An article by NCB4i.com shares:
Ohio might soon regulate the use of drones by law enforcement, ensuring that Fourth Amendment rights remain protected even as surveillance technology rapidly advances.
House Bill 251, sponsored by Rep. Bernard Willis (R-Springfield) was passed by the House of Representatives in early November and sent to the Senate for consideration. It would require law enforcement to obtain a warrant to conduct drone surveillance, just as they would have to do in most other circumstances.
“The Fourth Amendment protects all citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures, and that principle doesn’t simply disappear just because of our technology changes,” Willis said Wednesday on the House floor. “While officers, or peace officers, don’t need a warrant to see what’s visible from a manned aircraft, drones have changed that equation. They can hover lower and quieter, stay longer, and collect far more detailed data than ever before.”
HB 251 would make any evidence gathered via warrantless drone surveillance inadmissible in court and also establishes that law enforcement drone flight and surveillance data are public records. The bill also prohibits law enforcement from using drones armed with lethal weapons.
The bill has generally found support among both Republicans and Democrats.
“Although I do hope that the work continues in the Senate to make improvements to data and privacy concerns that our interested parties brought up in committee, still I urge my fellow representatives to vote yes on this piece of legislation,” Rep. Michele Grim (D-Toledo) said on the House floor.
Most of HB 251 has also been received positively by the ACLU. In October, ACLU of Ohio legislative director Gary Daniels told the House Transportation Committee that Ohio was the “Wild West” regarding drone surveillance. Law enforcement, Daniels said, has been purchasing and adopting advanced surveillance technology for years in Ohio with hardly any regulations on their usage.
“It is certainly positive HB 251 forbids the use of weapons on or incorporated with drones. It is also positive HB 251 contains a warrant requirement for the use of drones to surveil homes and buildings from inside or outside—although the ACLU of Ohio is unaware of any law enforcement use of drones for the interiors of such places,” Daniels said. “It is highly likely current Fourth Amendment jurisprudence would require a warrant for surveilling such interiors. But including a prohibition in Ohio law provides belt-and-suspenders protection.”
The bill does include some exemptions for when law enforcement would be allowed to use drones for surveillance without first obtaining a warrant. These include patrols before, during, or after a natural disaster and the aerial examination of car accidents.
It also allows for warrantless drone patrols within 50 miles of a national border to prevent or deter illegal immigration or smuggling. Daniels took issue with this provision, noting that immigration laws are enforced by federal and not state or local authorities.
“Related, the language about deterring or preventing the transportation of illegal substances or contraband can be interpreted as giving huge latitude for the deployment of drones anywhere and everywhere across Ohio, even without individualized suspicion of wrongdoing,” Daniels said. “Accordingly, the ACLU of Ohio strongly opposes this language in HB 251.”
Daniels also brought up the issue of making drone surveillance data subject to Ohio public records law, warning that the broad language of the bill might allow anyone to track the travel and whereabouts of private citizens.
Soaring to new heights, together.
Be sure to visit the BWU Technology Partnerships Initiative website to learn more about how our NEOFIX program drives economic growth, promotes policy and infrastructure to improve drone safety and efficiency in various industries, and ensures that drone technology is being used responsibly.