BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair
2015-2016 Regular Session
AB 1820 (Quirk)
Version: May 19, 2016
Hearing Date: June 28, 2016
Fiscal: Yes
Urgency: No
TH
SUBJECT
Unmanned Aircraft Systems
DESCRIPTION
This bill prohibits a law enforcement agency from using an
unmanned aircraft system, obtaining an unmanned aircraft system
from another public agency, or using information obtained from
an unmanned aircraft system, except as specifically authorized.
A law enforcement agency would be authorized to use an unmanned
aircraft system if it, among other things, develops a policy on
the use of unmanned aircraft systems that meets specified
requirements. The bill would prohibit a law enforcement agency
from using an unmanned aircraft system to surveil private
property, unless the law enforcement agency obtains a search
warrant or express permission to search the property, or an
exigent circumstance exists.
This bill would require any images, footage, or data obtained
through the use of an unmanned aircraft system to be permanently
destroyed within one year, and would prohibit a person or entity
from equipping or arming an unmanned aircraft system with a
weapon or other device, except as specified.
BACKGROUND
The development of small unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) - known
variously as "unmanned aerial vehicles," "remote piloted
aircraft," or simply "drones" - promises to transform the way
Californians interact with each other and their environment.
Just a few decades ago, small aircraft of this type were the
AB 1820 (Quirk)
PageB of?
exclusive domain of hobbyists. Within the last decade or so,
the public has become familiar with the military's use of
unmanned aircraft to accomplish certain mission objectives.
However, in December 2013 when Amazon.com, FedEx, and UPS
announced their plans to integrate unmanned aircraft into their
logistics and delivery services, the possibility of widespread
adoption of this technology became clear.
Along with a variety of businesses, law enforcement agencies
across the country are starting to look at how to leverage
unmanned aerial vehicle technology. According to one report:
As drones become cheaper and more capable, more police
departments across the country are asking for and getting
federal approval to use them for law enforcement. But the
Federal Aviation Administration only takes safety into
consideration when it grants a law enforcement agency approval
to use drones, leaving privacy protections to
legislation-which, depending on the state in question, may or
may not exist. Agencies as large as the Michigan State Police
and as small as the Grand Forks County [N.D.] Sheriff's
Department have received FAA approval to use drones. Most
departments use them for missions like search-and-rescue or
for photographing a crime scene or an accident site. But
unless a law enforcement agency is within one of the 14 states
that have passed privacy legislation limiting how police can
use drones, there's little in theory keeping it from using a
drone for a less innocuous end-such as surveillance without a
warrant. (Kaveh Waddell, Few Privacy Limitations Exist on How
Police Use Drones, National Journal (Feb. 5, 2015)
[as of
June 19, 2016].)
At present, the use of unmanned aerial vehicles of any kind in
the skies over California is fairly restricted. Congress
effectively closed the national airspace to commercial drone use
in the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Modernization and
AB 1820 (Quirk)
PageC of?
Reform Act of 2012.<1> That Act established a framework for
safely integrating unmanned aircraft into the national airspace
no later than September 30, 2015. The Act does, however, permit
certain commercial unmanned aircraft operations to take place
before the integration framework is implemented. Section 333 of
the Act authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to establish
special interim requirements for the operation of these aircraft
by designated operators, provided the aircraft and their
operators meet certain minimum standards and have applied for a
commercial use exemption. To date, hundreds of commercial
operators have applied for, and received, permission to fly
commercial drones, including film production companies,
construction, surveying, and inspection companies, and real
estate firms. The Act also sets out a separate interim
operation exemption for "public unmanned aircraft," allowing
public agencies like police departments to operate drones upon
application, provided the aircraft and their operators meet
certain minimum standards.<2> According to recent media
reports, several California law enforcement agencies and other
public entities have acquired drones, but very few have put them
into service.
