Governor (Jerry Brown) vetoes bill that would have limited police use of drones

[Newsjock]

Source: Los Angeles Times

Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown on Sunday vetoed a bill that would have required law enforcement agencies to obtain warrants to use drones for surveillance.

... The measure appeared to impose restrictions on law enforcement that go beyond federal and state constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizures and the right to privacy, the governor stated.

The bill, AB 1327, would have required the government to secure a warrant from a judge before using surveillance drones except in cases of environmental emergencies such as oil or chemical spills. Three other states have placed a moratorium on drone use by state and local agencies

Assemblyman Jeff Gorell (R-Camarillo), the bill’s author, had argued that the expanded use of drones, or unmanned aerial vehicles, by law enforcement has pushed the boundaries of the public’s reasonable expectation of privacy, triggering a need for protection. Gorell said the governor's veto was "very disappointing."

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/local/political/la-me-ln-governor-vetoes-bill-to-limit-police-use-of-drones-20140928-story.html

[Purveyor]

1. This is why we are all liberals and vote for Democrats...

[billhicks76]

13. What The Hell Happened To Jerry Brown?

I campaigned for him in 88 and 92 and he was a different person. My sincere guess is NSA wiretapping was accessible to law enforcement who will out his mistress or some other embarrassing peccadillo. If anyone here labels that a "conspiracy theory" I'm going to go crazy. It's totally normal and even happens more than it always has now with all the easy tech.

[ucrdem]

15. Replacing choppers with drones would increase property values,

which is to say, greatly improve the quality of life for residents of Echo Park and other burbs around the LAPD academy in Elysian Park. Horrible racket, especially on summer nights. Speaking from experience. Also see JDPriestly's comment below.

[reddread]

18. nothing at all

You need only follow the family history to realize his daddy was a full tilt Occidental Petroleum offshore drilling in protected waters advocate. That fascist didnt fall far from that tree.
They are born and bred Republicans in Democratic sheepskin.
no need to overlook his violent reprisal to non-violent protestors of war and injustice.
He owns the title as most egregious and violent oppressor of internal US dissent.
and he and other DLC types did their best to turn Pacifica Radio into a toybox of censorship and self promotion.
dude needs to take Siegelman's place.

[ucrdem]

20. Pat Brown defeated Richard Nixon in 1959 and was defeated by Ronald Reagan in 1967,

speaking of family history. So I don't think Brown owns the title of most egregious and violent oppressor. And Jerry's show hasn't aired on Pacifica since before the end of the last millennium:

http://www.wtp.org/archive/index.html

Times change, people can learn from their parents' mistakes, and Californians are far better off with a Brown in the statehouse than a republican. But you probably knew that.

[billhicks76]

37. So We Need Grassroots Revolution Then

He seemed so cool in '88 and '92. Clinton is infinitely worse and I'll vote 3rd Party if she gets the nomination. And YES to the fools out there even if Bush wins his nomination because in my opinion the Clinton's work for the Bushes and when we get a pretender in office people let their guard down and stop fighting for justice...a word Clinton knows nothing about. At least with the top gun evil one at the helm, any Bush family member, we know what we are getting, the waters aren't muddied and opposition grows instead of being neutralized. This country should be radically changed from the Nazi takeover from 2000-2008 but it's the exact same if not worse except for realigning the economy slightly.

[candelista]

23. He's running for President.

This is the kind of thing he thinks he has to do.

[reddread]

25. no way

thats the lamest excuse available.
whether he runs to fill out the field, collect money and fail miserably,
or not, there is no excuse. He wasnt "running for President" when he backed
Bush's illegal war with tremendous violence, attacked the 99% with pepper spray
and vicious shots to face of veterans.
is that what you mean by "running for President"?
then he must be running for President of a country populated by fools and lunatics.

[candelista]

40. Your analysis is correct. Especially the last part.

[cstanleytech]

2. I'm confused. How exactly is there more of a risk with the drones vs say

piloted vehicles which law enforcement already uses?
Also on a monetary and environmental cost basis wouldnt the drones be a better option than a helicopter or an airplane which burn alot more fuel?

[rpannier]

7. Because drones are less noticeable

They can use drones unobserved, the drones can take aerials of the inside of your home without you or your neighbors knowing
Drones are another step in enhancing the police state

[cstanleytech]

9. "Drones are another step in enhancing the police state" Sounds alot like the same

argument people used over the police using helicopters and airplanes.

[rpannier]

10. Difference

Helicopters and planes are easily observable because you see and hear them at a distance
Drones are less noticeable at a distance
They are a far greater threat

[cstanleytech]

11. So you object because you cant hear them???

You cant hear the spy satellites in orbit either you know? Nor the weather satellites for that matter.

[Adrahil]

44. I'm not sure of the logic of this post....

If you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy from observation from a helicopter, then you don't have from a drone either. How noticeable the surveillance is not on point.

[JDPriestly]

12. I live in an area of Los Angeles that is rendered almost unlivable at times due to the helicopters/

The noise is deafening. The sense that you are being watched is oppressive.

