Use of Drones in Law Enforcement Operations

Abstract

How law and order are sustained is one of the most persistent issues a liberal society must address. There is a natural tradeoff between liberty and the maintenance of order through the creation and execution of laws, and these characteristics alone could generate much discussion. However, the United States and numerous other modern countries are undergoing a profusion of technology that significantly improves the user’s sensory and motor capacities. If the user is the state, the issue over alleged invasions into the private lives of residents is intensified. The employment of drones by police enforcement for emergency responders, evidence gathering, and kidnappings is generally not contentious. However, police utilization of drones for mass surveillance and demonstrations may be controversial as it may infringe on several human liberties, including the right to privacy which involves data confidentiality, freedom of opinion, the right to demonstrate, and freedom of travel. There must be an equilibrium between these rights and public security. Therefore, this Research concentrates on determining legal and moral issues with the police’s usage of drones and addressing these considerations. The paper emphasizes that the threat is not the drone device directly but how it is utilized and how the authorities handle, analyze, and react to the data collected to deter or control crime. If no protections are in place to limit ubiquitous surveillance, monitoring may show itself as government dominance and authority. It should be determined if local drone policing is often so invasive that its disadvantages exceed its advantages for public safety reasons. The approach in which these concerns are handled could be a precedent for nations exploring the utilization of drones by enforcement agencies. This paper will employ the meta-analytical research approach, where information from the existing literature is analyzed to develop significant conclusions about the effects of using drones.

Introduction

Drones, also known as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), can take to the air without the aid of a human pilot or other crew members. Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) are the flying components of an unmanned aircraft system, which also includes a ground-based controller and a communication link (Maghazei, Lewis, & Netland, 2022). Drones are changing the nature of public safety just as body cameras and other innovations have. Improve the security, efficacy, and openness of remote incident response services. In the United States, 910 state and local law enforcement officers have used drones for law enforcement or other public safety operations, according to Research by the Bard Institute. The problem is not the drone but how it is utilized and how the authorities handle, analyze, and react to the data collected to deter or control crime (Balcerzak & Sieradzka, 2022). To address these concerns, this Research concentrates on determining legal and moral issues with the police’s usage of drones and addressing these considerations. This paper will employ the meta-analytical research approach, where information from the existing literature is analyzed to develop significant conclusions about the effects of using drones.

Literature Review

As Balcerzak and Sieradzka (2022) report, it is reasonable for lawmakers to be concerned about the spread of unmanned aircraft (also known as “drones”). As a result of these worries, some have advocated for laws that would make nearly all drone uses illegal without a government warrant. Today, eleven states require a warrant before the government can use a drone for law enforcement purposes, and the remaining two states have no laws regulating the use of drones by law enforcement. It is the result of persistent lobbying by privacy supporters. Privacy campaigns typically make a convincing case about the dangers of pervasive surveillance, but laws are rarely drafted to prevent the harm that privacy advocates fear. All of the recent legislation is focused on drones themselves rather than the harm they cause (pervasive surveillance). Consequences of any technological fixation include outlawing the use of drones for relatively harmless purposes like recording accident and crime scenes or keeping tabs on pollution and other environmental hazards while allowing the use of highly sophisticated, all-encompassing surveillance technologies from crewed aircraft.

Significance of the Research

There has been a scant study of police and law department use of drones, despite their growing prevalence. According to some people, drones are useful in effecting discipline within a community or amongst offenders since they offer complete and detailed information about the law perpetrators. Some worry that drones will strain already tense relations between police and the public, who keep worrying about their privacy. The use of drones is controversial because they intrude on the privacy of the public, leave alone trespassing on personal property, and are considered a severe form of surveillance in the process of gathering information in the name of enforcing law and order. “Drones are a potentially ‘lethal’ tool to the public’s privacy so many privacy advocates contend have warned against their use without a warrant,” (Gkougkoudis, Pissanidis & Demertzis, 2022. pp. 143-163).