This bill would prohibit a law enforcement agency from using an
unmanned aircraft system unless it first adopts a policy
governing its use. Among other things, this bill would require
a law enforcement agency to obtain a warrant before using a UAS
in another city or county, or before surveiling private
property, except in specified circumstances. This bill would
also prohibit the weaponization of drones, and would require
images and other data obtained by a UAS to be destroyed within
one year, except as specified.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
---------------------------
<1> H.R. 658, 112th Congress (2011-2012). In general, the FAA
is tasked with regulating aircraft operations conducted in the
national airspace under 49 U.S.C. Sec. 40103. This authority
extends to unmanned aircraft operations, which, by definition,
are considered to be "aircraft." (See 49 U.S.C. Sec.
40102(a)(6), which defines an "aircraft" as "any contrivance
invented, used, or designed to navigate, or fly in, the air.")
<2> See Section 334 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of
2012.
AB 1820 (Quirk)
PageD of?
Existing law , the California Constitution, provides that all
people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable
rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and
pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy. (Cal.
Const, art. I, Sec. 1.)
Existing federal and state law provide that the right of the
people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not
be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable
cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly
describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things
to be seized. (U.S. Const., 4th Amend.; Cal. Const, art. I,
Sec. 13.)
Existing federal law provides that the Federal Aviation
Administration shall regulate aircraft operations conducted in
the national airspace, including unmanned aircraft operations.
(49 U.S.C. Sec. 40103; 49 U.S.C. Sec. 40102(a)(6).)
Existing law makes it a crime for any person to intentionally
and without the consent of all parties to a confidential
communication, by means of any electronic amplifying or
recording device, eavesdrop upon or record the confidential
communication, whether the communication is carried on among the
parties in the presence of one another or by means of a
telegraph, telephone, or other device. (Pen. Code Sec. 632.)
Existing law provides that any person who trespasses on property
for the purpose of committing any act, or attempting to commit
any act, in violation of the above provision shall be punished
by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars
($2,500), by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one
year or in the state prison, or by both that fine and
imprisonment. (Pen. Code Sec. 634.)
Existing law provides that no person or entity in this state
shall use an electronic tracking device to determine the
location or movement of a person, but also provides that this
section shall not apply to the lawful use of an electronic
tracking device by a law enforcement agency. (Pen. Code Sec.
637.7.)
This bill prohibits law enforcement agencies and private
entities acting under contract or as an agent of a law
AB 1820 (Quirk)
PageE of?
enforcement agency, from using an unmanned aircraft system,
obtaining an unmanned aircraft system from another public agency
by contract, loan, or other arrangement, or using information
obtained from an unmanned aircraft system used by another public
agency, except as authorized.
This bill provides that if the use of an unmanned aircraft
system by a local law enforcement agency involves the collection
of images, footage, or data from another county, city, or city
and county, the law enforcement agency shall obtain a warrant
based on probable cause, unless either of the following applies:
an exigent circumstance exists; or
the law enforcement agency has entered into a written, public
agreement with the appropriate law enforcement agency in the
other county, city, or city and county, as specified.
This bill provides that if a law enforcement agency elects to
use an unmanned aircraft system, the law enforcement agency
shall first develop and make available to the public a policy on
its use of the unmanned aircraft system, and train the law
enforcement agency's officers and employees on the policy,
before the use of the unmanned aircraft system.
This bill requires a law enforcement agency to use an unmanned
aircraft system consistent with its policy, and states that the
policy shall specify, at a minimum, all of the following:
the circumstances under which an unmanned aircraft system may
or may not be used;
the rules and processes required before the use of 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; and
mechanisms to ensure that the policy is adhered to.
This bill states that the finalized policy shall be
predominantly posted on the law enforcement agency's public
AB 1820 (Quirk)
PageF of?
Internet Web site, and that the law enforcement agency shall
maintain an Internet Web site page for public input to address
civilians' concerns and recommendations regarding that policy.
This bill states that if a law enforcement agency elects to
permit another law enforcement agency to use an unmanned
aircraft system within the agency's jurisdiction by means of an
agreement, the agency shall post a copy of the agreement on its
Internet Web site, and the agreement, at a minimum, shall
specify that the policies developed by the law enforcement
agency that owns the unmanned aircraft system will be complied
with by that law enforcement agency in the jurisdiction in which
the unmanned aircraft system is used.
