Alabama interim committee hears law-enforcement praise for drones, debates procurement limits as federal deadline nears

MONTGOMERY — State and industry witnesses told a Joint Interim Committee that drones have become an essential tool for Alabama law enforcement but said a fast ban on widely used foreign-made models would disrupt public-safety operations.

Agent Joe Hamilton, identified in the meeting as an SBI agent, told the committee his unit conducts roughly 2,100–2,200 law-enforcement drone missions a year across all 67 counties and uses the devices for traffic-homicide investigations, search-and-rescue and event and storm response. Hamilton said his unit maintains 23 trained operators and a fleet of 46 drones, and integrates every flight into the agency’s GIS to record location, pilot and duration.

"It’s the greatest offering since the Glock," Hamilton said of drones’ contribution to officer safety and scene documentation, describing examples where aerial mapping reduced scene processing from hours to 20–30 minutes and preserved evidence such as shadow marks that dissipate over time.

Representatives from industry and state agencies described a range of security measures and policy options. Kat Ramsey, director for U.S. government relations at DJI, said the company has implemented safety and data controls including remote ID, altitude limits, map-based warnings for sensitive locations and a local-data (air-gapped) mode that she said prevents incidental Internet sharing of flight data. Ramsey also cited third-party audits and a bug-bounty program as part of DJI’s security program.

"Users cannot share any information with DJI servers" in the U.S. product configuration she described, Ramsey said, and DJI has invited U.S. agencies to perform penetration tests.

Mason Sisk, director of government affairs for the Association for Uncrewed Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI), urged investment in a U.S. drone industry and cited recent federal measures, including the American Security Drone Act (2023) and language in the FY25 National Defense Authorization Act that require national-security agencies to make determinations that could place vendors on an FCC "covered list." He warned that if agencies do not complete required determinations, vendors could be restricted and imports curtailed; Sisk said the Dec. 23 deadline is approaching.

Committee members pressed for policy options that balance cybersecurity and public-safety continuity. Several local and state presenters argued that immediate bans or a rapid "rip-and-replace" strategy would impose large costs and could leave agencies unable to perform critical missions; one state official and multiple speakers put preliminary replacement-cost estimates in the multimillion-dollar range.

Cybersecurity concerns were raised by committee participants who said the central risk is persistent network intrusion or data exfiltration from foreign-made devices, not simply public-facing video uploads. Ramsey and other vendors said they offer technical mitigations (local data mode, restricted account modes) and independent audits; industry representatives urged a reasonable transition period and state grant programs to offset replacement costs.

The committee did not take formal legislative action during the meeting. An unnamed member moved to adjourn and the committee was closed by voice vote. Members said the panel will prepare findings for the legislature when it convenes in January and asked staff to pursue follow-up documentation and federal-audit clarifications.

What happens next: Committee members said they plan to discuss specific cybersecurity standards and possible grant or transition programs over the coming weeks and to deliver a report to the legislature in January.