California Governor Vetoes Bill Requiring Warrants For Drone Surveillance

schwit1 sends word that California governor Jerry Brown has vetoed legislation that would have required warrants for surveillance using unmanned drones. In his veto message (PDF), Brown said, "This bill prohibits law enforcement from using a drone without obtaining a search warrant, except in limited circumstances. There are undoubtedly circumstances where a warrant is appropriate. The bill's exceptions, however, appear to be too narrow and could impose requirements beyond what is required by either the 4th Amendment or the privacy provisions in the California Constitution."

The article notes that 10 other states already require a warrant for routine surveillance with a drone (Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Montana, Oregon, Tennessee, Utah, and Wisconsin). Further, Brown's claims about the bill's exceptions are overstated — according to Slate, "California's drone bill is not draconian. It includes exceptions for emergency situations, search-and-rescue efforts, traffic first responders, and inspection of wildfires. It allows other public agencies to use drones for other purposes — just not law enforcement."

Comments

something to remember next time you vote

[Cardoor]

ask yourself:

which candidate will sell us out and cave to the surveillance state?

answer: both. the fix is in.

happy voting! now move along.

Re:something to remember next time you vote

[rmdingler]

It is not that surprising, given that the executive branch has determined it has the right to kill anyone, anywhere on earth, for secret reasons, based on secret evidence.

This is the wrong attitude

[langelgjm]

The bill's exceptions, however, appear to be too narrow and could impose requirements beyond what is required by either the 4th Amendment or the privacy provisions in the California Constitution.

Wait, so we reject it because it provides more protections than the bare minimum required by law?

Re:This is the wrong attitude

[king neckbeard]

Was about to express similar sentiment. If it's only doing what the law already requires and nothing more, then it's not really a new law, it's a piece of paper to sign and look like you are doing something to protect privacy without actually doing anything.

Re:This is the wrong attitude

[TWX]

Wait, so we reject it because it provides more protections than the bare minimum required by law?

He is the head of the executive branch of government of his state, which means that ultimately he's in charge of the State's Attorneys General office, and since officers in California are deputized at a state level too (for arrests as criminals change jurisdictions) he has a stake there too.

The Executive branch's job is to represent the operations of the State. The Legislative branch's job is to represent the citizenry/populace. I hate to break it to you, but this is actually working in the way it's meant to. If the Legislature wants this law to pass then they need to come up with a supermajority to override the veto.

Or, let the situation reach a prosecution, and then appeal the grounds of evidence from the drones and wait for it to go through the State courts, possibly ending up in Federal courts.

Idiot

[Curunir_wolf]

"The bill's exceptions, however, appear to be too narrow and could impose requirements beyond what is required by either the 4th Amendment or the privacy provisions in the California Constitution."

Lamest excuse ever. If it didn't "go beyond" what is required by the US and state Constitutions, there would be no need for the law!

Tyrant.

Here's the bill: public notice key

[Sez Zero]

Link to the text of the bill, since TFA is limited.

Probably the sticking point was:

A public agency that uses an unmanned aircraft system, or contracts for the use of an unmanned aircraft system, pursuant to this title shall first provide reasonable notice to the public. Reasonable notice shall, at a minimum, consist of a one-time announcement regarding the agency’s intent to deploy unmanned aircraft system technology and a description of the technology’s capabilities.

There's also some reasonable limitations on data captured by drones (can't be kept long) and a requirement to log who requests drone missions. If only there was some federal body that could come up with some reasonable standard for all states...

How much money does Brown get from police unions?

[Trailer Trash]

I love this part, too:

"It includes exceptions for emergency situations, search-and-rescue efforts, traffic first responders, and inspection of wildfires. It allows other public agencies to use drones for other purposes — just not law enforcement."

First off, everything's an "emergency situation" now that we have a war on terror and a war on drugs. Second, this let's the use the old "inspection" ruse to use the drone as long as they can get some inspector to tag along.

I would recommend you all remember this when it's time to vote. Make stuff like this a big deal. Call them to the carpet at town hall meetings. Etc.

Re:Oh yes, we were

[drinkypoo]

It's interesting that the politicians that *I* would describe as "liberal Democrats" are now the authoritarians.

The Democratic party is centrist and pro-big-business, especially in California. California is one of the least friendly states to small business. Not only is the state a bastard (and I'm not talking about environmental regulations here, I am generally in favor of those except when they are used to do stupidity, e.g. preventing a CostCo in Ukiah due to "concerns" about "habitat" when the land in question is a big fucking waste of concrete that harbors nothing but some plucky weeds-in-cracks and which is both an eyesore and an ecological failure) but there's over fifty counties, and they all do business differently. The real leftists have all moved on to other parties.

Brown is a right winger

[Uberbah]

Like Clinton, he gets a lot of hate from the right despite pushing a right wing agenda:

1. College costs have doubled despite state budget moving back to black

   Killed single payer health care, which passed three times under Arnie
   Opposed a serious increase in the minimum wage
   Opposes marijuana legalization

And that's off the top of my head. I'm sure someone who lives there could come up with more stuff.

Re: Oh yes, we were

[bill_mcgonigle]

"You have a choice: here they are." See? You have freedom so stop claiming otherwise!

Would you like a left boot or a right boot on your throat?