, court  
               order, absent the express consent of the persons or  
               lawful owners of the property contained in the footage.  


               Under the provisions of AB 1820, law enforcement  








          AB 1820  (Quirk )                                          Page  
          15 of ?
          
          
               agencies will be prohibited from using unmanned aerial  
               vehicles absent a usage and data retention policy that  
               must be finalized pursuant to a regularly scheduled  
               public meeting. The bill stipulates-and it is  
               imperative-that local members of the public have an  
               opportunity to weigh in on these policies. To exclude  
               members of the public from the policy-making process  
               would be to circumvent a fundamental component of a  
               democratic republic.  Though local legislative bodies  
               and law enforcement groups would likely be opposed, it  
               would be far more ideal if such policies were put to a  
               vote by the local electorate. These pragmatic concerns  
               aside, the opportunity for public comment is necessary  
               at the bare minimum in order to preserve some semblance  
               of a democracy. 

               The most significant provision of AB 1820 is the  
               requirement that law enforcement agencies obtain a  
               search warrant based on probable case. Nonetheless, AB  
               1820 currently contains provisions for exigent  
               circumstances where obtaining a warrant would hinder  
               law enforcement, or where "the collection of images,  
               footage, or data" may involve another jurisdiction.   
               This should ameliorate any fears from law enforcement  
               that AB 1820 will hinder "hot pursuit" or emergency  
               situations, or the incidental collection of images or  
               footage involving other jurisdictions.

          6.  Opposition
          
          The ACLU, Consumer Watchdog, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse  
          and Consumer Federation of California oppose this bill  
          stating in part:

               Although it may be unintended, AB 1820 appears to grant  
               unparalleled 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 apparently be  
               authorized to track any person by following them around  
               any time they are in public, without any judicial  
               oversight or cause to suspect wrongdoing.  This kind of  
               monitoring is even more intrusive than using a GPS  
               device to track the movements of a suspect, which was  








          AB 1820  (Quirk )                                          Page  
          16 of ?
          
          
               invalidated as an unconstitutional search in United  
               States v Jones (2012) 132 S. Ct. 945 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.)

               By omitting the need for a warrant when a law  
               enforcement agency uses drones over public lands within  
               its jurisdiction, among other omissions, AB 1820  
               implies there is no expectation of privacy so long as  
               the drone is over a public area. The right to privacy  
               is not lost simply because the surveillance is over  
               public land.  This kind of invasive spying authorized  
               by AB 1820 is not consistent with reasonable  
               expectations of privacy and appears to be in violation  
               of both article 1 1of the California Constitution and  
               the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution.


                                      -- END -