Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Surveillance Drones topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board advances police drone policy on first reading amid disputes over state law
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed, on first reading, an ordinance formalizing the police department's use of unassisted aerial vehicles (drones) by a 9–2 vote after supervisors raised questions about whether the department had used drones without the board's required approval under state law.
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted 9–2 on Sept. 17 to advance an ordinance that adopts an unassisted aerial-vehicle policy for the police department, moving the ordinance forward on first reading despite vocal concerns that the department has already deployed drones without required approvals.
Supervisor Walton led objections on legal and civil‑liberties grounds, pressing a series of detailed questions about current deployments, prohibited uses and data storage. "So with the fact that we've been violating state law and the fact that we cannot guarantee people's civil liberties will be protected, there's no way I can support this," Walton said during debate.
Deputy City Attorney Brad Russi told the board the legal situation is complicated: "The state law does require the board to approve certain types of equipment, including the use of drones by the police department. When the voters approved Proposition E earlier this year, they acted in the place of the board in approving the use of drones by the department for the first year of their operation," Russi said, adding that technical compliance questions have arisen and that the ordinance now before the board is intended to resolve them.
Board members emphasized that the ordinance before them had been amended in committee to include safeguards. Supervisor Preston thanked SFPD and staff for agreeing to changes that, he said, "will ensure that these drones are not equipped, or allowed to be equipped, with weapons or used as weapons against people, will prohibit their use for purposes of chilling freedom of speech, and will include safeguards on how they are operated to preserve bystanders' rights to privacy."
The vote recorded nine ayes and two no votes; Supervisors Walton and Ronan voted no. The ordinance passed on first reading and will return for the required further readings/approvals. Supporters said adopting the policy will create clearer rules and annual reapproval obligations; opponents said the board still must investigate whether deployment before board approval created legal vulnerabilities for evidence or civil‑rights claims.
What happens next: the ordinance proceeds to subsequent readings as required; supervisors asked that the department return annually with inventory and reapprovals for technologies that require board review under state law.