And we call this a free country. Ha!

Drones will be even easier to use. It will be even easier to snoop into people's bedrooms at night.

I used to know a medical student who worked very long hours in the hospital. The helicopters kept her awake at night.

Worst of all, I seriously doubt that people who live in wealthier areas have to live with the noise pollution that we live with here.

We used to have cops on the beat. Now we have snoops on the beat. It's really sad. And young people don't know any better. They think they have to give up their privacy to be safe.

The police should be driving and walking and riding around so that they could see people's faces and so that people could see them. The relationship between the police and other citizens suffers because of the lack of personal contact. Helicopters and drones increase the distance. The police do not see the humanity of the citizens they are supposed to be helping.

That's why I think that the use of drones and helicopters should be minimal.

[cstanleytech]

14. On the other hand drones could have some good uses for example

a drone could be dispatched to the scene of an accident to assist in determining if medical assistance is needed especially when you consider that the the average response time is 6 to 8 minutes atm just for an officer to arrive and make an initial assessment.
Also since the drone doesnt have to carry a pilot on board it will burn through far less fuel than a helicopter would assuming they dont just decide to use solar powered one.
As the whole peeping in bedrooms at night bit I am not sure if that is a strong enough one to try and build a case against the use of these drones especially because if the police did do such a stupid thing that they would probably be sued.

[JDPriestly]

22. If the police ever did such a thing, no one would ever find out.

Drones are an invasion of privacy. The Constitution requires a warrant based on probable cause for less. Drones are a form of search if they are sent over your house. If they are used solely in public places, i suppose that is all right as long as they remain in the air.

[cstanleytech]

27. While I respect your opinion I totally disagree with it.

The whole line of argument just doesnt make sense seeing as warrants arent needed for the government to use helicopters, planes or even cars.

[JDPriestly]

41. Helicopters are only allowed to fly within a certain distance over your house. I don't think that

is the case with drones.

[cstanleytech]

42. Depends on the type of drone.

What needs to be done though if it has not been is for the FAA to finalize rules on the usage of drones for law enforcement specifying things like how close they are allowed to come to residential buildings.

[Xithras]

43. Yes, there is a minimum height that a drone can fly over your house.

Actually, there are TWO different standards.

Standard A is based on a Supreme Court ruling from the 1940's that defines how high up your property rights extend. In UNITED STATES v. CAUSBY, the Court ruled that you own as much airspace as you actually use. Under that standard, all of the air up to the highest point on your property...the top of an antenna, the top of your tallest tree, etc...is your private property. Interestingly, if open airspace is also required for a ground activity, you can also claim it up to a reasonable height. For example, if you're raising animals that scare easily at loud noises, and raising them requires that nothing fly within 100 feet of your house, then you own 100 feet of airspace above your house...though you will be required to prove that you actually needed that space if any prosecutions are attempted. Any aircraft or drone that intrudes into that property is trespassing.

Standard B is based on FAA rules, which define the publicly navigable airspace as everything above 500 feet...except where Standard A causes the airspace to be higher. The only exceptions to this rule are situations where an aircraft is landing or taking off from a nearby property, and its flight path unavoidably takes it over your property (if you live near the end of a runway, for example, aircraft may descend to less than 500 feet as they approach the airport or take off from it).

Legally speaking, any aircraft that violates Standard A is committing a crime, and any aircraft that violates Standard B is committing an offense that can lead to fines against the aircraft operator.

Many people have fears that drones will be peeking in your windows, but Standard A applies to ALL aircraft, including drones, and Standard B will be applied to drones once they are legally and officially licensed.

[jeff47]

19. So are planes and helicopters, if they aren't flying at low altitude.

And cameras have reached the point where they don't have to fly at low altitude to see what's going on.

[EEO]

3. They shouldn't have them to begin with. I am not satisfied with limitations on them in the U.S.

I want them banned from domestic skies.

[blkmusclmachine]

16. +1. But the Police State marches on, with the full cooperation of "Democrats."

[Tikki]

4. Critics of LAPD urge Brown to veto Gorell's drone bill

gorell-R needs to get over himself...he is inconsistent to say the least..

http://www.vcstar.com/news/state/critics-of-lapd-urge-brown-to-veto-gorells-drone-bill_85115221

Members of a coalition of community groups concerned about the militarization of the Los Angeles Police Department assailed Mayor Eric Garcetti on Monday over his support for a bill that would establish standards for the police use of drones in California.

At a Los Angeles City Hall news conference, they urged Gov. Jerry Brown to veto the drone bill, AB 1327, co-authored by Assemblyman Jeff Gorell, R-Camarillo.

...more at link...

Drone Free LAPD knows exactly what they are talking about...
Tikki

[SoapBox]

5. It's like whiplash...

Gov. Jerry and Prez O...

I have high hopes...and they come through with some good.

Then...things like this.

[OnyxCollie]

6. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[rpannier]

8. Override the veto

God forbid they need a warrant signed by a judge to spy on you

/: sarcasm

[Hubert Flottz]

17. He needs those to peep into those bedrooms and bathrooms.

He's getting like Arnold. Next thing you know he will be groping.

