Robert Rockwell

LEPS 530 Public Safety Law

University of San Diego

In this particular case I have decided not to deploy my drone. Let me be clear by saying

that I do not have an issue with using drones for police work, whether it be for the capture of a

criminal, the surveillance of an individual, or the rescue of a missing person. However, in this

particular case, based on the totality of the circumstances, and the list of articulable facts, I don’t

believe a drone “search” is warranted.

When I look at the possible opportunities that I may have to either deploy a drone myself,

or authorize one of my officers to deploy a drone, I view it as simple as any other search of an

individual or their property. Is there probable cause in order to set aside the fourth amendment

and search this individual? As law enforcement officers we face this issue several times a day

within the scope of our duties. This issue comes up during the search of a person in the

aftermath of Terry v. Ohio, and in several cases related to vehicle searches as well. I personally

do not see why case law and judicial review cannot be established to afford the same reasonable

standards to both protect citizens, as well as outline for officers what is allowed concerning

drones.

In this case, there are some articulable facts possibly leading to reasonable suspicion that

something strange is going on, and there could possibly be illegal activity, however without more

police work and investigation, this case is nowhere near establishing enough probable cause to

ignore the individual’s fourth amendment rights to privacy.

 I feel that the drone is simply an extension of the officer, so again, in this case, I do not

have the right to be on this individual’s property, looking over his or her fence, investigating

around his or her curtilage, and therefore if I was to find anything illegal, it would automatically

become inadmissible based on the case law established in Mapp v. Ohio. This basic

interpretation of law should also apply to my drone and regardless of how high it flies or how

unobtrusive it is, my drone, as an extension of myself, has no right to search this individual’s

property.

There may be those who disagree with me in not only in this case, but on the overall use

of drones in police work with or without a search warrant. I strongly feel that in this particular

case, not only can you not deploy a drone to search this property, but I don’t even believe we

have enough to request a search warrant to search based on the intelligence we currently have. If

given more time, I believe I may have the articulable facts to write a search warrant on this case,

however I do not at the moment.

To address those who believe drones have no place in police work, you are simply

wrong. Drones are coming whether you like it or not, and I am not just talking in police work.

You must get use to the fact that as technology advances and they become more affordable, more

and more people will have them in the private sector. It would be a gross misappropriation and

neglect of duty if law enforcement was not allowed to use such a beneficial technology. Drones

in law enforcement are not meant to spy on homes and people, they are meant to be used as a

tool or an extension of the officer to help him or her save lives and better protect the community.

With a strong and clear-cut outline of department policy as well as case law and judicial

review, I believe a fair and firm standard can be set in order to both protect the rights of the

people as well as the interests of the officers.