Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Unmanned Aerial Systems topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Heated testimony as House committee considers expanded law enforcement use of drones
Summary
Senate Bill 238A (dash‑11) would consolidate and expand authorized uses of unmanned aircraft systems by law enforcement for certain calls for service, exigent responses, search and rescue and other uses; witnesses debated privacy safeguards, warrant standards, documentation, and community trust.
The House Committee on Rules held a public hearing June 11 on Senate Bill 238A and its dash‑11 amendment, which would consolidate Oregon's statutory authorizations for law‑enforcement use of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) and add new limits, record‑keeping requirements and prohibitions on certain surveillance.
Why it matters: Supporters said the amended measure would modernize drone law, enabling faster situational awareness for officers, safer responses to violent incidents and improved search‑and‑rescue coordination in disasters. Opponents warned the bill risks expanding warrantless surveillance, chilling protected speech and disproportionately affecting immigrant, Black, brown and low‑income communities.
Summary of the bill and amendment: The dash‑11 amendment reorganizes existing authorizations in statute and adds explicit limits on use. Committee counsel summarized that the measure would allow law enforcement to acquire and disclose information collected by a UAS in connection with certain police services (for example, responding to calls for service, public safety emergencies, and executing warrants) and would consolidate uses such as training and search and rescue. The amendment adds documentation and record‑keeping obligations, clarifies prohibitions tied to constitutionally protected activities and to information restricted under specified ORS provisions, and narrows some uses (for example, explicit limits on camera use and on sharing images or sound outside Oregon law enforcement or prosecutors absent a warrant).
Supporters from law enforcement and search‑and‑rescue groups described operational benefits. Sergeant Kyle Williams, a police sergeant with the City of Eugene and vice president of the Law Enforcement Drone Association, said the bill “modernizes Oregon drone laws” and would “unlock transformative benefits for community safety, officer protection, and service efficiency.” Marion County Sheriff Nick Hunter emphasized drones’ ability to provide visual information that can reduce risky physical entries and help with de‑escalation and use‑of‑force decisions.
Civil‑liberties, immigrant‑rights and community groups urged rejection or substantial revision. Nancy Lopez of Centro Cultural testified in “strong opposition,” saying expanded drone use “threatens to sever the trust we’ve painstakingly built” between law enforcement and Latino communities. Amanda Orosco of Unite Oregon said “Drones are not benign. They are surveillance systems” and objected to warrantless deployments based on low thresholds such as a generic 911 call. The Oregon Justice Resource Center and public defender witnesses argued the bill would undercut judicial oversight and posed risks of disproportionate targeting.
Several witnesses also raised technical and policy questions: whether the bill’s “public safety emergency” standard is too broad; how footage retention and access will be governed (the dash‑11 allows certain retention but excludes footage of law‑enforcement misconduct from mandatory retention); and the need for robust public engagement and statutory suppression remedies. Supporters said the amendment resulted from prolonged negotiation in a multi‑stakeholder working group that included House and Senate staff and law enforcement representatives.
No committee vote or formal action was taken at the hearing. The committee closed public testimony after dozens of speakers for and against the measure, and members indicated further work and review would continue.