[davidthegnome]

21. I'm confused...

Perhaps someone who understands this a bit better can enlighten me...

Basically what this means is that there is no need for a warrant to use surveillance drones... in other words, they can spy on the public at will, for whatever reason they please, or for no reason at all?

Also, just how silent are these drones? How close to a home do they have to be to do any actual spying? The idea of one sitting outside my house is kind of laughable. Of course, in my neck of the woods, there are so many rednecks with guns that they'd probably shoot the damn things down - if they could see them.

[reddread]

26. I dream of drone dogfights

at some point that will be feasible.
other options are probably simpler and more cost effective.

[cstanleytech]

28. Keep dreaming then as these drones arent armed. nt

[reddread]

29. tell that to those we kill with them

[cstanleytech]

30. Different type of drones bub.nt

[reddread]

31. same source

bub

[cstanleytech]

32. Sources doesnt mean shit, they arent armed and thats that.

[reddread]

34. unreasonable search and seizure

why do you hate the constitution/bill of rights?

[cstanleytech]

35. A cop breaking into your house without cause and no warrant

is unreasonable search and seizure an unarmed drone flying around isnt.

[reddread]

36. not anymore

ketchup

[reddread]

39. Im sure the founding fathers were clear about that

[Feral Child]

38. Yet

They aren't armed yet.

[cstanleytech]

46. Thats because they dont need to be.

Nor is that likely to change imo

[Feral Child]

48. OK

Glad you've got your finger on that pulse. I feel safer already.


My post was mostly sarcastic. No, I don't see armed cop-drones as likely in the near future. But it is a possibility.

Police drones are not a good idea. We do not need more intrusions into our privacy to keep us safe from the terrorist-threat-du-jour.

Nor to scour window-sills for the odd cannabis plant.

[cstanleytech]

49. Lot of things in this world are possible lol

A comet could wipe out all life today or I could win the megamillions lottery..............though I doubt I will
But as for the drones for police I think they might be a good idea if they are used wisely with specific rules on what they can and cannot do.

[Feral Child]

50. You can't win if you don't play.

We'll have to disagree on the drones. Facetiousness aside, I don't see any realistic use to justify the cost.

In addition to their strike-capabilities, the military uses them for surveillance and reconnaissance. In an area where anti-aircraft fire can be particularly dangerous, removal of a human-target pilot and replacing that component with a remote-operator in a safe location makes sense. That's fine in open country with light to non-existent traffic; pretty useless in an urban environment with heavy pedestrian and vehicular traffic. The 2nd hand, DEWAT drones the cops get from the military don't have hover-capability. Like a shark, they have to keep moving.

Evidence and intelligence gathering by the police are adequately serviced by proven tactics: stakeout and observation posts and the occasional following of a suspect by helicopter. Drones aren't especially adept at following cars in heavy traffic. The best they can achieve is photography of static locations, already easily accomplished by helicopter.

Remote operation is tricky and expensive. Since police helicopters aren't often attacked by SAMs, removing the eyes of a pilot is a useless complication. Manned helicopters can be used for lots of other purposes; search and rescue and rapid medevac avoiding traffic-snarls are good examples. Drones would be a single-purpose expense not justifiable by the limited operational use they'd get.

These are just another military toy for local PDs that already have budgeting problems.

[cstanleytech]

51. Oh the drones have alot of potential real benefits both in utility and in monetary savings.

For example they can be dispatched to the scene of a reported accident to do an initial assessment from the air faster than a police officer is likely to be able to respond.
Plus there is the savings in fuel as without having to carry any passengers the drone should be able to fly for far longer than todays helicopters which hopefully means the police wont have to use the big expensive to operate planes and helicopters as much.
They can also be able to scout out around wildfires as well as spot people from the air needing assistance due to a natural disaster such as flooding plus they could be equipped to be mini wifi and cell towers for areas where such things are spotty and they can of course help track fleeing vehicles from police which might be useful especially if it helps cut down on high speed chases.

[Feral Child]

53. You make some interesting points.

(Posted in wrong spot y'day, sorry)

My only rebuttal is that you have to have a highly trained operator sitting around drinking coffee until such a need arises, but I suppose that also applies to chopper pilots.

I guess we'll just have to mildly disagree, but they're going to do what they want to do, so I'll bid you "Good morning, have a nice day."


Thanks for a pleasant disagreement!

[Feral Child]

52. Damn, did it again.

Last edited Thu Oct 2, 2014, 07:43 AM - Edit history (1)

Answered myself by mistake.

[TheKentuckian]

24. Good old moon beam propping up the surveillance state.

[Trillo]

33. He seems to have changed as he aged. NT

[fredamae]

45. What's the difference

between a NeoLib and a Libertarian "Koch Style"?

[20score]

47. Pisses me off. That was a disgusting move on his part.

He has lost my support. This was just too important of a bill. I hope the Assembly can reintroduce this bill with simultaneous pressure for him to sign.