Senate Judiciary Hearing: State, Local Officials Urge Limited Counter‑drone Authority; Legal Experts Warn of Constitutional Risks

WASHINGTON — State and local law enforcement officials and corrections leaders told the Senate Judiciary Committee on an unspecified date that the growing use of drones by criminal groups and others demands congressional action to give vetted local responders limited authority to detect and, in narrowly defined cases, mitigate threats.

The witnesses said the problem ranges from cartel surveillance and contraband drops at the U.S.‑Mexico border to weaponized or contraband‑carrying drones over prison yards and incursions near airports and large public events. Legal and civil‑liberties witnesses said any expansion of authority must include clear limits, oversight and protections for the First, Fourth, Fifth and Tenth Amendments to avoid sweeping or general warrants.

Taken together, these threats underscore the urgent need for Congress to grant authority to state and local law enforcement agencies to operate robust detection and mitigation strategies," said Captain Troy Wilson, Texas Ranger Division unmanned aircraft system program coordinator for the Texas Department of Public Safety, summarizing his written testimony on the border threat.

Why it matters: witnesses described incidents they said show current gaps in protection — and limits on the agencies closest to most drone encounters. Capt. Wilson said Texas DPS sensors detected 1,216 border incursions from April 2024 to April 2025 and that the agency’s 12 sensors cover roughly 14 percent of the state’s 1,200‑mile border with Mexico. Ricky Dixon, secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections, said drone‑delivered contraband has forced lockdowns that halt rehabilitation programming and has increased overdose deaths inside prisons.

What witnesses asked for: Jennifer Dasko, a partner at Venable and a former deputy homeland security adviser, called for Congress to start with the bipartisan language offered by Senators Gary Peters and Ron Johnson and included recently as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for 2025, saying, "The bipartisan legislation introduced by Senators Gary Peters and Ron Johnson . . . is, in my view, the place to start." She described three priorities commonly included in proposals: expand detection authority for airports, critical infrastructure and public gatherings; give state and local officials limited detection authority; and create a small, federally supervised pilot that would let trained local officials mitigate threats subject to oversight.

Corrections officials’ pitch: "They're sophisticated weapons for organized crime, smuggling fentanyl, heroin, razor blades, weapons, and contraband cell phones into our facilities with precision," said Ricky Dixon, describing how drones force facility lockdowns, increase violence and enable inmates to direct criminal activity from inside prisons.

Legal guardrails: Laura Donahue, professor of law at Georgetown University Law Center and faculty director of the Georgetown Center on National Security and the Law, cautioned that counter‑drone authorities "cannot be a blank check. It needs to be carefully drafted to take account of constitutional rights." Donahue outlined First Amendment concerns about restricting drone flights over public gatherings or federal facilities, Fourth‑Amendment concerns about general warrants and device searches, and Tenth‑Amendment concerns about state control of low‑altitude airspace.

Operational limits and training: Florida Highway Patrol statewide UAS coordinator Sergeant Robert Dooley recommended tiered credentialing, standardized training and federal oversight. He said state equipment is often limited to passive detection (radar, cameras, Remote ID) and that mitigation capabilities remain largely federal. Dooley and other witnesses urged investment in scalable non‑kinetic detection systems, uniform reporting, and a federal agency to lead training, credentialing and oversight.

Industry and supply chain: witnesses noted that an estimated 80 percent of consumer drones come from a single company (identified in testimony as DJI). They urged federal support to expand domestic manufacturing and testing so U.S. industry can match foreign producers on price and capability.

Open questions and congressional posture: senators from both parties pressed witnesses about where authority should lie, the scope of covered facilities, warrant standards, and protections for journalists and lawful drone operators. Several senators said they support giving state and local agencies some authority to respond; legal witnesses said that authority must be narrowly tailored, include probable‑cause or exigency standards for device searches or seizures, and preserve media access for newsgathering.

Next steps: witnesses and senators repeatedly urged Congress to act with both urgency and care — to provide authorities, funding, oversight and standardized training while avoiding overly broad language that could produce constitutional violations or impede legitimate uses of drones.