BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    





                             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?