Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Surveillance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
NCRB flags transparency and retention concerns in MNPD drone-as-first-responder trial
Summary
NCRB staff presented a preliminary analysis of MNPD’s drone-as-first-responder pilot (three Skydio drones), noting 281 flights over 21 flight days and a seven-day retention rule that could delete footage before an oversight complaint is filed; board members raised questions about notification, deployment criteria and audit transparency.
Ansley Potter presented a draft report and preliminary flight-data analysis of MNPD’s Drone-as-First-Responder (DFR) trial, which launched May 26 using three Skydio drones operating from Madison Precinct within a two-mile radius. Potter said the team had analyzed 21 of 45 flight days and identified 281 unique flights in the Skydio dashboard.
Potter explained the technical capabilities and policy guardrails: the drones weigh about five pounds, can reach roughly 45 miles per hour, and possess thermal imaging and high-zoom optics that the presenter said can "detect a person for about 8,200 feet" and read a license plate at roughly 800 feet. She told the board that MNPD policy permits DFR deployments for code‑3/911 calls, search-and-rescue, scene documentation and certain tactical uses but expressly prohibits arming drones, facial recognition and using them where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
A central oversight concern raised by the board was video retention: Potter said that unless drone footage is part of an active criminal investigation, the department’s policy deletes footage within seven calendar days. Potter warned that a complainant could discover a perceived misuse after the seven-day purge and that the footage would no longer be available for oversight review. Potter also outlined gaps in transparency: internal audit and review processes are currently internal to MNPD, the policy did not specify who may request drone deployments, and the public portal omits flight data tied to active investigations, creating discrepancies in the dataset the NCRB could analyze.
Board members pressed on notification practices after Potter noted an omitted chunk of the two‑mile radius map aligned with Councilmember Emily Benedict’s district; Benedict had not been notified while other councilmembers were. Members asked for a fuller presentation with projected maps and a complete dataset at the next meeting and recommended the board request publicly available protocols and contract terms if a procurement has been signed.