Moreover, it is preferable to use other methods to enforce the law and bring the offenders to justice. Some academics may justify drones because of the fear they inspire, but their indiscriminate use is unjust regarding the public’s privacy (Politowicz et al., 2023). Since the outcome of this question can shed light on whether or not police should continue to use drones, it is of the utmost importance.

Goals of the Research

This study aims to bring attention to the police department’s continued reliance on drones despite ongoing efforts to curtail their use.

The study’s significance also stems from the fact that it will shed light on how law enforcement uses cutting-edge technology in its quest for justice.

This Research is also essential because it would examine how Drones affect people’s privacy. Possible outcomes include loss of personal respect in case of leakages of some intimate footage that might not have leaked in case the drones were unavailable.

Research Methodology

To better understand how people’s attitudes toward UASs have evolved concerning their intended role, Legere (2019) conducted a meta-analysis of existing studies.

Research Design

It was decided that a new survey was not required for this inquiry as there was already an abundance of data from previous polls. Instead, information was gleaned from archives to confirm or refute hypotheses and set the stage for the problems. A meta-analysis, or comprehensive review, is essential for this paper. In order to increase statistical power and provide conclusive answers to research questions, a meta-analysis compiles and analyzes quantitative and qualitative data from multiple previous studies. With Legere’s (2019) research, this paper compiles surveys conducted at varying times and covers topics like public and commercial UAS operations and public acceptance. The quantitative data from the studies will help answer fundamental questions about the likelihood of winning over a large audience for the mission. A meta-analysis will help characterize the connection between UAS’s intended mission and public acceptance, even if this was not the primary goal of the original studies.

Data Collection

In order to gauge the level of public and corporate interest in UAS, researchers compiled data from various digital archives. The Embry-Riddle team gathered their information from a wide range of print and digital sources available in the university’s Hunt Library. There are numerous books and articles on the topic, and even more, can be found on the internet. However, this review could only include surveys and studies conducted within the last decade. Unfortunately, no new information is produced by meta-analyses because they can only be performed on studies that have already been published. No proposal has been submitted to an IRB, no sampling plan has been developed, and no survey instrument has been made.

Data Analysis

Assumptions are made in this proposal about the public’s reaction to UAS, such as the importance of their intended mission (public use versus commercial use). The findings indicate that public and commercial spaces are the most frequent settings. Data from the past was analyzed using a chi-square test of independence (95% confidence interval) in the Stat Crawler report (Legere, 2019). The chi-square test is a sum-of-squares test that compares observed values to the expected values. The null hypothesis is rejected if and only if the calculated chi-square value is larger than the critical value. Each test had only a single DF, so a chi-squared value of 3.84 was required for any interpretation. We used a chi-square test of independence to determine whether or not there was a significant relationship between the project’s stated goal and the level of support it received from the general public using the data in the table below.

Chi-square test results (Legere, 2019)

Study Limitations and Delimitations

Limitation

While most prior Research on UAS public acceptance has distinguished between what constitutes an sUAS and a UAS, this study does not make that distinction. By having participants define “drone” in their own terms, Politowicz et al. (2023) drew attention to this limitation. “The study has the same limitations as others have because of the public’s lack of consensus on what constitutes a ‘drone,’ ‘sUAS,’ (small unmanned aerial system),” they added. If military UAS like the MQ-1 Predator and MQ-9 Reaper were restricted, public opinion might shift in favor of sUAS.

Delimitation

“This study focuses on the American public’s perception of UAS rather than international attitudes. Model aircraft are not allowed to be used in Research due to the restrictions placed on them by 14CFR 1.1 Part 107 and Public Law 112-95. Lastly, only data from surveys conducted within the last decade were used,” (Politowicz et al., 2023. P. 2525).