This bill states that a law enforcement agency shall not use an
unmanned aircraft system, obtain an unmanned aircraft system
from another public agency by contract, loan, or other
arrangement, or use information obtained from an unmanned
aircraft system used by another public agency to surveil private
property unless the law enforcement agency has obtained either
of the following:
a search warrant based on probable cause; or
the express permission of the person or entity with the legal
authority to authorize a search of the specific private
property to be subjected to surveillance.
This bill states, notwithstanding the above, a law enforcement
agency may use an unmanned aircraft system to surveil private
property if an exigent circumstance exists, including, but not
limited to, either of the following circumstances:
in emergency situations if there is an imminent threat to life
or of great bodily harm; or
to determine the appropriate response to an imminent or
existing environmental emergency or disaster.
This bill states that images, footage, or data obtained through
the use of an unmanned aircraft system shall be permanently
destroyed within one year, except that a law enforcement agency
may retain the images, footage, or data in both of the following
circumstances:
for the education and instruction of a law enforcement
agency's employees in matters related to the mission of the
law enforcement agency; and
for the advancement of research and teaching conducted by an
academic or research institution and matters related to the
mission of the institution.
AB 1820 (Quirk)
PageG of?
This bill states, notwithstanding the above, a law enforcement
agency may retain beyond one year images, footage, or data
obtained through the use of an unmanned aircraft system in both
of the following circumstances:
if a search warrant authorized the collection of the images,
footage, or data; or
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 provides that, unless authorized by federal law, a
person or entity shall not equip or arm an unmanned aircraft
system with a weapon or other device that may be carried by, or
launched or directed from, an unmanned aircraft system and that
is intended to cause incapacitation, bodily injury or death, or
damage to, or the destruction of, real or personal property.
This bill provides that a law enforcement agency shall make a
good faith effort to operate an unmanned aircraft system so as
to minimize the collection of images, footage, or data of
persons, places, or things not specified with particularity in
the warrant authorizing its use or for purposes unrelated to the
justification for the operation.
This bill provides that a local legislative body may adopt more
restrictive policies on the acquisition, use, or retention of
unmanned aircraft systems by a law enforcement agency.
COMMENT
1.Stated need for the bill
The author writes:
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations on the
use of drones are in their infancy. Furthermore, these
regulations focus on commercial and personal use. In February
2015 President Obama issued a memorandum to department and
agency executives requiring that they develop policies and
procedures on the use of drones. The memorandum highlighted 5
key areas that needed to be addressed including privacy
protections, civil rights and civil liberties protections,
accountability, transparency and reporting. The FAA and
President Obama's [memorandum] are silent on how local law
AB 1820 (Quirk)
PageH of?
enforcement should or should not operate a drone.
Additionally, California lacks any law or regulation governing
the acquisition and use of [drones] by law enforcement
agencies. Several jurisdictions have already purchased drones
with very little, if any, public announcement or discussion.
AB 1820 requires law enforcement agencies to develop policies
on the use of unmanned aircraft systems before they can be
deployed for use. 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; and
Mechanics to ensure the policies are followed.
AB 1820 requires law enforcement agencies to post the policies
on their website and to allow the public to express concerns
on the policies or use of drones. 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. [The bill also]
restricts cross-jurisdictional use of a drone unless an
exigent circumstance exists, there is a warrant, or [a]
written agreement between jurisdictions to allow for aerial
surveillance aid.
2.Fundamental Right to Privacy
The California Constitution provides that all people have
inalienable rights, including the right to pursue and obtain
privacy. (Cal. Const., art. I, Sec. 1.) This "right of privacy
is vitally important. It derives, in this state, not only from
the protections against unreasonable searches and seizures
guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment and article I, section 13,
but also from article I, section 1, of our State Constitution.
AB 1820 (Quirk)
PageI of?
