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.

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.

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.