Discussion of Drones in Law Enforcement Agencies (Basing on the Research, Literature Review and the Goals of the Study)

History and Use of Drone Technology in Law Enforcement

During World War I, scientists from the United Kingdom and the United States created the first fully autonomous machine (Afxentiou, 2018). These “sky planes” developed from the same mental model. All three terms—”drones,” “unmanned aerial vehicles,” and “remotely piloted aircraft”—refer to the same thing. Initially developed for target practice, drones have since found additional applications in fields like photography and surveillance. The military first used drones in the 1960s, and since then, they have become increasingly important. U.S. Air Force drones are currently used primarily for reconnaissance and surveillance missions. According to Watney (2022), drones are now routinely used in military operations in advanced nations like the United Kingdom and China. The military, the mining industry, the agricultural sector, and many other sectors are actively developing drones. Businesses and governments buy them from the market, while enthusiasts often create their own. Some drones are powered solely by batteries, while others use electric motors to get into the air. Single-rotor and multi-rotor drones like tri-copters, hexacopters, quad-copters, and octocopters make up most of the drone population (Afxentiou, 2018). Drones that cannot take off and land vertically, like those with fixed wings, fall into the second category.

Drone evidence collection is a controversial topic in the criminal justice system. Drones, according to some, can assist police in solving crimes and locating criminals. The use of drones is seen by many as an unwanted intrusion into personal space. When police use drones in investigations, several potential legal issues can arise. A court order may be necessary before anyone can use a drone for surveillance purposes. The United States Fourth Amendment and other privacy laws may apply to them. If you use a drone to record someone without their permission or knowledge, you could be breaking the law.

The United States use of unmanned aerial vehicles in Iraq and Afghanistan has recently drawn criticism. Both supporters and detractors of drone use can be found in these nations. One strong case for using drones is that they can eliminate terrorist threats without putting soldiers in danger. Drones can quietly survey large areas, zero in on their targets, and then depart without harming any innocent bystanders (Watney, 2022). Countless individuals hold firm beliefs on either side of the ongoing drone debate. Residents of areas with numerous military bases may have a heightened sense of insecurity, which could inspire more terrorist acts, and so goes the thinking. When drones are used for surveillance rather than counterterrorism, the likelihood of human rights violations increases.

Role of Public Safety Manager

There are several options available to people today for ensuring their personal safety. This aid is typically provided by municipal, state, or federal governments to their respective citizens. Professionals in the field of public safety management are tasked with ensuring that all of these procedures are effective and in line with all applicable laws. Managing public safety entails directing and coordinating measures to protect the general populace. Those looking for work in the public sector or the healthcare industry may find opportunities. In order to effectively manage these services, experts in strategic planning, preparedness strategies, inter-agency coordination, and fiscal management are required.

In 2015, the Office of Inspector General for the United States Department of the Interior used drones to investigate allegations of wrongdoing within the National Park Service (Afxentiou, 2018: Watney, 2022). Staff misconduct, such as the theft of park materials, was suspected in some areas, prompting the use of drones to film and take photographs. Several employees were terminated after a favorable investigation concluded. This inquiry exemplifies how drones will revolutionize future police work and forensics. Drones can collect evidence when it is too risky or impossible to do so manually (such as through aerial photography). The Office of the Inspector General conducted a sensitive investigation with the help of drone technology without endangering any of its agents.

Several experts in the field of public safety management have observed that drones are becoming increasingly significant in the investigation and analysis of terrorist attacks because of the fresh perspective and expanded context they offer. Drones equipped with a variety of surveillance and reconnaissance tools can help in the search for criminals and the discovery of potential terrorist hideouts (Agarwal, Sharma, & Matta, 2022). The data collected by drones could be beneficial in the fight against terrorism. Drones can be of great assistance to law enforcement agencies during investigations of terrorist activities, and they should be used extensively.

