- Police departments nationwide are incorporating drones into their daily operations.
- Newly developed drones possess advanced capabilities such as breaking through glass, entering buildings, and opening doors.
- Only 15 states in the United States require police to obtain search warrants before utilizing drones.
During this year’s Fourth of July celebrations, various law enforcement agencies deployed drones to ensure public safety at community events. However, while police are increasingly relying on advanced technologies, regulations and laws have yet to catch up, leaving room for potential abuses of power.
Drones, also known as unmanned aircraft systems, offer a wide range of applications, particularly in law enforcement. According to NBC News, the latest drones possess features like high-powered cameras, the ability to breach glass, open doors, and even enter buildings. They enable police and other authorities to make contact with individuals in hostage situations.
However, despite 44 or more states having some form of drone-related legislation, each state has its own set of regulations and codes, leading to discrepancies in police departments’ access to drones. For instance, only 15 states explicitly mention the need for a warrant when employing drones for law enforcement purposes. Even in these states, exceptions exist, allowing police to operate drones without warrants in extreme or exceptional scenarios.
The fragmented nature of drone regulations across the country has generated interest among police departments in new drone capabilities while raising concerns among citizens. In fact, the Fourth Circuit US Court of Appeals ruled the 2021 AIR program conducted by the Baltimore Police Department, where drones were used for constant surveillance, as unconstitutional due to the absence of regulations surrounding police drone use in Maryland.
Although the Baltimore Police Department claimed they had no intention of using the collected data for tracking and identifying individuals, the court concluded that the potential risks of surveillance outweighed its crime-mitigating benefits, thereby violating the Fourth Amendment. Chief Judge Roger Gregory, authoring the majority opinion, stated, “Allowing the police to wield this power unchecked is contrary to the principles enshrined in our Fourth Amendment. The AIR program resembles a 21st-century general search, enabling the police to collect all movements, innocent or suspected, without any requirement to ‘provide a valid reason to search for specific items related to specific crimes.'”
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
