Local law enforcement leaders address drone surveillance

Local law enforcement officials are watching a new bill before the legislature very closely.

Legislative Bill 412 was introduced by Sen. Paul Schumacher to Nebraska Legislature this Tuesday regarding law enforcement’s use of drones to obtain evidence.

The proposed bill, also known as the Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act, states that, “a law enforcement agency shall not use a drone to gather evidence or other information.”

The act defines a drone as a powered aerial vehicle that does not carry a human operator, can fly by itself while being piloted by remote and a vehicle that uses aerodynamic forces to create its lift. It also states that it can be expendable or recoverable and can carry lethal or nonlethal cargoes.

The bill also states that, “Evidence obtained or collected in violation of the Freedom of Unwarranted Surveillance Act is not admissible as evidence in a criminal prosecution in any court of law in this state.”

The proposed act however does state that a drone would be prohibited during a high-risk situation such as a terrorist attack if the United State Secretary of Homeland Security deemed the situation as so.

Schumacher said in a recent interview with Lincoln Journal Star’s Kevin O’Hanlon, “If there’s going to be a policy decision from the legislative level on the use of drones for the surveillance of civilian populations, then now’s the time to do it - before communities begin investing in these devices.”

The senator explained that U.S. citizens might be worried that advances in technology are taking away their liberties.

“It is also another tool that freedom-loving people don’t need above their houses and their backyards,” Schumacher said in the interview.

Sidney Police Chief Mike Brown and Cheyenne County Sheriff John Jenson said that they believe with all the laws passed protecting the rights of the American people they have nothing to fear.

Both law enforcement officers said that they were unaware of any drone-like aircrafts that were patrolling the Cheyenne County area.

“I guess I can’t say for bigger cities, but I absolutely don’t think that they need to worry about it,” Jenson said. “In reading what they are talking about in this act for law enforcement to use something like a drone it would appear to me that we would still have to use the formal proceedings to get a search warrant - to me it falls into that same area.”

“Currently it is legal for law enforcement to use airplanes and helicopters. The question would be if you take a person out of the airplane and instead have them behind a computer – kind of like a PlayStation control system – should that be allowed?” Brown questioned. “To me it’s not a whole lot different than using a helicopter. There are already cans and can’ts of what can be done with aircraft evidence.”

Brown said that the guidelines on how aerial surveillance is used are already covered in case laws and citizens rights are protected by the fourth amendment.

“Obviously the fourth amendment stops unreasonable search and seizure and limits how we use tools such as aircrafts,” Brown said.

The fourth amendment states:

“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.”

Some bigger court cases such as California vs. Ciraolo and Florida vs. Riley deal with in one case an airplane and one case a helicopter being used to see property supposedly growing marijuana. Both Ciraolo and Riley attempted to fight their cases using the fourth amendment as their basis. Though different courts disagreed these cases laid down a idea that law enforcement saw in plain view the marijuana crops and that any public citizen in an airplane overhead could have seen the same sight.

“If we are going to try and get something that’s not in public view like from streets and sidewalks we are going to need to get a search warrant for that information,” Jenson said. “We can only be where the public is allowed to be. If us as law enforcement were walking down an alley without any kind of magnification from a camera or binoculars, whatever we see is called plain view.”

Brown explained that besides the plain-view doctrine, the open field doctrine was also in place that states items in open fields, water or woods could be searched and seized without a warrant present.

Jenson and Brown both said that there are reasons that law enforcement personnel could use aircrafts such as drones to great benefit.

“If you had a high-risk situation going on and you were trying to limit the risk to officers and general public and where there was an advantage to getting to a high point where you couldn’t do it from the city street then one would be useful,” Jenson said. “But even where you would need to get into the air to solve a high-risk situation I think that law enforcement would still go ahead and get a search warrant or obtain one for it.”

“Some benefits of law enforcement using aircrafts are for various applications such as a search and rescue of a missing child or adult, or finding evidence of an outdoor marijuana field for example,” Brown said.

The police chief said that with more advanced technology to come more cases might arise however.

“We are seeing more and more technology introduced and this may become more and more of an issue,” he said.