Rules Committee pauses SFPD drone policy after questions on legality and privacy

SAN FRANCISCO — The Rules Committee on Sept. 9 received a detailed briefing from the San Francisco Police Department on its newly submitted unassisted aerial vehicle inventory and use policy, then voted to continue the item for one week to allow further questions and give an absent supervisor a chance to weigh in.

Carl Necida, the department's principal legislative liaison, told the committee the policy supplements the December 2022 equipment use policy and is intended to address technical compliance with AB 481 following the passage of Prop E in March 2024, which authorized SFPD to use drones. "In compliance with Prop E and AB 481, the department has before you today an unassisted aerial vehicle inventory and policy," Necida said.

Acting Lieutenant Eric Batchelder outlined operational details: SFPD has deployed six unmanned aircraft systems so far, all operators hold FAA remote-pilot credentials, and authorized uses include pursuits, critical incidents, search-and-rescue, missing-persons searches, crime-scene investigation, planned operations and disaster response. Batchelder said non-evidentiary video is deleted within 30 days and recorded footage with evidentiary value is retained for a minimum of two and a half years. "We will post a standard report of drone deployments on our website," he said.

Committee members pressed the department on two issues: (1) whether current drone use violates state law and (2) what concrete safeguards will prevent intrusive surveillance of private activity. Deputy City Attorney Bridal Russi told the committee that, while Prop E "stood in the shoes" of the Board for the first year, the city attorney's office recommended submitting an ordinance to resolve technical compliance questions. "After the first year, the department will have to come back for an approval from the board as they do with all of the military equipment that the department uses now," Russi said.

Public speakers urged stronger limits. John Lindsay Poland of the American Friends Service Committee testified that, in his view, SFPD acquired and used drones without the AB 481-required prior approval and called the proposed use policy "overly broad," urging the board to require clearer limits and written commitments to comply with state law.

Batchelder described several recent cases in which drones assisted police responses and investigations. "So far, it's been 65 missions. Eighteen of those have resulted in arrests," he said, adding the department believes five pursuits were mitigated by drone support. Batchelder acknowledged the need for more detail on how the department defines terms such as "exigent circumstances" and described operational constraints, including that drones are carried in police vehicles and must be deployed by trained operators located in the vicinity of an incident.

After public comment and committee questioning, Vice Chair Safaie moved to continue the item one week to allow additional review and to permit Supervisor Peskin to weigh in. The motion passed without objection. The committee is scheduled to revisit the ordinance at its Sept. 16 meeting.

The continuing item will require the department to produce further specificity on definitions and deployment procedures and, per the deputy city attorney's remarks, to clarify technical compliance with AB 481.