Game of Drones

Game of Drones:
An Analysis of the 2015 Session Assembly Bill 3597
by
Brian D. Mazurowski
Session Intern – Assemblymember Todd D. Kaminski
Utica College
1
April 2015
1 Ed Morba,Our Town News, 4 Mar 2015

Table of Contents
I. Introduction and Background
A. Assembly Bill 3597
B. The Catalyst of the Bill
C. The Addressed Issues and Concerns
II. Analysis: Hobby Lobbyists and the Controversy
A. The Groups in Support
B. The Groups in Opposition
C. Upstate vs. Downstate
D. The Winding Streams and Policy Window of the Bill
E. Implications on the 96th
District and State
F. Leadership and the Lack of Movement
III. Conclusion
A. The Legislation Prospects and Future
B. Democracy in the Legislative Process
Works Cited
Appendix A (Status and Summary)
Appendix B (Bill Text)
Appendix C (Memo in Support)
Appendix D (Drone Diagram)
Appendix E (Memorandum Requesting Sponsorship)
Appendix F (Federal Aviation Administration Report)
Appendix G (President Obama Report)

1
I. Introduction and Background
A. Assembly Bill 3597
Recently, Assemblymember Zebrowski has introduced Assembly Bill 3597 (from now
referred as A.3597), which regulates the personal use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).
Moreover, the term “unmanned aircraft” may be misleading as there are no systems currently
available that can conduct fully autonomous operations; therefore all systems need an operator
for part of the process. More commonly in the public, UAV is referred to as a “drone.” There are
distinct differences with drones and their uses. However, A.3597 refers to recreational drones, as
drones that private-civilians operate for leisure. Further, the introduction of A.3597 was a result
of an increase in ownership and the use of recreational drones. Therefore with an increase of
recreational operations, this has caused an increasingly greater risk of dangerous accidents from
recreational drones.
A growing concern for law enforcement, Assemblyman Zebrowski worked closely with
Rockland County Sheriff Louis Falco in drafting this legislation that would protect police,
specifically, security at the county jail.2 The partnership between the assemblymember and the
Rockland County Sheriff’s Department has been used to minimize risk and increase flexibility in
the language of the bill. Although lobbyists are not as influential as someone might think
regarding drafting legislation3, they remain essential for reporting background ideas to
policymakers and for lending support for particular legislation.4 Further Falco claims, “The
reckless use of drones has become an increasingly challenge for law enforcement.” He followed
2 “Assemblyman Zebrowski Introduces Legislation to Regulate Recreational Drone Use,” 15 Feb. 2015,
http://assembly.state.ny.us/mem/Kenneth-Zebrowski/story/61700/ (accessed 28 Mar. 2015)
3 Edward Schneier, John Murtaugh and Antoinette Pole, “one in five bill soriginatingfromlobbyists shows that
lobbyistmore so have a defensive role,” New York Politics: A Tale of Two States, 2nd Edition,Armonk, NY: M.E.
Sharpe, Inc., 2010,pp.3-373.
4 Ibid

2
with, “ This law will be particularly helpful to the security at our county correctional facility and
I applaud Assemblyman Zebrowski for working with us to craft this bill … by making it
unlawful operate a drone within 1,000 feet of the facility, it will help protect our officers, the
facility and the inmates.”5 Assemblymember Zebrowski said, “These accessible and easy to
operate devices are becoming increasingly popular with little, to no direction … it’s time that
New York steps up and takes the initiative in creating fundamental guidelines that ensure public
safety.”6 By introducing this bill, Assemblymember Zebrowski is addressing the large public
safety issue within his district as well as New York State. As stated in Dennis Smith and Martin
Horn’s entry, in The Oxford Handbook of New York State Governments and Politics, “public
safety is regarded by many as the primary responsibility of government.”7 This public safety
includes a sporadic scope, as the chapter explains. A further example would be the prominence
of the prevention and response to criminal activity.8 To insure public safety, the emphasis on
crime prevention makes recreational droning a topic of interest for all branches of government.
Hence, the legislature has a prerogative to properly respond to criminal activity and is obligated
to listen to the concerns of the criminal justice system. Thus, the relationship with the legislature
and other two branches allows for New York State to uniformly and appropriately deal with the
pressures of public safety.
5 Ibid
7 Dennis Smith and Martin Horn, “Public safety policy in New York state,” The Oxford Handbook of New York State
Government and Politics, Oxford University Press,2012, pp. 635.
8 Ibid

