Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Drone Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission reviews updated LASD drone policy for West Hollywood pilot; retention, oversight and privacy draw scrutiny
Summary
City staff and LASD representatives told the commission the county'wide UAS policy was updated to create a UAS operations unit and tie drone video retention to body‑worn camera rules (three years); commissioners pressed for explicit limits on immigration/DHS use, quarterly audits and clarified public‑assembly restrictions.
City staff and Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (LASD) representatives presented an updated unmanned aircraft system (UAS) policy on June 8 that will govern a County pilot to use drones as first responders out of the West Hollywood station.
Director Danny Rivas and Captain Fanny Lapkin said the updated policy expands the 2024 station order into a department‑level policy, establishes a UAS operations unit, and requires notification of deployments to that unit within 48 hours. Key prohibited uses in the revised policy include "random surveillance" without a public‑safety nexus, facial‑recognition technology, and weaponization of drones. The policy also adds FAA and NTSB coordination, more detailed training and certification requirements, and mandatory logs and reporting (weekly, monthly and annual) to support transparency and auditing.
A significant change highlighted by staff is data retention: whereas the 2024 station order prescribed a 30‑day retention period for drone footage (unless preserved for evidence), the updated policy aligns flight video retention with deputies' body‑worn camera rules and sets a three‑year retention period for UAS recordings used in the pilot. Staff said that evidentiary exceptions will continue to allow longer retention where necessary for prosecutions.
Commissioners asked detailed questions about oversight and civil‑liberties protections. Vice Chair Blau and others noted the 2024 station order explicitly limited certain uses (for example, referencing immigration‑related enforcement and abortion‑clinic surveillance) and asked why similar language was not repeated. Captain Lapkin replied that departmentwide policies already restrict immigration‑related cooperation and that LASD's Office of Constitutional Policing, the Civilian Oversight Commission and the Office of the Inspector General reviewed the updated policy.
Several commissioners raised concerns about audit cadence and access to footage. One commissioner read the change as a move away from quarterly external audits toward annual command‑level reviews; LASD replied that quarterly reporting and internal oversight remain but the command inspection that reviews multiple bureaus is annual. Commissioners asked for clearer descriptions of who can access UAS recordings and whether outside audits or public reporting could be guaranteed during the pilot. Staff said the pilot will include public reporting via a dashboard and town halls and that annual reporting will go to the county civilian oversight commission.
Other operational details covered included geofencing constraints and flight paths launched from the station, a policy that a UAS deployment alone does not constitute a deputy response, and that the drone's camera will not record while in transit (the gimbal will be horizon‑facing and only record once on scene).
The commission requested additional clarifications and asked staff to present community outreach opportunities; staff said the item will return to the city council on June 29 and that staff will compile the commission's comments for the council packet.
No final authorization was voted at this commission meeting; staff treated the session as an opportunity for input prior to council presentation.