There are legitimate worries that drones could be used for illegal purposes like spying on innocent civilians or aiding terrorist plots, despite the fact that the vast majority of drone use is legal and helpful in law enforcement investigations (Afxentiou, 2018). Police investigations are now much more efficient thanks to the use of drones, which has led to the successful conclusion of several high-profile cases. In all likelihood, this technology will serve as a deterrent to wrongdoing. In addition, drones have helped save lives by alerting authorities to dangerous locales. Their effectiveness and precision save time and money for organizations in the public and private sectors.

Implications to Law Enforcement Organizations and Stake Holders

In this case, the stakeholders are the privacy advocates who are concerned about the privacy of the public. These individuals are in to make sure to keep the public out of harm’s way. Some worry that the government will abuse the ease and low cost of using drones to conduct constant surveillance of its citizens. Despite the fact that drones can help departments save money, the most expensive models are out of reach for most organizations (oftentimes, these drones are small remote-controlled helicopters or airplanes, capable of a flight time of less than one hour) (Agarwal, Sharma, & Matta, 2022). As an added bonus, the surveillance equipment that can be mounted on these drones is much less invasive than that which can be mounted on manned aircraft. In addition, the term “unmanned aircraft” is misleading because there are no systems currently available to law enforcement that can carry out fully autonomous operations. Although the cost of a drone system is lower than that of a manned aerial surveillance platform, the need for a human pilot means that the total system cost remains the same.

However, privacy advocates have only called for warrants to be necessary before law enforcement can use drones to counteract surveillance (Agarwal, Sharma, & Matta, 2022). In spite of the fact that police use of drones is often helpful and rarely controversial, this requirement could effectively end the use of drones by law enforcement. Therefore, stakeholders like privacy advocates and citizen interest groups agree that lawmakers should adopt a property rights stance with regard to aerial surveillance. According to Agarwal, Sharma, and Matta (2022), the use of this tactic allows landowners to restrict access to the airspace above their property from the ground up to a height of 350 feet. Most of the issues that can arise in the public and private sectors when using drones could be avoided if this approach were adopted.

In addition, Hartley, Henderson, and Jackson (2022. P. 67) indicate that “Lawmakers must craft precise, duration-based surveillance legislation to cap the total amount of time the state can keep tabs on an individual. “They also add that “Persistent surveillance risks can be committed by both manned and unmanned aircraft, so legislation is needed to address this issue.”

Likewise, policymakers should institute data retention practices that make it more difficult to access data gathered via aerial surveillance, both in terms of the level of suspicion required and the extent to which the data is protected from being accessed in violation of existing legal norms. Data storage must be deleted per law after a certain period of time has elapsed. Lawmakers should enact transparency and oversight measures that mandate the regular publication of data on the government’s use of aerial surveillance technologies (both manned and unmanned) (Agarwal, Sharma, & Matta, 2022). Technology advancements like geofencing and auto-redaction make drone-based aerial surveillance potentially more privacy-friendly than human-based surveillance, which lawmakers should consider.

Privacy, Legal and Ethical Concerns of Using Drones in Law Enforcement

In the year 2020, George Floyd led the largest wave of protests in the United States against police brutality since the 1960s, and they were the most watched protests in the country’s history. Since citizens have a right to protest peacefully and have free speech, police monitoring of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) protest raised many legal and ethical questions. The justification for the police using social media analytics, body cameras, and drones to monitor the protests and protesters has been called into question (Watney, 2022). With the public’s safety at stake, authorities have no choice but to employ surveillance technology in their pursuit of catching criminals and putting an end to violence. The state’s capacity to safeguard its own citizens is one definition of national security. To safeguard free speech, privacy (including data protection), and national security, however, we must first address the question of how to keep the state from becoming too powerful and dominant.

The FAA, or United States Federal Aviation Administration, is in charge of regulating the airspace over the United States to ensure the safety of all aircraft, including drones, in the air (Police Executive Research Forum, 2020). Adding firearms or other weapons to drones is also currently against the rules set forth by the FAA, and this includes law enforcement. Although several states have outright banned any kind of drone weaponization, North Dakota was the first in 2015 to pass a law in favor of drones equipped with non-lethal weapons.