3
B. The Catalyst of the Bill
Several events from 2009 to the present have jeopardized public safety. Between 2009
and 2014 alone, there have been a myriad of recreational drone crashes in the United States (as
seen in Figure 1). In addition, there have been 15 close encounters involving airplanes and
recreational drones near airports in 2013 and 2014.9 Moreover in January, a recreational drone
crashed on the White House lawn by an operator whom was suspected of being intoxicated, and
nearly caused a national security emergency.10 Also in January, a drone crashed just below the
border of Mexico which was a failed attempt to smuggle drugs into the United States.11
Previously in 2013, a teenager was killed from a near-decapitation, by a recreational drone he
had been operating in Brooklyn, New York.12 Exacerbating the issues in Brooklyn, on September
2014, a police helicopter which was on a search for a missing person, narrowly avoided a
collision with a recreational drone.13 Due to media coverage and a high percentage of the public
concerned about drones, it comes to no surprise that Assemblymember Zebrowski has made
proper steps to respond to the issue. He included on the record that “Recent events, especially
what happened at the White House, have shown how reckless use of recreational drones can be a
cause for concern, potentially putting citizens in danger.” Continuing with, “Drones are
relatively inexpensive and are easy to assemble and operate ... we must take preventative action
9 CraigWhitlock,“Closeencounters on riseas small drones gain in popularity,” The Washington Post, 23 June 2014,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/06/23/close-encounters-with-small-drones-on-rise/
(accessed 28 Mar. 2015)
10Josh Lederman and Calvin Woodward,“After wayward drone crash,Obama says US needs laws to make drone
use safer,beneficial,”Star Tribune, 27 January 2015, http://www.startribune.com/289756021.html (accessed 28
Mar. 2015)
11 Nick Valencia and Michael Martinez,“Drone carryingdrugs crashes south of U.S. border,” CNN, 23 Jan. 2015,
http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/22/world/drug-drone-crashes-us-mexico-border/ (accessed 28 Mar. 2015)
12 “Man Killed By Toy Helicopter In Brooklyn After Being Scalped,” Huffington Post, 5 Sept. 2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/05/man-killed-by-toy-helicopter_n_3875895.html (accessed 28 Mar.
2015)
13 “NYPD: Policehelicopter has near miss with drone over Brooklyn,” CBS News, 18 Sept. 2014,
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nypd-helicopter-has-near-miss-with-drone-over-brooklyn/

4
to establish some reasonable guidelines before someone (else) gets hurt.”14 Therefore, New York
State should consider the use of drones to be an abnormally dangerous activity. Thus, meaning
that people should be held liable for the harm their drones cause, even with precautions.
Figure 1.15
C. The Addressed Issues and Concerns
A.3597 will create the necessary and appropriate crime of unlawful operations regarding
drones and will prohibit a person from operating them under certain conditions. As the federal
government delays concrete rules of drone use, it becomes imperative that New York State takes
the initiative to ensure recreational use is restricted in a manner that protects the public.16 In
accordance to public concern, a recent study by the Chubb Group of Insurance Cos. found three-
fourths of respondents were concerned with drones causing property damage and 55 percent are
15 Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/06/22/crashes-mount-as-military-flies-more-
drones-in-u-s/
16 Officeof Assemblymember Kenneth P. Zebrowski, Sponsor’s Memorandum In Support Of Legislation,
“Legislation RegulatingRecreational Drone Use (A.3597), 9 Feb. 2015

5
worried the injuries they could cause.17 The survey also found that 78 percent believe drones
could turn America into a surveillance state, and 60 percent worried about them taking photos of
themselves and their families.18 Further relating to the cases stated previously, it becomes
obvious that the legislature needs to act to protect the public from the grossly unregulated use of
recreational drones. Although in 2012, Congress passed the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) Modernization and Reform Act which dictated the FAA to establish rules regarding the
use of drones by December 15, 2015.19 As of yet the FAA has only taken preliminary with a
proposal outlining its plan for commercial drone-use. Moreover, it is anticipated that the FAA
may not meet this deadline. However, the FAA has placed a moratorium on certain commercial
usage, but not on any recreational uses.20 Beforehand, the FAA received an estimated 25 reports
per month last year of drones flying too close to manned aircraft and airports.21 In addition, New
York State has the ability to enact more restrictive rules than those guidelines generated by the
FAA. Therefore, Assemblyman Zebrowski’s purposed bill, establishes a “restricted airspace” of
1,000 feet near certain sensitive areas; including a five mile area surrounding all airports.22
Further, it also prohibits drone flight over 400 feet above ground level, flying out of visual line
of sight, reckless use, use that is intended to harass, and flying above private property without
consent. Consequently, any person found operating a drone in violation of the introduced bill
17 Phillip Vanno,“With littleregulation of drones, concerns ariseover safety, privacy,” Observer Dispatch,17 Jan
2015,1A continued to 4A
18 Ibid
20 Ibid
21 Phillip Vanno,“With littleregulation of drones, concerns ariseover safety, privacy,” Observer Dispatch, 17 Jan
2015,1A continued to 4A
22 Officeof Assemblymember Kenneth P. Zebrowski, Sponsor’s Memorandum In Support Of Legislation,
“Legislation RegulatingRecreational Drone Use (A.3597), 9 Feb. 2015

