Council advances ordinance limiting Metro drone uses, banning autonomous drones and facial recognition
Summary
After extensive public comment on drone programs, the council approved a substitute to BL2026-1498 that narrows Metro 'drone as first responder' uses, requires public hearings for surveillance pilots, bars autonomous (AI-only) Metro drones and removes facial recognition from Metro departments.
Sponsor Council Member Sulva moved a substitute to BL2026-1498 that sharply narrows city-sanctioned uses of Metro unmanned aircraft systems. The substitute restricts the "drone as first responder" pilot to four situations: active shooter incidents, hostage situations, active missing-person searches and mayor-declared emergencies up to 10 days. Sulva described the change as intended to preserve departmental uses that are purely operational while preventing mission creep into routine policing.
The substitute also bans autonomous (AI-only) Metro drones and removes facial-recognition capabilities from all Metro departments. Sulva said the ordinance will require a public hearing before any pilot program and codifies limits to protect privacy and public trust. "We wanted to make sure that we were not going to conflict with [other departments'] uses," Sulva said during floor remarks, adding the restrictions were developed in consultation with departments and community members.
Public commenters had pressed the council for stronger limits or transparency. Michael Lacy, who identified experience in live streaming and video encryption, urged end-to-end encryption and vendor lockout so private vendors cannot access footage. "End to end video encryption with vendor lockout does exactly one thing. It stops corporations from viewing footage of our neighbors," he said in public comment. Resident Trina Hule told the council she obtained records showing "no written agreement exists between the department and its drone vendor," and said that lack of written terms on retention and access eroded trust.
On procedural votes, the council approved Sulva's substitute and a typographical late-file amendment. On second reading as substituted and amended, the council advanced the ordinance (recorded voice vote on the floor with one recorded no and one abstention noted in the clerk's tally). The ordinance will return on third reading at the council's next meeting for final action.
AI generated
The text on this page is AI generated. Summaries, highlights, analysis, and video transcripts are all produced from the original source material.
AI can make mistakes, so if you spot one, and we will fix it for everyone.
Note: the source content is unaltered by us. Any content source we link to, be it a video, an audio recording, or a document, is presented exactly as its publisher released it. That publisher is usually a government body, sometimes an individual official or another organisation.
