Committee hears rival testimony on SB 238 drone changes; law enforcement backs broader use, ACLU warns of surveillance risk

Senate Bill 238, as amended (dash‑1), drew sharply contrasting testimony March 31 before the Senate Committee on Judiciary, with law‑enforcement representatives urging broader permission for unmanned aircraft systems (UAS or drones) in routine police activities and civil‑liberties groups warning of privacy and constitutional risks.

The dash‑1 amendment permits law enforcement to operate a UAS in connection with lawful police activity and lists example uses; it also forbids certain operations, including flights over commercial property without owner consent and conspicuous posted notice, and generally prohibits UAS use for traffic enforcement except when actively pursuing a fleeing suspect, a staff summary said.

Police chiefs, sergeants and UAS program leaders testified in favor of the amendment as a practical update that would allow drones to assist in fires, medical emergencies, crash reconstruction, search and rescue, “drone‑as‑first‑responder” programs, and officer safety overwatch. Chris Skinner, chief of police in Eugene, told the committee drone programs can provide “situational awareness” while reducing risk to officers and the public. Kyle Williams, a Eugene sergeant and vice president of the Law Enforcement Drone Association (LITA), described cases where timely UAS deployment assisted captures and de‑escalation.

“By allowing officers to assess situations remotely, UAS minimized the need for immediate officer deployment, reducing the risk of forced confrontations,” Williams said.

Multiple local pilots and program leaders stressed operational limits in current Oregon law, including provisions that restrict drone deployment absent exigent circumstances and that require court filing after some search‑and‑rescue operations. Several witnesses urged reworking subsection 3(a) of the dash‑1 to avoid undue limits on beneficial uses.

The ACLU of Oregon opposed the dash‑1 amendment. Michael Abrams, policy counsel, said the draft provides an “including but not limited to” list of allowed uses and risks creating a legislative “blank check” permitting extensive drone deployments. Abrams warned that broad authorization could facilitate mass aerial surveillance, chill free speech and assembly, and prompt constitutional challenges under Article I, Section 9 and the federal Fourth Amendment.

“Removing this well‑struck balance severely undermines the public interest in a limited police power that yields to honoring people’s rights,” Abrams said, urging retention of existing warrant requirements in ORS 837.320 (as cited in testimony).

Committee members asked operational questions — including how identification of law‑enforcement drones is handled in the field and how often officers would need to fly over private or commercial property. Police witnesses said some drones carry lights and other identifiers but added that rapid changes in technology and aftermarket options make consistent marking challenging.

The committee closed the SB 238 public hearing; at the March 31 session, no formal committee vote was recorded on the dash‑1 amendment. The committee also scheduled a work session for SB 238 on April 3, 2025.

Why it matters: Supporters argued the amendment would let departments — especially smaller agencies that cannot afford crewed aviation — use UAS to improve response times, reduce risks and increase efficiency. Opponents said the bill’s language risks constitutional privacy violations and urged narrower statutory language or preserved warrant requirements.