6
would be subject to a class A misdemeanor.23 Until proper oversight and state-of-the-art
regulations are drafted and accepted by the FAA, A.3597 needs to be chaptered and signed into
law to remedy New York State’s contemporary issues.
II. Analysis: Hobby Lobbyists and the Controversy
A. The Groups in Support
Notably, drone-use recreational or not, seems to infringe on many people’s right to
privacy. This infringement sparks contention within privacy advocates such as the American
Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which have been quite vocal in supporting drone regulation, such
as A.3597. Recently, the organization released a report that sets out its concerns over the
prospect of intrusive serial surveillance without proper safeguards. Moreover, as previously
discussed, the Modernization and Reform Act mandates the FAA to draft, standards, and rules to
ensure that drone integration proceeds in a safe and legal matter. Therefore it is probable that this
is a public process where civil liberties and privacy groups will have a voice in crafting rules,
and that voice will be at least, as effective as the industry voice. This process involving the
privacy advocates has already been seen as effective in other states.
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), since 2012, privacy
advocates; especially those most suspicious of unlawful government surveillance, have mounted
a lobbying campaign that has succeeded in convincing 15 states to enact laws regulating the use
of drones by law enforcement.24 So far, 14 of the 15 states have passed laws to curb government
23 Ibid
24 Kaja Whitehouse,“Crackdown on drones goes local,”USA Today, 23 Feb 2015,
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/02/23/crackdown-drones-technology-faa-nyc-councilman/23696377/
(accessed on 29 Mar 2015)

7
agencies from using drones to monitor its citizens, such as in traffic or at a public rally.25 11 of
those 15 states require a warrant before the government may use a drone. Further, seven of the
15 states also regulate recreational drone-use, according to the NCSL data.26 For example, in
Louisiana, it is illegal to use a drone to monitor a person or property without consent; offenders
face a fine up to $500 and six months in jail.27 Given the data, it becomes obvious that
campaigns mounted by privacy advocates often make for compelling cases about the threat of
pervasive surveillance. Privacy advocates contend that with drones, the government will be able
to engage in widespread pervasive surveillance because drones are less expensive to operate than
their manned counterparts. In light of these facts, the legislation being pushed by privacy
advocates has been explicitly directed at drone technology, not because the technology
represents an actual threat to civil liberties, but because someday in the future, the technology
may be intrusive.
Support from a wide-array of interest groups is imperative for bill legislation. Even so
more than the support from interest groups, is the support from legislators. In the Assembly,
support for bill A.3597 comes from co-sponsor Assemblymembers Gottfried, Jaffee, Titone,
Markey, Simotas, Steck, Stirpe, Dinowitz, Mosley, Brook-Krasny, Montesano, Mcdonough,
Gunther, Crouch, Colton, Peoples-Stokes, Galef, and Linares. In addition to the cosponsors, are
the multi-sponsors which include Assemblymembers Abbate, Braunstein, Cook, DenDekker,
Duprey, Glick, Hikind, Lopez, McLaughlin, Robinson, Saladino, and Simon. However, a
majority vote in each House is required to have a bill placed on the Governor’s desk; where it
can be signed into law or vetoed.28
25 Ibid
26 Ibid
27 Ibid
28 Ibid

8
B. The Groups in Opposition
Disturbingly, drone accidents are common in both military and recreational purposes.
Therefore, drones struggle with an “image” problem in the public eye. Further, critics say
A.3597 essentially turns law-abiding citizens into criminals and at the same time does little to
nothing to deter potential criminals from doing what criminals do; break the law. In addition to
these critics, generally Republicans favor decreased government regulations since they believe
that the negatives of government regulation outweigh the positives and are therefore in
opposition to A.3597. One of these negatives would be the effects that A.3597 would have on
business. Additionally, pro-business groups have strong interests in this issue for transparent
reasons. Hence, the backlash and the negative response to A.3597 are not just from ordinary
citizens and politicians. Businesses such as Amazon, who have offices located sporadically
throughout New York State, will be affected by drone regulation. Therefore, Amazon has taken
public stances on it as well. It makes sense that this group would oppose drone regulation, and I
suspect that many other pro-business groups and many businesses themselves would oppose
A.3597. Although there is not a big financial burden attached to the bill, businesses such as
Amazon, view the bill as creating more regulations that lead to costly business implications. In
addition, businesses are upset about the FAA implications that drones must be flown by
observers who can see the vehicle. “This means we really are not talking about unmanned aerial
vehicles … we are talking about something that has to have a person,” said Michael E. Drobac of
the Small UAV Coalition, of which Amazon, Google and GoPro are members.29
Further drone regulating bills, such as A.3597, would anticipate facing substantial and
powerful opposition not only from outside groups, but also from the inner workings of the
29 Bart Jansen, “Drone Rule Dismay Amazon,” USA Today: a Gannet Company, 16 Feb 2015,1A

