Law Enforcement Use of Drones
AELE has received a number of requests for legal information on the use of drones (also known as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) or unmanned aircraft systems (UAS)) by law enforcement. This page was compiled in response to those requests and will be periodically updated.
Table of Contents:
1 Case Law
2. State Statutes and Regulations
3. Federal Regulations
4. Articles and Publications
5. Policies and Procedures
In California v. Ciraolo, #84-1514, 476 U.S. 207 (1986), police received a tip that an individual was growing marijuana in his backyard next to his suburban home. Because two fences blocked their view of the yard, officers flew a fixed-wing aircraft at an altitude of 1,000 feet over the property to conduct a visual inspection. From this vantage point, the officers readily identified with the naked eye marijuana plants growing in the defendant’s yard. The Court held that the defendant’s expectation of privacy in the area immediately surrounding his home was not reasonable, since “what a person knowingly exposes to the public ... is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection.” “Any member of the public flying in this airspace who glanced down could have seen everything these officers observed,” the Court remarked. Much weight was placed on the fact that the plane was at all times in navigable airspace as defined by federal statute.
Similarly, in Florida v. Riley, #87-764, 488 U.S. 445 (1989), local police received a tip that an individual was growing marijuana in a greenhouse located 10 to 20 feet away from his mobile home. The officers could not see the contents of the greenhouse from the ground, so they flew a helicopter over the defendant’s backyard at an altitude of 400 feet. While overhead, an officer saw marijuana plants through a crack in the greenhouse roof. Because the helicopter, like the plane in Ciraolo, was in navigable airspace—where any member of the public could have flown—the Court did not consider this a search for which a warrant was required.
In the final case of the series, Dow Chemical v. United States, #84-1259, 477 U.S. 227 (1986), the Court was asked whether a theory of “industrial curtilage” would prevent a government agency from conducting aerial surveillance over a 2,000-acre commercial plant. There, after Dow Chemical Co. refused access to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the EPA hired a commercial aerial photographer to take photos of the facility using a precision aerial mapping camera. Having ruled out the argument that the areas surrounding an industrial complex are entitled to the same protection as similar areas surrounding a home, the Court concluded that photographing the plant from navigable airspace was not a search.
2. State Statutes and Regulations
The inquiry does not end there, however. In addition to the possibility that courts may require that a warrant be obtained for the use of an unmanned drone to surveil property or people in an area which is not part of navigable air space, in which there may be a reasonable expectation of privacy, there is a growing and widespread body of state law regulating and limiting the use of drones, some applicable to private use and some applicable to law enforcement.
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), 41 states have adopted legislation governing the use of drones, and three other states have adopted resolutions. These state law actions are summarized, state by state, at: http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/current-unmanned-aircraft-state-law-landscape.aspx The text of many of the state statutes is linked to, and the page is occasionally updated. Topics covered include data retention policies, use of weaponized drones, permissible and non-permissible uses, and many other topics.
The NCSL has also published a 2015 report on "Taking Off: State Unmanned Aircraft Systems Policies," exploring state and federal policies related to UAS. Updates to this report for 2016 and 2017 legislation are also available.
3. Federal Regulations
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) website has a section on legal considerations concerning the use of drones at https://www.faa.gov/uas/ including a downloadable Public Safety and Law Enforcement toolkit which can be accessed at: https://www.faa.gov/uas/public_safety_gov/public_safety_toolkit/ Topics at the website include licensing for drone pilots and registration of drone vehicles.
On June 21, 2016, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) released the first operational rules (PDF) for routine non-hobby use of small UAS. The new rule, which took effect in late August 2016, offers safety regulations for unmanned aircraft drones weighing less than 55 pounds that are conducting non-hobbyist operations. There are a variety of height and speed restrictions, as well as a restriction of use to daytime hours, for which law enforcement can apply for a waiver.
Law enforcement agencies may also be interested in the FAA’s Law Enforcement Guidance for Suspected Unauthorized UAS Operations (Aug. 14, 2018) available at https://www.faa.gov/uas/public_safety_gov/media/FAA_UAS-PO_LEA_Guidance.pdf which addresses unlawful use of drones, largely by members of the public.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security website has a page on Unmanned Aircraft Systems: Considerations for Law Enforcement Action at https://www.dhs.gov/uas-law-enforcement While the focus there is on taking enforcement action against private illegal use of drones, some of the federal regulations cited there may also potentially limit certain actions by state or local law enforcement agencies when utilizing drones for their own purposes. DHS also publishes a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) on drone use at https://www.dhs.gov/unmanned-aircraft-systems-faq which includes the following:“What rules apply to federal, state, and local governments who have mission-specific UAS needs, such as search and rescue?”“Public agencies can elect to operate under Small UAS rule Part 107 and may apply for waivers and authorizations necessary to meet mission-specific needs. Alternatively, eligible public aircraft operators can apply for a public Certificate of Waiver or Authorization that may provide a set of operational provisions tailored to their specific needs.”