Homage to personhood is the foundation for individual rights
protected by our state and national Constitutions." (In re
William G. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 550, 563.) Because of their
inherent maneuverability and the ease with which they may enter
spaces infeasible for manned aircraft, the growth of unmanned
aerial vehicle technology presents a challenge to maintaining
traditional boundaries that separate public and private spheres,
and to preserving the fundamental right to privacy in
California.
California's constitutional right to privacy restricts the
government and others from infringing upon legally protected
privacy interests of California residents. The California
Supreme Court has found that "[l]egally recognized privacy
interests are generally of two classes: (1) interests in
precluding the dissemination or misuse of sensitive and
confidential information (informational privacy); and (2)
interests in making intimate personal decisions or conducting
personal activities without observation, intrusion, or
interference (autonomy privacy). (Hill v. National Collegiate
Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 35 [internal quotation marks
omitted].) The latter of these - informational privacy - is
"the core value" furthered by the constitutional right of
privacy. (Id.) "A particular class of information is private
when well-established social norms recognize the need to
maximize individual control over its dissemination and use to
prevent unjustified embarrassment or indignity. Such norms
create a threshold reasonable expectation of privacy in the data
at issue." (Id.) The Court has held that "the usual sources of
positive law governing the right to privacy -- common law
development, constitutional development, [and] statutory
enactment"-- illuminate "[w]hether established social norms
safeguard a particular type of information . . . from public or
private intervention." (Id. at 36.)
Recent Fourth Amendment jurisprudence strongly suggests that
information subject to collection by unmanned aircraft operated
by law enforcement agencies, such as locational information and
surveillance data, falls within the class of information
safeguarded by established social norms. In United States v.
Jones (2012) 132 S. Ct. 945, for example, the U.S. Supreme Court
examined the significant privacy concerns raised by locational
tracking technology. The Jones case considered whether the
attachment of a Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking device
to an individual's vehicle, and the subsequent use of that
device to track the vehicle's movements on public streets,
AB 1820 (Quirk)
PageJ of?
constituted a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
In her concurring opinion, Justice Sotomayor made the following
observations:
Awareness that the Government may be watching chills
associational and expressive freedoms. And the Government's
unrestrained power to assemble data that reveal private
aspects of identity is susceptible to abuse. The net result
is that GPS monitoring--by making available at a relatively
low cost such a substantial quantum of intimate information
about any person whom the Government, in its unfettered
discretion, chooses to track--may alter the relationship
between citizen and government in a way that is inimical to
democratic society.
I would take these attributes of GPS monitoring into account
when considering the existence of a reasonable societal
expectation of privacy in the sum of one's public movements.
I would ask whether people reasonably expect that their
movements will be recorded and aggregated in a manner that
enables the Government to ascertain, more or less at will,
their political and religious beliefs, sexual habits, and so
on. (United States v. Jones (2012) 132 S. Ct. 945, 955-956
[internal citations and quotation marks omitted].)
Use of unmanned aircraft to track the location of individuals
and gather surveillance data is arguably more invasive than GPS
tracking of a vehicle's movements on public streets. Unlike GPS
tracking, unmanned aircraft can collect data on a wide range of
individuals at the same time, and in areas far removed from
public streets.
This bill proposes a number of safeguards that would help ensure
law enforcement agencies operate unmanned aircraft systems in a
manner that respects Californian's fundamental right to privacy.
First, this bill would prohibit the use of these vehicles until
after a law enforcement agency develops a usage policy
disclosing how drone systems will be deployed and how
information gathered through these systems will be used or
shared. Second, the bill includes warrant requirements for use
of unmanned aircraft in cities or counties outside a local law
enforcement agency's home jurisdiction, and over private
property when surveiling that property, subject to specified
exceptions. Third, the bill contains provisions that require
law enforcement officers to minimize the collection of images
AB 1820 (Quirk)
PageK of?
and data via an unmanned aircraft system to only that specified
in an authorizing warrant or, in the case no warrant was issued,
to only that which is necessary to carry out the operation
prompting use of the aircraft. The bill also would require law
enforcement agencies to delete data collected by a drone within
a year of its collection, unless needed for such things as
prosecution of a criminal investigation or unless it was
collected pursuant to a warrant.