9
Assembly. Specifically the Codes Committee, which A.3597 must make passage before it may
be presented on the Assembly floor. Moreover, the Codes Committee takes bills that affect the
penal law. Consequently, the Codes Committee is by far the strongest and most noticeable
hindrance to the bill’s speedy enactment. This is made apparent as A.3597 has not moved from
the committee since January 27.30 Additionally, the Codes Committee is one of the most
powerful and legislatively significant committees in the New York State Assembly.31 Assembly
committees, such as Codes, are the “traffic cops” of the House and decide which bills will be
moved onto the floor.32 In this regard, the Committee Chair Joseph Lentol, who sets the
committee’s agenda, has the power with accordance of the leadership and dual reference33 and
therefore controls the committee with ease.34 In relevance to A.3597, it is assumed that the Codes
Committee is concerned that regulation is, at this time inappropriate. Further, recreational drones
are recognized as a problem, however in the committee’s view, A.3597 might be an excessive
solution. Therefore, in order for A.3597 to pass, Assemblymember Zebrowski will need to find
common-ground with the Codes Committee.
In addition, the drone anti-regulation advocates are admittedly not focused on more sensible
legislation that addresses harms irrespective of the technology used. Therefore, they argue that
the FAA dealing with privacy issues is contemporary and was unanticipated for the agency.35
30 Source: http://leginfo.nysa.us/asmsen/navigate.cgi?NVDTO:
31 Eric Lane and Joshua Wolf,“The New York State Legislature,” The Oxford Handbook of New York State
Government and Politics,Oxford University Press,2012,pp. 225-261.
32 Edward Schneier, John Murtaugh and Antoinette Pole, “one in five billsoriginatingfromlobbyists shows that
lobbyistmore so have a defensive role,” New York Politics:ATale of Two States, 2nd Edition, Armonk, NY: M.E.
Sharpe, Inc., 2010,pp.3-373.
33 The Codes Committee has the ability of “dual reference,” meaning they have a wider range of jurisdiction over
billsand can pull billsoutfrom other committees and placethem on their calendar;Codes has jurisdiction over
anythingthat effects the criminal codes (See: Schneier, Murtaugh & Pole, 2010).
34 Ibid
35 Frank Matt, “Drones over upstate New York: A look at an FAA test site,” 21 Jan 2014,
http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/the-stream/multimedia/2014/1/drones-over-
upstatenewyorkalookatanfaatestsite.html (accessed on 29 Mar 2015)

10
Evidently, the agency’s roadmap to airspace integration states that “The FAA’s mission does not
include developing or enforcing policies pertaining to privacy or civil liberties.”36 Many agree
that the FAA should not be involved with privacy liberties, such as drone anti-regulation
advocate Larry Binker who said, “Safety is what the FAA does … there are sufficient federal
agencies to deal with privacy concerns.”37 Advocates of drone anti-regulation say the rising
plethora of restrictions threaten to leave the U.S. behind at a time when the drone industry is
growing. Drone spending is on track to hit $91 billion worldwide in the next 10 years, according
to aerospace and defense industry research group Teal Group.38
C. Upstate vs. Downstate
Recently the FAA announced, in late December that Griffiss International Airport, a
former military base in Rome, N.Y., would be one of six sites nationwide with authorization to
test commercial drones.39 The Northeast Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Airspace
Integration Research Alliance, otherwise known as NUAIR, the coalition that was awarded with
the FAA’s selection, overcame 24 other states competing. NUAIR will now play a pivotal role in
helping the FAA meet the 2015 goal for integration of UAS and US airspace. Mary Carol
Chruscicki, the Executive Director of Cyber NY Alliance, a company in part of the NUAIR, said
“We will always be enhancing our technologies and they will need to be tested in a methodical
36 Ibid
37 Ibid
39 Frank Matt, “Drones over upstate New York: A look at an FAA test site,” 21 Jan 2014,

11
way before they’re introduced into the airspace.”40 The biggest challenge will be the “sense-and-
avoid” systems for preventing collisions and crashes.41 Larry Brinker, Executive Director and
General Counsel for NUAIR added that Griffiss’ location is in “one of the busiest aviation
corridors in the world,” and will give the site a particular imperative in the new sense-and-avoid
technology.42 Further, Chruscicki predicts that the presence of UAS testing will be attracting
companies to the area, which will be looking to make components and technology drones; such
as cameras and sensor technology. This could lead to a boost to central New York, helping to
create about 470 jobs with statewide economic impacts of $180 million, according to NUAIR.43
“I’m getting calls from companies looking for opportunities to test and sell their products,”
Chruscicki furthered. An example would be, FlyTerra, a company currently developing drones
for the use of aerial imaging and terrain data gathering in agricultural and other purposes.44 New
York U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer also has is eyes to the sky, in hopes that upstate New York
will become the “Silicon Valley of drones.”45
However, upstate New York also has recent history of drone opposition. Hancock Field
Air National Guard Base in Syracuse is home to the 147th Attack Wing of the New York Air
National Guard, a unit that flies armed drone missions over Afghanistan.46 This unit’s presence,
which is only 40 miles away from Griffiss, has made upstate New York a center of anti-drone
activism. In regards to anti-drone protests, the Hancock National Guard Base has had nearly 100
40 Ibid
41 Ibid
42 Ibid
43 Mark Weiner, “FAA selects Central New York as national testsitefor drone research,”Syracuse.com, 30 Dec
2013,
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2013/12/faa_selects_central_new_york_as_national_test_site_for_dro
ne_research.html (accessed on 29 Mar 2015)
44 Ibid
45 Ibid
46 Ibid