4. Articles and Publications
Pamela Bump, Law Enforcement Robots and Drones—5 Current Applications, Emerj (May 20, 2019).
Capt. Curt Fleming, Remote Drone Dispatch: Law Enforcement’s Future? Police Chief: Technology Archive (2019).
Joerg Lamprecht, Drone Safety and Defense Start with Detection, 86 (1) Police Chief 50 (Jan. 2019).
Considering Privacy Issues Raised by the Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, by Michael T. Geary, J.D., Police Chief (undated)
Public Safety Drones: An Update, Center for the Study of the Drone at Bard College (May 28, 2018).
Guide to Drones in Law Enforcement, PoliceOne (2018).
Game of Drones: Rolling the Dice with Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and Privacy, by Rebecca L. Scharf, University of Nevada, Las Vegas -- William S. Boyd School of Law, Scholarly Works, Utah Law Review, No, 2, 457-502 (2018).
Drones as Crime-Fighting Tools in 2020: Legal and Normative Considerations, by Joseph Rosenberg, Harvard Law School National Security Journal (January 8, 2018).
Note: Law Enforcement’s Use of Weaponized Drones: Today and Tomorrow, 61 Saint Louis University Law Review 351-370 (2017).
Taking to the Air: Drones and Law Enforcement, Emergency Management (Dec. 14, 2017).On Police Drones, Lawmakers Are Behind the Times, by Tyler Grant, National Review (November 9, 2017).Drones in Law Enforcement: How, Where and When They're Used, The Drive (Oct. 31, 2017).5 Key Considerations for a Law Enforcement Drone Policy, Lexipol (July 19, 2017).Surveillance Takes Wing: Privacy in the Age of Police Drones, by Matthew Feeney, Cato Institute (December 13, 2016).We Should Beware Police Killings by Robot or Drone, by Matthew Feeney. Newsweek (July 17, 2016).Drones and the Fourth Amendment: Redefining Expectations of Privacy, by Matthew R. Koerner, 64 Duke Law Journal 1129-1172 (2015).Drones and Jones: The Fourth Amendment and Police Discretion in the Digital Age, by Andrew B. Talai, 102 (3) Calif. L. Rev. 728 (Jun. 2014).The Aerial Dragnet: A Drone-ing Need for Fourth Amendment Change, by Shane Crotty, 49 Valparaiso Law Review No, 1, 219-265 (Fall 2014).
Congressional Research Service Report | "Drones in Domestic Surveillance Operations: Fourth Amendment Implications and Legislative Responses," (2013) PDF
Laura W. Murphy et al., The Future of Drones in America: Law Enforcement and Privacy Considerations – ACLU Statement for the Record for a Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing, 11 pp. (Mar. 20, 2013).
United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, The Future of Drones in America: Law Enforcement and Privacy Considerations, March 20, 2013, PDF
The Center for the Study of the Drone at Bard College is an interdisciplinary research institution that examines the novel and complex opportunities and challenges presented by unmanned systems technologies in both the military and civilian sphere.
Use of UAVs in law enforcement (Wikipedia article),Law Enforcement Drone Policy, PowerDMS.Law Enforcement Guide to Implementing Drones, PowerDMS.Writing Your Police Department’s Drone Policy, PowerDMS.5. Policies and Procedures
Kent Washington Police Department Drone Policy.Wichita Kansas Police Department Policy 802, Unmanned Aircraft System Team Guidelines.Evanston Illinois Police Department Policy 606, Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) Operations (July 25, 2018).Texas Department of Public Safety Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Standard Operating Procedure (November 2017).
Fremont California Police Department Policy 614 Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) Operations (Dec. 11, 2018).Ohio Attorney General releases model policy for police UAS use, PoliceOne (April 4, 2018).
Department of Justice Policy Guidance: Domestic Use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) (2015).Suggested language for search warrants and affidavits to employ small drones (California).Send Updates or Report Broken Links
• Sign up for a monthly e-mail announcing additions to the AELE website
• Send suggestions for additional entries (or report a broken link) to bernfarber@aele.org
• Other websites are welcome to link to this page
Page updated Sept. 17, 2019.
