Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Drones In Public Safety - Privacy Issues


Published on

MMM Partner John Fry Speaks on Privacy Issues at Drones in Public Safety

Published in: Law
  • Be the first to comment

Drones In Public Safety - Privacy Issues

  1. 1. Drones In Public Safety: PRIVACY ISSUES
  2. 2. Disclaimer The materials and information presented and contained within this document are provided by MMM as general information only, and do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Any opinions expressed within this document are solely the opinion of the individual author(s) and may not reflect the opinions of MMM, individual attorneys, or personnel, or the opinions of MMM clients. The materials and information are for the sole use of their recipient and should not be distributed or repurposed without the approval of the individual author(s) and Morris, Manning & Martin LLP. This document is Copyright ©2017 Morris, Manning & Martin, LLP. All rights reserved worldwide.
  3. 3. • Supreme Court Cases: • California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207 (1986) (warrantless aerial observation of fenced-in backyard from an aircraft flying at 1000 feet not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment) • Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989) (warrantless aerial observation of the interior of a partially covered greenhouse in a residential backyard from a helicopter flying at 400 feet not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment) • Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001) (use sense enhancing technology (thermal imaging) to gather information regarding the interior of home that could not otherwise have been obtained without physical intrusion into a constitutionally protected area constitutes a search requiring a warrant) • Unites States v. Jones, 132 S.Ct. 945 (2012) (attachment of a GPS tracking device to a vehicle and use of that device to monitor vehicle’s movement on public streets is a trespass and therefore a search under the Fourth Amendment) PRIVACY – 4th Amendment
  4. 4. • Radio Lab • Flies at 8,000-10,000 feet. • Camera array takes a picture every second. • Can use a drone but typically manned aircraft. • Demonstrates the significant advancement in non-military surveillance ability. PRIVACY
  7. 7. Persistent Surveillance Systems
  9. 9. • July 2015 William Merideth shoots down a drone that he claims was “hovering” over his property. • He was arrested and charged with first degree criminal mischief. • Drone operator, John Boggs claims the drone was at 200 feet and not hovering. • In October 2015 Bullitt County Judge dismissed case on the grounds that it was an invasion of privacy and that Mr. Merideth had a right to shoot it down. • January 2016 drone operator John Boggs filed lawsuit in Federal Court seeking a declaratory judgement: • That the drone was an aircraft, which was regulated by the FFA and that it was flying in Class G airspace where it was allowed. • That shooting down the drone was a trespass to chattels entitling Boggs to $1,500 in damages. • March of 2017, Federal Judge dismisses case saying there is no federal jurisdiction. PRIVACY (DRONESLAYER)
  10. 10. • 18 U.S. Code § 32 - Destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities: • According to the FAA a drone is an aircraft; hence the entire fabric of regulations regarding aircraft applies to drones. • It is a federal crime to destroy (including shooting at) aircraft and if convicted the offender is subject to a fine and/or up to 20 years in prison. NOTE
  11. 11. • FAA FACT SHEET December 17, 2015 • Examples of Regulation Within Local Power: • Requirement for police to obtain a warrant prior to using a UAS for surveillance. • Specifying that UAS may not be used for voyeurism. • Prohibitions on using UAS for hunting or fishing, or to interfere with or harass an individual who is hunting or fishing. • Prohibitions on attaching firearms or similar weapons to UAS. Local Power Per the FAA
  12. 12. Legislative Developments US Senate Bill 631 “Drone Aircraft Privacy and Transparency Act of 2017” • The Secretary of Transportation will ensure that “integration of unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace system is done in compliance with privacy principles.” • The proposed legislation is lengthy and deals specifically with data collection and data collection minimization standards. • One subpart reads as follows: • (d) Prohibition on use as evidence.—If information has been collected by means of use of an unmanned aircraft system, no part of the contents of that information and no evidence derived from that information may be received in evidence in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof unless that information is collected in accordance with this section.
  13. 13. QUESTIONS? THANK YOU John Fry 404-504-7728