12
arrests since 2011.47 The contrast in public perception in upstate New York demonstrates how
polarized the national conversation is on drones, and how perceptions can be easily tied to a
locality’s encounters with the technology.48 Further, drone supporters in the region
acknowledged that creating a distinction in the public’s perception between military and non-
military uses of drones is central to their goals.49 In this regard, to the extent Cyber NY Alliance
even had to rebrand itself before pushing for the FAA test site. In addition, Chruscicki claims
that Amazon’s push for drones has actually helped perception efforts. According to Chruscicki,
much of the altering of public perception has been done by Amazon.50 She included that the “60
minutes piece is the biggest conversation I’m hearing about drones … any suspicion is being
dwarfed by exciting new business.”51
However Ed Kinane, an upstate New York pro-privacy and anti-drone activist, said he
does not want to see the association of drones with their military application be broken. Kinane
said, “I’m quite worried that hype around domestic drones will normalize the use of drones in
our skies … the way ‘Atoms for Peace’ played a role in normalizing nuclear weapons.”52 Kinane
followed with a sentiment that anti-drone activists face a big challenge, as he said “Goliath just
got bigger.”53 On the other hand, Kade Crockford, Director of the ACLU of Massachusetts
Technology for the Liberty Project says, “ I really think that drone lobby is doing itself a
disservice by flatly refusing to engage in a conversation about privacy regulations and statues.”
Further she predicted that the drone industry will “lose out in huge markets” if the FAA does not
47 Ibid
48 Ibid
49 Ibid
50 Ibid
51 Ibid
52 Ibid
53 Ibid

13
change their approach to privacy, as more localities would pass drone restrictions, moratoriums,
and outright bans.”54 Such moratoriums have already been seen in Syracuse and New York City.
The New York City Council alongside members Paul Vallone and Dan Garodnick has
been pushing a moratorium on drones; except for police operations.55 Vallone stated, “New York
City can regulate drones now without waiting for the FAA to update federal regulations or for a
tragedy to happen.” Garodnick proclaims he is worried about the ability of law enforcement to
hold drone operators responsible for illegal or bad acts, especially in a crowded city like New
York.56 Garodnick argues, “There are a lot of very important uses for drones that exist, but until
we have the ability to enforce the rules, we are not at a point to grant permission.”57 Currently,
anyone who violates the ban could be subject to a $1,000 fine and a year in jail. Further if New
York City, the economic central of New York State, bans the use of drones, it could be a
vexation to drone advocates and coercing a policy window.
D. The Winding Streams and Policy Window of the Bill
In the blockbuster movie Ghostbusters, Egon Spengler said, “don’t cross the streams …
its very bad.”58 Luckily, in politics, according to John W. Kingdon’s analysis regarding public
policymaking, the crossing of streams is completely appropriate and common.59 Kingdon’s
analysis incorporates three streams; problems, policies, and politics.60 Firstly, there is
intertwining with policy and its ability to define the problem and relating causes. Further,
54 Ibid
56 Ibid
57 Ibid
58 Harold Ramis.1984. Ghostbusters. Burbank,CA: RCA/Columbia Pictures Home Video.
59 John Kingdon. Agendas, alternatives,and public policies.2nd.Boston: Little, Brown, 1984,pp. 179-194.
60 Ibid

14
becomes the policymaker’s prerogative to decide whether they should address the causes or the
effects.61 Therefore another imperative part of policymaking is to critically examine the
alternatives because in light of contemporary issues, innovation must be introduced to prevent
conventional ineffective methods from continuing.62 On the other hand, the repercussions of
these new ideas must be evaluated among a wide array of paths to discretionally take.63
Therefore in analyzing A.3597, this bill does not attempt to solve the root cause of drone misuse;
it simply attempts to treat the immediate cause. The root cause of drone misuse is the act of an
action not being defined as criminal in its self.
Furthermore, public policy issues are rarely one-sided. Thus, policymakers might realize
that various definitions of the public problem may be used for drafting future legislation to solve
the problem, but one particular definition might increase the likelihood of acceptance among
dissenting factions better than the others. To decrease uncertainty and remain consistent in
legislative purpose and interpretation, policymakers may bring to the forefront a definition of the
problem that garners the most support and is least controversial. Therefore, the privacy and
public safety issues have been framed delicately, with consideration given to the controversial
viewpoints on either side of the drone debate. This problem reflects the internalized culture
within the United States, whereby citizens place a high regard on autonomy, and disclosure. By
framing the issue accordingly, those vocally opposed have been accused of purposefully keeping
the public in the dark by withholding information; which is a solid accusation in a vehemently
individualistic society.
61 Michael Kraftand Scott Furlong, Public Policy, Politics, Analysis and Alternatives, Washington,D.C.: CQ Press,
2007 pp. 97-183.
62 Ibid
63 Ibid