Table of Contents:
1 Case Law
2. State Statutes and Regulations
3. Federal Regulations
4. Articles and Publications
5. Policies and Procedures
- Case Law
In California v. Ciraolo, #84-1514, 476 U.S. 207 (1986), police received a tip that an individual was growing marijuana in his backyard next to his suburban home. Because two fences blocked their view of the yard, officers flew a fixed-wing aircraft at an altitude of 1,000 feet over the property to conduct a visual inspection. From this vantage point, the officers readily identified with the naked eye marijuana plants growing in the defendant’s yard. The Court held that the defendant’s expectation of privacy in the area immediately surrounding his home was not reasonable, since “what a person knowingly exposes to the public ... is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection.” “Any member of the public flying in this airspace who glanced down could have seen everything these officers observed,” the Court remarked. Much weight was placed on the fact that the plane was at all times in navigable airspace as defined by federal statute.
Similarly, in Florida v. Riley, #87-764, 488 U.S. 445 (1989), local police received a tip that an individual was growing marijuana in a greenhouse located 10 to 20 feet away from his mobile home. The officers could not see the contents of the greenhouse from the ground, so they flew a helicopter over the defendant’s backyard at an altitude of 400 feet. While overhead, an officer saw marijuana plants through a crack in the greenhouse roof. Because the helicopter, like the plane in Ciraolo, was in navigable airspace—where any member of the public could have flown—the Court did not consider this a search for which a warrant was required.
In the final case of the series, Dow Chemical v. United States, #84-1259, 477 U.S. 227 (1986), the Court was asked whether a theory of “industrial curtilage” would prevent a government agency from conducting aerial surveillance over a 2,000-acre commercial plant. There, after Dow Chemical Co. refused access to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the EPA hired a commercial aerial photographer to take photos of the facility using a precision aerial mapping camera. Having ruled out the argument that the areas surrounding an industrial complex are entitled to the same protection as similar areas surrounding a home, the Court concluded that photographing the plant from navigable airspace was not a search.
2. State Statutes and Regulations
The inquiry does not end there, however. In addition to the possibility that courts may require that a warrant be obtained for the use of an unmanned drone to surveil property or people in an area which is not part of navigable air space, in which there may be a reasonable expectation of privacy, there is a growing and widespread body of state law regulating and limiting the use of drones, some applicable to private use and some applicable to law enforcement.
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), 41 states have adopted legislation governing the use of drones, and three other states have adopted resolutions. These state law actions are summarized, state by state, at: http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/current-unmanned-aircraft-state-law-landscape.aspx The text of many of the state statutes is linked to, and the page is occasionally updated. Topics covered include data retention policies, use of weaponized drones, permissible and non-permissible uses, and many other topics.
The NCSL has also published a 2015 report on "Taking Off: State Unmanned Aircraft Systems Policies," exploring state and federal policies related to UAS. Updates to this report for 2016 and 2017 legislation are also available.
3. Federal Regulations
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) website has a section on legal considerations concerning the use of drones at https://www.faa.gov/uas/ including a downloadable Public Safety and Law Enforcement toolkit which can be accessed at: https://www.faa.gov/uas/public_safety_gov/public_safety_toolkit/ Topics at the website include licensing for drone pilots and registration of drone vehicles.
On June 21, 2016, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) released the first operational rules (PDF) for routine non-hobby use of small UAS. The new rule, which took effect in late August 2016, offers safety regulations for unmanned aircraft drones weighing less than 55 pounds that are conducting non-hobbyist operations. There are a variety of height and speed restrictions, as well as a restriction of use to daytime hours, for which law enforcement can apply for a waiver.
Law enforcement agencies may also be interested in the FAA’s Law Enforcement Guidance for Suspected Unauthorized UAS Operations (Aug. 14, 2018) available at https://www.faa.gov/uas/public_safety_gov/media/FAA_UAS-PO_LEA_Guidance.pdf which addresses unlawful use of drones, largely by members of the public.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security website has a page on Unmanned Aircraft Systems: Considerations for Law Enforcement Action at https://www.dhs.gov/uas-law-enforcement While the focus there is on taking enforcement action against private illegal use of drones, some of the federal regulations cited there may also potentially limit certain actions by state or local law enforcement agencies when utilizing drones for their own purposes. DHS also publishes a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) on drone use at https://www.dhs.gov/unmanned-aircraft-systems-faq which includes the following:“What rules apply to federal, state, and local governments who have mission-specific UAS needs, such as search and rescue?”“Public agencies can elect to operate under Small UAS rule Part 107 and may apply for waivers and authorizations necessary to meet mission-specific needs. Alternatively, eligible public aircraft operators can apply for a public Certificate of Waiver or Authorization that may provide a set of operational provisions tailored to their specific needs.”
