Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Police Technology topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sheriff seeks authority to replace aging drones; supervisors press for privacy and training details
Summary
The Alameda County Sheriff's Office asked supervisors for approval to replace unsupported UAS models; supervisors pressed for details on data retention, sharing with allied agencies, operational use, staffing and training, while the office said footage is retained a maximum of 60 days unless used as evidence.
The Alameda County Sheriff's Office returned to the board on May 13 to request authorization to replace aging unmanned aerial systems (UAS) — commonly called drones — because vendor support for older models has ended.
Captain Rob Evans, who oversees the UAS program, said several devices in the current inventory are no longer serviceable and the office needs authorization to purchase replacement models as needed. "Several...of the current models that we have are no longer supported by the vendor," Evans told supervisors.
Supervisors asked detailed operational questions: how footage is stored and shared, whether drone use reduces risky ground pursuits, the composition and training of the UAS team, and how drones fit into the office’s broader aerial strategy. Evans said UAS mission video is kept on a secure server and purged earlier than the 60‑day maximum unless uploaded to evidence systems for criminal cases; allied agencies may receive footage when their investigations intersect.
The Sheriff's Office described a small full‑time team (one sworn member and one professional staff member assigned full time) and a cadre of trained officers who operate drones as a secondary duty. The office said training is held monthly and CALEA (national accreditation) recently described the county’s UAS team as "a model for the nation" in an audit referenced by the sheriff’s office.
Privacy advocates and supervisors have previously sought clear retention and access rules; at the May 13 meeting supervisors asked for continued review of data‑sharing policies and for clarity about overtime and staffing impacts. The board received the information and discussed the request as part of the consent calendar process.