While these provisions would help to ensure that law enforcement
drones are operated in a manner respectful of the fundamental
right to privacy, the author may wish to consider amending the
bill to explicitly require UAS usage policies to describe how
authorized uses are consistent with respect for individual
privacy and civil liberties, and to explicitly prohibit the use
of these aircraft for the sole purpose of monitoring individuals
exercising constitutionally guaranteed rights, such as the right
to speak or peaceably assemble under the First Amendment.
Additionally, the author may wish to consider amending the bill
to ensure that its requirements are enforceable by a broad range
of stakeholders, and that aggrieved parties are given adequate
remedies to redress harms in the event of non-compliance.
Potential Amendments:
require law enforcement unmanned aircraft system use to
comply with all applicable law, including the fundamental
right to privacy;
require law enforcement use policies to describe how
unmanned aircraft system use will respect privacy and civil
liberties, and the measures that will be used to ensure the
accuracy of information or data collected;
prohibit the use of unmanned aircraft systems solely for
the purpose of monitoring activities protected by the First
Amendment or the lawful exercise of other rights secured by
the United States Constitution, the California
Constitution, and federal and state law;
require law enforcement use policies to be periodically
reviewed and approved by public governing bodies; and
provide adequate remedies for individuals harmed by the
improper use of unmanned aircraft systems.
The addition of "privacy" to the list of unalienable rights in
the California Constitution "was intended to strengthen the
right of privacy," and "[t]he elevation of the right to be free
from invasions of privacy to constitutional stature was
AB 1820 (Quirk)
PageL of?
apparently intended to be an expansion of the [existing] privacy
right." (Cent. Valley Ch. 7th Step Found. v. Younger (1989) 214
Cal.App.3d 145, 160.) "[The] principal 'mischiefs' at which the
amendment is directed are: (1) 'government snooping' and the
secret gathering of personal information; (2) the overbroad
collection and retention of unnecessary personal information by
government and business interests; (3) the improper use of
information properly obtained for a specific purpose, for
example, the use of it for another purpose or the disclosure of
it to some third party; and (4) the lack of a reasonable check
on the accuracy of existing records." (Id.) The policy
question for this Committee to consider is, without more, does
this bill provide enough guidance to law enforcement agencies to
avoid the "mischiefs" the privacy amendment sought to curtail?
1.Data Use and Security
As discussed in Comment 2, the type of information collected
through the use of an unmanned aircraft system (UAS) could be
highly sensitive. For example, locational data gathered by a
UAS, especially over time, can be used to determine a person's
political and religious beliefs, known associates, frequented
places, and even their medical conditions. Other recent bills
regulating law enforcement's use of surveillance technologies
considered by this Committee have included provisions addressing
security and operational protocols to ensure that collected data
remains confidential and is protected from unauthorized access
or use. (See e.g. Sen. Com. on Judiciary, Analysis of Sen. Bill
No. 34 (2015-2016 Reg. Sess.) as introduced, [for hearing on
Apr. 14, 2015].) This bill would require a law enforcement
agency's usage policy to describe, among other things,
"safeguards to protect unauthorized use or access." However,
the bill does not impose any direct requirements to ensure that
collected data is protected from misuse or data breach, or that
the permissible use of collected data is restricted by
appropriate safeguards to ensure respect for individual privacy
and civil liberties.
Insufficient data security and use protocols for UAS collected
information may risk infringing upon an individual's
constitutional right to privacy in much the same way as improper
"front-end" collection practices. Under this bill, law
enforcement agencies will be confronted with determining such
things as what purposes images, footage, or data obtained
through the use of a UAS should be used for, whether this
AB 1820 (Quirk)
PageM of?
information should be used for purposes other than that for
which they were originally collected, and whether it should be
shared with other public and private entities. Similarly, law
enforcement agencies will have to determine how such information
should be protected from misuse or improper access and who
should have access to it. The policy question for this
Committee to consider is whether the Legislature ought to
provide more direct guidance to law enforcement agencies faced
with these critical issues of data security and privacy
protection. To this end, the Committee may wish to amend this
bill to provide explicit data use and security standards that
directly protect individual privacy and civil liberties.