15
More interesting is the intersection of politics and policy, and how the policy issues
always involve the distribution of something. As Deborah Stone concludes, there wouldn’t be a
policy conflict if there were not some advantage to protect or some loss to prevent.”64 Therefore,
each policy will face resistance from the opposition. As seen in the drone debate, this opposition
could be a member of the opposite party or a member of simply a group that doesn’t agree with
the policy. It may be overly-rudimentary in principle, but every issue seems to be contentious.
Hence, every policy to a given idea seems to have several detractors, even for unusual reasons.
For example, the peculiar instances where politicians might disagree with a policy, but cannot
publicly oppose it due to political ramifications. Therefore, supporting a bill that regulates
recreational drone use, in the name of public safety, would be normally seen as a political axiom,
however, it is transparent that the lack of movement on the bill, that there is fewer support as one
might expect. Further, this lack of support might be that this bill creates a conflict between New
York and the federal government, and the bill may be seen as transgressing of the state’s
authority. Ergo, the passage of A.3597 would directly affect procedures that are carried out by
the FAA. Moreover, it might be taken by the federal government as an attempt to influence
foreign policy practices, which are wholly within the jurisdiction of the federal government. At
the same time, avoiding these conflicts has proven to be daunting, as shown by its lack of
movement and support.
Additionally, another imperative issue for passing legislation is a policy window. Policy
windows are unpredictable openings in the policy process that create the possibility for influence
over the direction and outcome of that process.65 Specifically, this drone regulation has a policy
64 Deborah Stone, Policy Paradox, NY: Norton, 1997,pp.1-14.
65 Alexander Leslie,Beyond Policy Analysis:PublicIssue Management in Turbulent Times, 3rd Ed. Toronto, CAN:
Nelson Education,2006

16
window that at the moment seems to be open but unpredictably could rapidly close. The policy
window opened shortly after the recreational drone crash at the White House, when the matter
was in vogue with the media; which led to the topic being discussed among politicians, scholars,
and citizens around the country. Furthermore, a policy entrepreneur is somebody who creates
and advances their policy agenda, and takes advantage of these predictable or unpredictable
windows of opportunity.66 Although, Assemblymember Zebrowski is not strong-arming, he has
taken on the role of policy entrepreneur by being a part of the vanguard of drone regulation. As
noted by Robert D. Behn, “The purpose of any interest group is to secure large and direct
benefits for its members.”67 Policymakers can use such group outcomes as substantial evidence
for their own agendas.68 Assemblyman Zebrowski has done exactly that as he has championed
drone regulation, which is sound to the vox populi, and has used his staff resources to closely
liaise with advocacy groups.
E. Implications on the 96th District and State
A.3597 has implications in the 96th District as well as the entire New York State.
Moreover, in the 96th district, with its already congested airspace due to the multiple airports is a
great concern. Although, Assemblymember Zebrowski’s district may not know much about
A.3597 because there have been few public statements and press releases about the legislation.
However, the constituents that know about A.3597, probably have seen the recent articles in USA
Today and on CNN.com. Further the implications of the legislation have more direct impact on
the large group of drone owners. Other citizens are less concerned as long as it can be done
safely and without negative consequences. However, still others want to ban its practice entirely.
66 John Kingdon. Agendas, alternatives,and public policies.2nd.Boston: Little, Brown, 1984,pp. 179-194.
67 Robert Behn. Policy analysis and policy politics. Policy Analysis, 1981, pp. 199-226.
68 Ibid

17
Either way, the implications of this issue will affect all New Yorkers. Also, since the New York
State legislature is an example for many other states and the federal government, this bill could
impact many other states and even help create a federal change. Additionally drone regulations,
in general, would affect many businesses. Specifically, businesses would have to be familiarized
with regulations and be in compliance. With this said, it can be assumed that some republican
constituents and business owners in the district would be vexed with the bill, just as they would
in any other part of New York State.
F. Leadership and the Lack of Movement
It seems that there is no opposition in the Assembly or Senate, so why has A.3597 not
been successful thus far? The rudimentary answer is distress. Although the leadership in the
legislature, as well as the Governor’s office, has yet to take an official position, nor specifically
commented on A.3597 and the bill’s ability to make it on the floor for a vote, is ambiguous.
Further, because the issue is so closely tied to the War on Terror, and with the FAA, it is
facilitated for a debate to shift into a subject that is unwarranted for New York politics.
Moreover, not only is it a media nightmare but also sparks unsolicited controversial debates
regarding foreign and privacy policies. Consequently, the leadership of the Assembly and Senate
refuses to allow A.3597 to be debated and voted on. In addition, the roles of the leadership in the
legislature should not be modest when at the end of the legislative process; it is the leadership
which ultimately decides what bills should be passed.69 Although more symbolic, the views of
Governor Cuomo and his gubernatorial agenda can be of some consequence in what legislation
69 Eric Lane and Joshua Wolf,“The New York State Legislature,” The Oxford Handbook of New York State
Government and Politics, Oxford University Press,2012,pp. 225-261.

