Senate committee hears sheriff, ACLU on bill expanding law enforcement drone use

Senate file 15‑24, a bill to update Minnesota law on use of unmanned aerial vehicles by law enforcement, drew testimony from a county sheriff and the American Civil Liberties Union on the Senate Judiciary Committee. The bill’s sponsor, Senator Steve Dibble, said the measure is intended to “enhance public safety, emergency response, and investigative efficiency” while adding transparency and accountability.

The bill’s core changes would explicitly authorize UAVs for three circumstances cited by supporters: preserving or documenting evidence at outdoor crime scenes when it may be imminently destroyed; time‑sensitive missing‑person searches; and expanded training scenarios, including over private agricultural land when a landowner provides written consent. "A UAV with a well trained pilot would be an invaluable asset," said Renville County Sheriff Scott Hable, describing searches in standing corn and using drones to locate livestock or missing people.

The American Civil Liberties Union, represented by Alicia Gransey, voiced concern that the bill’s “preservation or protection of evidence” language is still broad and needs qualification. Gransey told the committee she believes narrower language or additional safeguards could address privacy and civil‑liberties concerns. Senator Dibble said he and stakeholders plan to continue negotiations and the committee laid the bill over for possible inclusion in an omnibus vehicle. The chair confirmed the bill will be laid over to allow continued drafting.

Where the bill would allow UAV flights over private property for training or to locate livestock, sponsors said written consent from the property owner would be required; sponsors did not assert any change to warrant standards for searches. Sheriff Hable said that current training restrictions prevent deputies from practicing in agricultural settings where many missing‑person searches occur and that allowing consented flights would make search responses safer and more effective.

The committee adopted the sponsor’s author’s amendment (A3), and Senators and counsel confirmed the measure would be subject to further language work before any final action. The committee did not take a final vote on the underlying bill; it was laid over for possible inclusion in future committee work.