I'm Behind The Times Again or Drones Over America - Part One

As usual I am behind the times again.  I recently read of remote-controlled “drones” from the military being used to aid local law enforcement officials in North Dakota.  The use of the drone in a rather routine law enforcement situation raises all kinds of constitutional and privacy issues.  One issue raised is the possible violation of the Posse Comitatus Act (which states that local government can only use federal military resources under certain constitutional circumstances or when authorized by Congress).  That is an issue for at least a “whole ‘nother” blog.

I thought I was fairly up-to-date on the use of drone aircraft in the United States, mainly that they were not being used for domestic law enforcement, certainly not for spying on American citizens who have not been charged with any crimes.  Let me tell you, I not only missed the boat on this one, I did not even get close to the dock!  You see, the use of a United States Air Force drone to assist in the capture of three cattle rustlers earlier this month is just the latest of many such incidents.  How many, you ask?  And well you should.  In fact, however, you can ask all you want, but the answers will not be forthcoming from the Federal Aviation Administration, which must authorize all drone flights within the United States.  The FAA is currently under suit for information from a certain law advocacy organization, but so far has failed to honor the request for information.  Nonetheless, it is suspected that several hundred drone flights have taken place across the United States since 9/11.  These are the flights that are “known of.” I mention that because CIA flights (assuming they are flying over United States air space, which of course, is illegal) would NOT be “known of.”  Please pardon the grammar, I am a little upset.

Let’s forget about the CIA or any other spy organizations for a minute, and just talk about the “legitimate” agencies throughout the United States that could employ (read ARE or WILL BE EMPLOYING) drones.  This list includes major police departments or joint-police force operations, state enforcement agencies, and federal agencies.  Here, let me separate legitimate uses from those that are less than savory.  The Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, in the form of the Border Patrol, is probably legitimately using drones to patrol the border because there is simply not enough manpower at the moment to control the border.  Thus, drones allow agents to be deployed as needed when trouble is spotted.  Another legitimate use of a drone might be to aid in searching for missing persons where large areas must be searched and hi-tech could lead to a successful outcome.  For instance, a drone equipped with infrared-technology might locate a lost hiker when human and canine searchers could not.  Unfortunately, the lack of FAA candor concerning information about drone flights in the United States seems to imply uses other than those mentioned above.

At the beginning of this blog I briefly mentioned an incident that occurred this month in North Dakota that brought national attention to the fact that law enforcement agencies were using military drones for routine civil law enforcement purposes.  But now I know this certainly was not the first law enforcement use of drone aircraft.  In 2008 on a ranch outside of Houston, Texas of all places, the Houston police sponsored a test flight of a drone.  The test was attended by several other police departments and by the Department of Homeland Security.  The test was NOT attended by the press, who were barred from approaching within several hundred yards of the test site.  The press, in fact, were the last people the police wanted in the area.  Since there was an information black-out, I have not determined who owned the drone, that is whether it was a military drone or whether it was built by one of the many “civilian” drone manufacturers operating in the United States.  Homeland Security being involved could imply that the drone was military, but the small size of this particular drone could also indicate that it was a non-military aircraft.  That is really not the issue here anyway.

A certain Houston news reporter heard rumors of the drone test flight and approached the test area as closely as the police would allow.  When he was barred from entering the ranch (which of course was private property), the reporter summoned the channel’s helicopter.  As soon as the chopper approached the test site, the pilot began receiving radio transmissions from someone, possibly a police pilot.  This person told the news flight that the airspace around the ranch was restricted and that the FAA would take action against the news pilot and the reporter if the chopper did not vacate the area.  Calls to the local FAA Houston office revealed that there was no restricted air space in the area and that the FAA office was not aware of drone test flights in the area.  The news reporter in fact recorded the test flight. 

Obviously law enforcement agencies are looking at drone technology.  The problem is that these drones can be used for many purposes other than the legitimate scenarios described above.  The Office of Homeland Security is apparently behind the proliferation of drones to local law enforcement agencies, or is at least partnering with these agencies to make it possible for local police to be able to add drones to their arsenal.  Maybe (this is my own speculation) such federal “assistance” comes with some string attached, such as that Homeland Security can “patch into” the local drone system for information. 

Next time:  What “Police Drones” Really Mean For You and Me