4. Articles and Publications
Pamela Bump, Law Enforcement Robots and Drones—5 Current Applications, Emerj (May 20, 2019).
Capt. Curt Fleming, Remote Drone Dispatch: Law Enforcement’s Future? Police Chief: Technology Archive (2019).
Joerg Lamprecht, Drone Safety and Defense Start with Detection, 86 (1) Police Chief 50 (Jan. 2019).
Considering Privacy Issues Raised by the Use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, by Michael T. Geary, J.D., Police Chief (undated)
Public Safety Drones: An Update, Center for the Study of the Drone at Bard College (May 28, 2018).
Guide to Drones in Law Enforcement, PoliceOne (2018).
Game of Drones: Rolling the Dice with Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and Privacy, by Rebecca L. Scharf, University of Nevada, Las Vegas -- William S. Boyd School of Law, Scholarly Works, Utah Law Review, No, 2, 457-502 (2018).
Drones as Crime-Fighting Tools in 2020: Legal and Normative Considerations, by Joseph Rosenberg, Harvard Law School National Security Journal (January 8, 2018).
Note: Law Enforcement’s Use of Weaponized Drones: Today and Tomorrow, 61 Saint Louis University Law Review 351-370 (2017).
Taking to the Air: Drones and Law Enforcement, Emergency Management (Dec. 14, 2017).On Police Drones, Lawmakers Are Behind the Times, by Tyler Grant, National Review (November 9, 2017).Drones in Law Enforcement: How, Where and When They're Used, The Drive (Oct. 31, 2017).5 Key Considerations for a Law Enforcement Drone Policy, Lexipol (July 19, 2017).Surveillance Takes Wing: Privacy in the Age of Police Drones, by Matthew Feeney, Cato Institute (December 13, 2016).We Should Beware Police Killings by Robot or Drone, by Matthew Feeney. Newsweek (July 17, 2016).Drones and the Fourth Amendment: Redefining Expectations of Privacy, by Matthew R. Koerner, 64 Duke Law Journal 1129-1172 (2015).Drones and Jones: The Fourth Amendment and Police Discretion in the Digital Age, by Andrew B. Talai, 102 (3) Calif. L. Rev. 728 (Jun. 2014).The Aerial Dragnet: A Drone-ing Need for Fourth Amendment Change, by Shane Crotty, 49 Valparaiso Law Review No, 1, 219-265 (Fall 2014).
Congressional Research Service Report | "Drones in Domestic Surveillance Operations: Fourth Amendment Implications and Legislative Responses," (2013) PDF
Laura W. Murphy et al., The Future of Drones in America: Law Enforcement and Privacy Considerations – ACLU Statement for the Record for a Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing, 11 pp. (Mar. 20, 2013).
United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, The Future of Drones in America: Law Enforcement and Privacy Considerations, March 20, 2013, PDF
The Center for the Study of the Drone at Bard College is an interdisciplinary research institution that examines the novel and complex opportunities and challenges presented by unmanned systems technologies in both the military and civilian sphere.
Use of UAVs in law enforcement (Wikipedia article),Law Enforcement Drone Policy, PowerDMS.Law Enforcement Guide to Implementing Drones, PowerDMS.Writing Your Police Department’s Drone Policy, PowerDMS.5. Policies and Procedures
Kent Washington Police Department Drone Policy.Wichita Kansas Police Department Policy 802, Unmanned Aircraft System Team Guidelines.Evanston Illinois Police Department Policy 606, Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) Operations (July 25, 2018).Texas Department of Public Safety Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Standard Operating Procedure (November 2017).
Fremont California Police Department Policy 614 Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) Operations (Dec. 11, 2018).Ohio Attorney General releases model policy for police UAS use, PoliceOne (April 4, 2018).
Department of Justice Policy Guidance: Domestic Use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) (2015).Suggested language for search warrants and affidavits to employ small drones (California).Send Updates or Report Broken Links
• Sign up for a monthly e-mail announcing additions to the AELE website
• Send suggestions for additional entries (or report a broken link) to bernfarber@aele.org
• Other websites are welcome to link to this page
Page updated Sept. 17, 2019.