Potential Amendments:
ensure that information and data gathered through the use of
an unmanned aircraft system is protected with reasonable
operational, administrative, technical, and physical
safeguards to ensure its confidentiality and integrity; and
implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and
practices in order to protect information and data gathered
through the use of that system from unauthorized access,
destruction, use, modification, or disclosure.
1.Opposition Concerns
A coalition of privacy and civil liberty groups in opposition to
this bill state:
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 be authorized to track anyone, including by
following them around any time they are in public, without any
judicial oversight or cause to suspect wrongdoing. . . 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 device
is over public land. . . . Additionally, the bill appears to
authorize warrantless surveillance of activities protected by
the First Amendment, such as protest rallies, which has led to
documented abuses by law enforcement. Law enforcement should
not be authorized to perform such wide-ranging surveillance
AB 1820 (Quirk)
PageN of?
without a warrant supported by probable cause.
In contrast, the California State Sheriffs' Association (CSSA),
also in opposition, suggests that the warrant requirements in
this bill are too burdensome, raising specific concerns about
restricting the use of unmanned aerial vehicles in adjacent
cities or counties, stating "[t]here 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." Additionally, CSSA raises
concerns "about the bill's provisions that require a law
enforcement agency using a drone to maintain a website to allow
concerns about drone use to be delivered directly to the
agency," stating that this provision "represents yet another
unfunded mandate on law enforcement toward the end of
influencing departmental law enforcement policy."
Support : California Civil Liberties Advocacy; Central Coast
Forest Association
Opposition : American Civil Liberties Union of California;
California Peace Officers' Association; California Police Chiefs
Association; California State Sheriffs' Association; Consumer
Federation of California; Consumer Watchdog; Electronic Frontier
Foundation; Peace Officers Research Association of California;
Oakland Privacy Working Group; Privacy Rights Clearinghouse
HISTORY
Source : Author
Related Pending Legislation :
SB 807 (Gaines, 2016) would provide public entities and public
employees with immunity from civil liability for any damage to
an unmanned aircraft system if the damage was caused while the
public entity or public employee was providing, and the unmanned
aircraft system was interfering with, the operation, support, or
enabling of specified emergency services. This bill provides
similar immunity to emergency responders employed by private
entities or who are unpaid volunteers when those emergency
responders act within the scope of authority provided by a
public entity or a public employee. This bill is pending in the
Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee.
AB 1820 (Quirk)
PageO of?
SB 868 (Jackson, 2016) enacts the State Remote Piloted Aircraft
Act, which creates a regulatory framework that allows for the
deployment of drone technology under specified restrictions.
The bill, among other things, limits drone use near critical
infrastructure, heliports, and airports, without permission,
limits drone use over state parks, wildlife refuges, the State
Capitol, or other designated safety areas, without a permit or
permission, prohibits the weaponization of drones, and prohibits
the reckless operation of drones and drone interference with
manned aircraft. This bill is pending in the Assembly Privacy
and Consumer Protection Committee.
AB 56 (Quirk, 2015) prohibits law enforcement agencies from
using an unmanned aircraft system, obtaining an unmanned
aircraft system from another public agency by contract, loan, or
other arrangement, or using information obtained from an
unmanned aircraft system used by another public agency, unless
certain requirements are met. To use an unmanned aircraft
system, among other things, law enforcement agencies would be
required to develop and make available to the public a policy on
the use of the system, as well as comply with specified laws and
the unmanned aircraft system policy developed by the law
enforcement agency. This bill prohibits a law enforcement
agency from using an unmanned aircraft system to surveil private
property unless, among other things, the law enforcement agency
obtains a search warrant, and would require images, footage, or
data obtained through the use of an unmanned aircraft system
under these provisions to be permanently destroyed within one
year, except as specified. This bill is on the Senate inactive
file.
