Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Privacy And Technology topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House circles drone‑regulation bill after lengthy debate over warrants and policing
Summary
Representative Roberts’ bill to regulate unmanned aerial systems and constrain evidence use unless obtained by warrant or judicially recognized exception was circled for further work after extended floor debate about law enforcement uses, privacy, and data retention.
Representative Roberts introduced second substitute Senate Bill 167, a measure aimed at applying Fourth Amendment principles to information collected by unmanned aerial systems, restricting admissibility of drone‑derived information in criminal proceedings unless obtained under a search warrant or a recognized exception, and imposing reporting and retention controls.
Floor debate focused on whether the bill would hamper law enforcement operations such as search‑and‑rescue, patrols and pursuits. Representative Perry asked whether a sheriff’s search‑and‑rescue drone would require a warrant each time it surveyed a missing person; the sponsor pointed to the bill’s language exempting "judicially recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement" and said the Department of Public Safety supported the concept. Representative Nelson argued that much airborne surveillance occurs in public airspace where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy and that the bill risks handcuffing routine law enforcement activities. Others stressed the difference between persistent clandestine surveillance (which can intrude on private life) and traditional public‑air patrols such as helicopters.
Representative McKay moved to circle the bill to allow further work and stakeholder consultation; the motion carried. Sponsors agreed the bill includes reporting requirements and an annual review. The House did not vote on final passage; the measure was circled for further consideration.
