DronesOhio lawmakers want to limit use of drones by law enforcement
State lawmakers in Ohio want to limit the use of drones by law enforcement agencies in the state.A proposed bill would require law enforcement to obtain a search warrant before using drones. It would prohibit law enforcement from using drones to search for missing persons, locate illegal marijuana operations, or perform several actions officers currently handle with helicopter surveillance.
State lawmakers in Ohio want to limit the use of drones by law enforcement agencies in the state. Rep. Rex Damschroder (R-Fremont) proposed House Bill 207, which he considers “an attempt to preserve personal freedom and privacy ahead of the industry,” the Springfield News-Sun reports. “These are going to get more in your backyard than you’ve ever seen with aircraft,” Damschroder, a pilot, told legislators on the House Transportation, Public Safety, and Homeland Security Committee during the bill’s first hearing on Tuesday.
The proposed bill would require law enforcement to obtain a search warrant before using drones. Law enforcement would be allowed to use drones to prevent imminent harm, serious damage, escape of suspect, or destruction of evidence, and also during national terrorist attacks. Under the proposed bill, law enforcement would be prohibited from using drones to search for missing persons, locate illegal marijuana operations, or perform several actions officers currently handle with helicopter surveillance.
Damschroder compared the proposed bill to the drone bills passed in Florida and Illinois.
The News-Sun notes that some law enforcement departments around the state oppose the proposed drone bill. “You, as a private citizen, could do all those things,” Robert Cornwell, executive director of the Buckeye State Sheriffs’ Association, said. “You could use a drone with a camera on it. Law enforcement could not, and it seems like it’s a double standard the wrong way.”
Fellow Ohio lawmakers, Reps. Rick Perales (R-Beavercreek) and Ross McGregor (R-Springfield), questioned the bill’s impact on the state’s drone industry, but Damschroder insisted that the bill is a “pro-drone bill.”
“I regard the Constitution highly and I think our privacy is right at the top. Any state that wants to have a drone program should address this and address it early,” He said.
John Gilchrist, legislative counsel for the Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police, opposes the bill in its current form. Gilchrist claims that the Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens from unlawful search and seizure, does not apply to what is in public view. “We say there’s no difference between a helicopter with a human being and a drone that has no human being — they’re going to see the same thing,”Gilchrist said.