18
or issues gain traction in the legislature.70 Until recently, the Governor had sky high approval
ratings and legitimate presidential aspirations; however the Governor has lost power due to the
public backlash of his education agenda and disbanding of the Moorland Commission.
Therefore, the Governor will try and regain some of his power by distancing himself away from
more controversial issues, such as drone regulation.
However, before the recent negative controversy, Governor Cuomo made mention of
drones in his delayed 2015 State of the State Address. The Governor announced that the second-
highest award for technology developments, of $4 million, was given to NUAIR.71 Further, even
President Obama in his State of the Union Address states, “As Americans, we respect human
dignity, even when we’re threatened, (which is why I’ve) … worked to make sure our use of new
technology like drones is properly constrained.”72 However, the leadership in the New York
State Assembly is prolonging A.3597. As Majority Leader Joseph Morelle, discussed in the
Intern Forum on February 10th, he feels that drone regulation “isn’t soup yet.”73 Hence, that the
bill does not pertain to matters that are ripe, however this does not reflect the public opinion as
expressed.
Sharpe, Inc., 2010,pp.3-373.
71 Source: http://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-7092-million-economic-development-
resources-awarded-fourth-round (accessed on 29 Mar 2015)
72 Source: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/01/20/remarks-president-state-union-address-
january-20-2015(accessed on 29 Mar 2015)
73 Joseph Morelle, “Interview by Intern Committee,” IssueForum with Assembly Majority Leader Morelle, 10 Feb
2015

19
III. Conclusion
A. The Legislation Prospects and Future
The likelihood of A.3597 being stagnant this year is as certain as “death and taxes.”74
Several factors are affecting its passage including the limited support of the leadership as
previously discussed, and the ambiguous jurisdiction. Perhaps if a cataclysmic catalyst that
precipitates a future likewise bill as A.3597, there might be more traction and leverage that will
allow the bill to see passage in the legislature. The controversial subject of the bill has not been
overcome by any striking need presently. Unfortunately, it seems as though politics play a bigger
role in the legislative process. Although Assembly Democrats currently have a supermajority
with 103 members, its leadership has not persuaded current public opinion to legislate law to
regulate drones usage, the final say lands solely in the hands of the Codes Committee. As noted
in New York State: A Tale of Two States, “most bills referred to committees die there and a bill
that cannot command a majority in the committee is highly unlikely to be seen again.”75
However, many bills that fail in one session are reintroduced in following years.76 Upon
inspection, one may hastily conclude that the complicated history of A.3597 reflects what the
New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice called a dysfunctional New York State
Legislature.77
Additionally, it should be noted that public opinion does change and unpopular ideas can
become favorable and therefore this is true in regards to legislation as well. Further, the Codes
74 Source: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/b/benjaminfr129817.html?src=t_death_and_taxes
Sharpe, Inc., 2010,pp.3-373.
76 Ibid
77 Andrew Stengel, Lawrence Norden and Laura Seago, “Still Broken: New York State legislativereform2008
update, Summary of Findings, NYU Brennan Center for Justice, 2008,pp. 1-6.

20
Committee may have sealed the fate of A.3597, but as long as the bill remains active and with
revision, time and persistence, there is a better chance that in the future it will be signed into law.
However, with the plethora of existing statutory stare decisis, it would be permissible for New
York State to follow suite. In conclusion, William Shakespeare once said, “All the world's a
stage, and all the men and women merely players: they have their exits and their entrances; and
one man in his time plays many parts.”78 The stage is New York, the audience is its citizens, the
players … the elected politicians. Unfortunately for A.3597, the play is a tragedy. Perhaps, the
missing thrust for passage of A.3597 is the lack of a cataclysmic catastrophic event which
historically turns the “after-burners” on. Only then will it result in the speedy passage of the bill
necessary to protect life and limb. Unfortunately for the public, the need for the A.3597 is
apparent now, but it may likely remain “grounded.”
B. Democracy in the Legislative Process
Through the response of public outcry and the introducing of A.3597 which concerns
public safety, has led to a fair process of democracy. This is because the Constitutional Framers,
through the First Amendment, allowed for the people to be heard by the politicians from a
multitude of communication mediums. But unfortunately, the legislation that can be easily
passed and foreseeable as appropriate is often impeded. The legislature is too often catastrophe
driven. This is transparent in A.3597, which could mitigate the detrimental contingency in the
near-future, but lacks the movement by leadership. Further, Assemblyman Zebrowski should
receive accolades for championing drone regulation before such devastation occurs and results in
human life loss.
78 http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/w/williamsha166828.html#SKPp57ql69jD7Rkt.99 (accessed on 29
Mar 2015)

21
In regards to A.3597, the intent is transparent that the public problem concerning drone-
use is privacy and safety. Further, another issue is if regulation limits the citizens, then it expands
the police power. An example would be the backlash of the SAFE Act, which was also
catastrophe driven. Such events, call for the expediency of legislation which can leave opaque
grammar to be interpreted. The only caveat to my argument is if the FAA establishes concrete
regulations regarding drones, beforehand.
C. Wright Mills Power Elite Model reflects that the dominant institutions; politicians,
military and corporate, will always have the advantage of policymaking over the common man.79
At first look, this is opaque because the principles and economic practices, that the dominant
institutions protect, argue with accusations filled with red herrings, such as limiting industry
innovation. However, even if you apply this theory to other models, ultimately the power elite
will always exist amidst the policymaking domain. In addition, Charles Lindblom theorized that
there exist concealed forces at play in the policymaking environment. This holds true when
applicable to Dr. Dennis Smith’s bull’s eye, as a variable within the environment scope.80
Therefore, it is safe to assume that beneath the New York State Legislature lie the multifaceted
mechanics of an arcane policymaking environment. It comes to no surprise, that the democratic
process can be slow and opaque and sometimes venal. Nevertheless, the antiquated notions of
public policy reflecting public concern, as does A.3597, should be passed by its merits and
ramifications is a democratic vestige worth vivifying. A.3597 promotes the common good
because it is a policy that benefits the people, which includes those most concerned with safety
and infringements of privacy. As reviewed in the quantitative data, much of the public strongly
argue that if these essentials are not to be protected than it is a violation of their civil rights.
79C. Wright Mills.ThePower Elite. New York: Oxford University Press,1999.
80 Dennis Smith and Martin Horn, “Public safety policy in New York state,” The Oxford Handbook of New York State
Government and Politics,Oxford University Press,2012,pp. 635.

