Maplewood council delays vote on $14,815 drone after months-long questions about legality, liability and vendor origin

Mayor Greenberg brought forward Resolution 25-8, authorizing the city manager to accept a $14,815 bid from DSLR Pros to buy an M30T drone for use by Maplewood departments. Council members spent almost two hours questioning legal limits, training, cross-jurisdictional use and whether state-level restrictions on Chinese-made drones could render the purchase unusable for some purposes.

The drone purchase was presented as a multi-department tool: “Public Works, Fire, Police, and community development” would all use the device, a staff member said. The proposed unit includes an infrared camera, remote access, loudspeaker capability and a small payload capacity, features staff described as useful for roof inspections, identifying hot spots for fire response and locating missing people in low light.

Council members raised several concerns. Council member Chastity said she had “concerns, you know, liability concerns” and questioned whether the city should buy equipment with uncertain future legal status. Council member Maddox and others asked whether neighboring jurisdictions might share a drone rather than each municipality purchasing one. Asked about training requirements and licensing for operators, staff said training would be included in the purchase and that several city staff would be trained; “you would be required to be a licensed drone pilot in order to fly it,” a staff member said.

City staff and a city attorney-level speaker, Jackie, addressed the pending state-level legislation. Jackie said, “I’m not aware of a grandfathering, but there is certainly a provision that allows the director of public safety for the state of Missouri to grant an exception to continue using them for law enforcement purposes.” That answer, and the attorney’s further comments that the bill has not yet left committee, did not resolve all concerns about the potential for future restrictions or about operational policy.

Council member questions also covered operational policy and constitutional limits. The city attorney’s office described warrant and open-view doctrines as unsettled in drone use: if a drone is flown lawfully in public airspace and an “open and obvious” condition is observed, that observation may be actionable without a warrant, staff said, but added the topic would require case-by-case legal review.

Several members said they could support the purchase if operational parameters were clear. Council member Eric Page (referred to in discussion as Eric) said he was “comfortable with it now, but I’m also comfortable waiting and getting more information.” Multiple council members requested a written general operating order before final approval. A motion was made to postpone the resolution to the March 25 meeting so the council could review a draft general order.

By voice vote the council postponed Resolution 25-8 to the March 25 meeting; the motion passed with all in favor and none opposed. Council members said staff should provide a draft general operating order and additional procurement information — including whether alternatives to the proposed vendor and non–Chinese-made drones had been adequately explored — before the council acts again.

The council did not adopt the drone purchase at the March 11 meeting; staff said the procurement would remain on the agenda with added materials and that the unit would not be deployed until a general order was in place.