AB 2320 (Calderon, 2016) places several restrictions on the use
of unmanned aircraft systems, including using such systems to
violate protective orders, to view the scene of an emergency in
a way that impedes police officers, firefighters, emergency
medical, or other emergency personnel, or military personnel in
the performance of their emergency duties, or to stalk another
person by willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly following or
willfully and maliciously harassing another person. This bill
is pending in the Senate Public Safety Committee.
Prior Legislation :
SB 142 (Jackson, 2015) would have clarified that the operation
AB 1820 (Quirk)
PageP of?
of an unmanned aerial vehicle less than 350 feet above the
property of another, without permission or legal authority,
constitutes trespass. This bill was vetoed by Governor Brown.
SB 170 (Gaines, 2015) would have provided that a person who
knowingly and intentionally operates an unmanned aircraft on or
above the grounds of a state prison or a jail is guilty of a
misdemeanor, except as specified. This bill was vetoed by
Governor Brown.
SB 262 (Galgiani, 2015) would authorize law enforcement agencies
to use unmanned aircraft systems provided such use complies with
certain conditions, including: search and seizure protections in
the U.S. and California Constitutions; federal law applicable to
unmanned aircraft systems; and state law applicable to law
enforcement agency use of surveillance technology. This bill
would also require law enforcement agencies to receive approval
from their local governing body prior to using unmanned aircraft
systems, and would restrict the use of such systems for
conducting surveillance of private property. This bill is
pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
SB 271 (Gaines, 2015) would have made it an infraction to
operate an unmanned aircraft on the grounds of, or less than 350
feet above ground level within the airspace overlaying, a public
school providing instruction in kindergarten or grades 1 to 12
during school hours and without permission of school officials.
This bill would have exempted specified media and news personnel
unless they receive a request from school officials to cease
using an unmanned aircraft above a school, and would also have
exempted law enforcement. This bill was vetoed by Governor
Brown.
AB 14 (Waldron, 2015) would create the Unmanned Aircraft Systems
Task Force, which would be required to research, develop, and
formulate a comprehensive policy for unmanned aircraft systems
in California. The task force would be required to submit,
among other things, a policy draft and suggested legislation
pertaining to unmanned aircraft systems to the Legislature and
the Governor on or before January 1, 2018. This bill is pending
reconsideration in the Assembly Transportation Committee.
AB 1327 (Gorell, 2014) would have prohibited public agencies
from using unmanned aircraft systems, or contracting for the use
of these systems, with certain exceptions for law enforcement
AB 1820 (Quirk)
PageQ of?
agencies acting pursuant to a warrant and in certain other
cases, including when the use or operation of the unmanned
aircraft system achieves the core mission of the agency and the
purpose of use is unrelated to the gathering of criminal
intelligence. The bill would have also required notice by
public agencies intending to deploy unmanned aircraft, would
have required images, footage, or data obtained through the use
of such aircraft to be permanently destroyed within one year
except as specified, and would have prohibited equipping
unmanned aircraft with weapons. This bill was vetoed by
Governor Brown.
SB 15 (Padilla, 2013) would have, among other things, required
law enforcement agencies to obtain search warrants when using
unmanned aircraft, and would have required that an application
for the search warrant specify the intended purpose for which
the unmanned aircraft would be used. The bill would have also
restricted data collection by unmanned aircraft and would have
prohibited equipping unmanned aircraft with weapons. This bill
died in the Assembly Public Safety Committee.
AB 1524 (Waldron, 2013) would have required any entity that owns
or operates an unmanned aircraft to place identifying
information or digitally store identifying information on the
aircraft. The bill would have exempted model aircraft, and
would have made a person or entity that violates its provisions
liable for a civil fine not to exceed $2,500. This bill was set
for hearing in the Assembly Transportation Committee, but the
hearing was cancelled at the author's request.
Prior Vote :
Assembly Floor (Ayes 43, Noes 25)
Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 14, Noes 6)
Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee (Ayes 6, Noes
5)
Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee (Ayes 4, Noes
6)
Assembly Public Safety Committee (Ayes 7, Noes 0)
**************
AB 1820 (Quirk)
PageR of?