Aviation laws and regulations govern drones and specify things like how they must be built, whether or not they must be registered, and what information can and cannot be gathered from them. The question is whether the existing aviation laws and regulations should be supplemented by a purpose-specific act regulating the use of drones by law enforcement. Concerns such as whether or not police need the warrant to use drones, the protection of private information, the legality of using drones armed with weapons, and the admissibility of evidence gathered by drones in court would all be addressed by this proposed legislation. American state legislatures often enact laws with narrow aims in mind. Perhaps the United States government as a whole will decide to standardize the use of drones for law enforcement. New rules regarding drones in France will go into effect in 2024. Such targeted legislation has the potential to improve compliance with the law by bolstering concepts like legal certainty, openness, and duty.

Conclusion

Evidence from the United States demonstrates that public opinion regarding UAS varies depending on the specifics of the mission at hand. If you want to characterize and identify the nature of the connection between the intended mission of UAS and public acceptance, you’ll need more than just quantitative studies. A thorough examination of how drones can aid in crime prevention, detection, and investigation is provided in the study’s discussion section. Discuss the ethical and legal concerns raised by the widespread use of police drones and compare and contrast the approaches taken by different countries. There are moral and legal quandaries involved in preventing police brutality against the public. Protective measures “would allow us to incorporate this new technology and separate the benefits from the dangers it presents,” Watney (2022. P. 489) writes of domestic drone policing. The public’s faith in the police department’s drone program can be restored by instituting stringent protocols for accountability and transparency. It is crucial that law enforcement have access to cutting-edge technology in a world where criminals can use it to commit crimes. Unpiloted aircraft systems or any other vehicle that doesn’t need a human pilot.

References

Afxentiou, A. (2018). History of drones: moral (e) bombing and state terrorism. Critical

Agarwal, P., Sharma, S., & Matta, P. (2022). Big Data Technologies in UAV’s Traffic Management System: Importance, Benefits, Challenges, and Applications. Autonomous Vehicles Volume 1: Using Machine Intelligence, pp. 181-201

Balcerzak, T., & Sieradzka, M. (2022). Polish Criminal Liability of the UAV Operator in Connection with the Unauthorized Flight in Operations Area of Fire Services in the Context of the Possibility of the U-Space Using. Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems, 106(1), 25.

Gkougkoudis, G., Pissanidis, D., & Demertzis, K. (2022). Intelligence-Led Policing and the New Technologies Adopted by the Hellenic Police. Digital, 2(2),p. 143-163.

Hartley, R. J. A. L., Henderson, I. L., & Jackson, C. L. (2022). BVLOS Unmanned Aircraft Operations in Forest Environments. Drones, 6(7), p. 167.

Legere, M. (2019). Meta-Analysis of Public Acceptance of Unmanned Aircraft Meta-Analysis of Public Acceptance of Unmanned Aircraft Systems in the United States Systems in the United States. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/232602649.pdf

Maghazei, O., Lewis, M. A., & Netland, T. H. (2022). Emerging technologies and the use case: A multi‐year study of drone adoption. Journal of Operations Management, 68(6-7), pp. 560–591.

Police Executive Research Forum, (2020). View of Ethical and Legal Aspects Pertaining to law Enforcement use of Drones. (n.d.). Papers.academic-Conferences.org. https://papers.academic-conferences.org/index.php/iccws/article/view/27/46

Politowicz, M. S., Chancey, E. T., Buck, B. K., Unverricht, J., & Petty, B. J. (2023). MPATH (Measuring Performance for Autonomy Teaming with Humans) Ground Control Station: Design Approach and Initial Usability Results. In AIAA SciTech 2023 Forum (p. 2525). Studies on Terrorism, 11(2), 301-320.

Watney, M. (2022, March). Ethical and Legal Aspects Pertaining to law Enforcement use of Drones. In International Conference on Cyber Warfare and Security (Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 358-365).