22
Hence, civil liberties are essential to protect for the public. Thus it is imperative to regulate
contemporary technology because it could be detrimental to public safety. Regulation of
contemporary issues such as drones is a must. This is in reflection to Albert Einstein’s statement,
“Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal.”81
81 Source: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alberteins164554.html

23
Works Cited
“Assemblyman Zebrowski Introduces Legislation to Regulate Recreational Drone Use,” 15 Feb.
2015,http://assembly.state.ny.us/mem/Kenneth-Zebrowski/story/61700/ (accessed 28
Mar. 2015)
“Man Killed By Toy Helicopter In Brooklyn After Being Scalped,” Huffington Post, 5 Sept.
2013 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/05/man-killed-by-toy-
helicopter_n_3875895.html (accessed 28 Mar. 2015)
“NYPD: Police helicopter has near miss with drone over Brooklyn,” CBS News, 18 Sept. 2014,
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nypd-helicopter-has-near-miss-with-drone-over-
brooklyn/
Behn, R. Policy analysis and policy politics. Policy Analysis, 1981, pp. 199-226.
Jansen, B. “Drone Rule Dismay Amazon,” USA Today: a Gannet Company, 16 Feb
2015, 1A
Kingdon, J. Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. 2nd. Boston: Little, Brown, 1984, pp.
179-194.
Kraft, M. and Furlong, S. Public Policy, Politics, Analysis and Alternatives, Washington, D.C.:
CQ Press, 2007 pp. 97-183.

24
Lane, E. and Wolf, J. “The New York State Legislature,” The Oxford Handbook of New York
State Government and Politics, Oxford University Press, 2012, pp. 225-261.
Lederman, J. and Woodward, C. “After wayward drone crash, Obama says US needs laws to
make drone use safer, beneficial,” Star Tribune, 27 January 2015,
Leslie, A. Beyond Policy Analysis: Public Issue Management in Turbulent Times, 3rd Ed.
Toronto, CAN: Nelson Education, 2006
Matt, F. “Drones over upstate New York: A look at an FAA test site,” 21 Jan 2014,
Mills, C. Wright. The Power Elite. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Morelle, J. “Interview by Intern Committee,” Issue Forum with Assembly Majority Leader
Morelle, 10 Feb 2015
Office of Assemblymember Kenneth P. Zebrowski, Sponsor’s Memorandum In Support Of
Legislation, “Legislation Regulating Recreational Drone Use (A.3597), 9 Feb. 2015
Ramis, H. 1984. Ghostbusters. Burbank, CA: RCA/Columbia Pictures Home Video.

25
Schneier, E. Murtaugh, J. and Pole, A. “one in five bills originating from lobbyists shows that
lobbyist more so have a defensive role,” New York Politics: A Tale of Two States, 2nd
Edition, Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 2010, pp.3-373.
Smith, D. and Horn M. “Public safety policy in New York state,” The Oxford Handbook of New
York State Government and Politics, Oxford University Press, 2012, pp. 635.
Stengel, A. Norden, L. and Seago, L. “Still Broken: New York State legislative reform 2008
update, Summary of Findings, NYU Brennan Center for Justice, 2008, pp. 1-6.
Stone, D. Policy Paradox, NY: Norton, 1997, pp.1-14.
Valencia, N. and Martinez, M. “Drone carrying drugs crashes south of U.S. border,” CNN, 23
Jan. 2015, http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/22/world/drug-drone-crashes-us-mexico-border/
(accessed 28 Mar. 2015)
Vanno, P. “With little regulation of drones, concerns arise over safety, privacy,” Observer
Dispatch, 17 Jan 2015, 1A continued to 4A

26
Weiner, M. “FAA selects Central New York as national test site for drone research,”
Syracuse.com, 30 Dec 2013,
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2013/12/faa_selects_central_new_york_as_nati
onal_test_site_for_drone_research.html (accessed on 29 Mar 2015)
Whitehouse, K. “Crackdown on drones goes local,” USA Today, 23 Feb 2015,
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/02/23/crackdown-drones-technology-faa-nyc-
councilman/23696377/ (accessed on 29 Mar 2015)
Whitlock, C. “Close encounters on rise as small drones gain in popularity,” The Washington
Post, 23 June 2014, http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/06/23/close-
encounters-with-small-drones-on-rise/ (accessed 28 Mar. 2015)

Game of Drones

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (18)

Similar to Game of Drones

Similar to Game of Drones (10)

Game of Drones