Lake County reviews draft drone policy for cannabis code enforcement; no vote taken

Myriah Turner, Lake County community development director, presented a three-part draft drone usage policy intended to support cannabis code enforcement, saying the county plans to use drones primarily to gather evidence to obtain inspection warrants and to improve staff safety and efficiency.

"We have developed a 3 part policy. The first policy is a policy on inspection warrants... And then policy 2 is a drone operations policy... And the 3rd policy is a records retention policy," Turner said, describing policies that cover warrant procedures, step-by-step operational roles, and how footage will be stored and redacted.

Turner and a Community Development staff member known in the meeting as Marcus said the program grew from earlier use of satellite imagery under a memorandum of understanding with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and additional funding from Proposition 64 cohort 3 for cannabis code enforcement. Marcus said four Community Development Department staff members have been licensed as Federal Aviation Administration pilots as part of the rollout.

Marcus told supervisors the intended drone workflow is narrowly focused. "The purpose of the drone would be to... get the evidence, to get an inspection warrant," he said, adding that the county will generally operate from public vantage points, will not fly over private property without suspicion or legal authorization, and will rely on the open-fields doctrine where applicable.

Supervisors asked for clearer limits and reporting. Supervisor Pysco asked whether satellite imagery would continue to be used; Turner confirmed the county will continue satellite imagery under the existing MOU with CDFW. Supervisor Spatier pressed for clarity about when a warrant is required and pointed to language in the draft that states, "CDD drone operations must obtain an inspection warrant prior to engaging in any drone operations," prompting Turner and Marcus to explain there are limited circumstances (for example, open fields or public vantage points) in which an inspection warrant would not be required under default procedure.

Supervisors and public commenters also raised privacy concerns and possible future technology changes. One supervisor asked that the policy explicitly limit uses such as facial recognition or license-plate reading; a public commenter noted a technology limitation in the county's current drones. An unidentified staff member stated, "The drones that we have purchased do not have, facial recognition, within it." Another supervisor recommended making the policy's stated purpose more specific near the beginning of the document rather than relying solely on the prohibited-uses section.

Public commenters asked operational questions, including launch locations and range. Angela Emerald asked about drone range and how the county would handle parcels surrounded by private property; Marcus described "public vantage point" as any commonly accessible area (easements, roadways, hills, unfenced public fields) and said field supervisors would oversee urban deployments to avoid capturing neighbors' property.

No formal motion or vote occurred; the board treated the item as a presentation and closed public input. Supervisors requested staff consider revisions to clarify the policy's purpose language, to explicitly prohibit intrusive capabilities unless separately authorized by warrant or policy change, and to provide an annual report summarizing drone usage (number of deployments) without necessarily naming properties.

The presentation continued a discussion that began at a prior meeting on Dec. 17 and did not result in immediate policy adoption.

Ending: The Board took no formal action on the draft policy during the session; staff were asked to return with clarifying edits and an annual reporting plan for future board review.