Use of Drones by Police Agencies to Assist in Law Enforcement Activity

USE OF DRONES BY POLICE AGENCIES TO ASSIST IN LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY 11

 

Running head: USE OF DRONES BY POLICE AGENCIES TO ASSIST IN LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Use of Drones by Police Agencies to Assist in Law Enforcement Activity

Students Name

Institutional Afflation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Abstract

The legal basis for the introduction of drones as a part of the security surveillance process has come under pressure due to concerns about the possible infringement of private rights. This paper notes that there should be limits on the time, manner, and method of their use and that the police should have a formal, transparent policy in place to notify the public of its use. According to the research, there are numerous benefits of undertaking the use of drones for safety purposes. However, it is also critical to have systems in place, which notify the public and other related bodies about the use of such drones and the implications they have on privacy. The paper uses four court cases that have set a precedence on the matter in the past as a basis for defending the thesis. According to the research, the recent changes to the process of surveillance to include drones may have immense legal challenges.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction

The changing face of crime has had a significant contributory implication on the modern approaches to law enforcement. The law enforcement agencies have had to develop new sophisticated procedures that may be critical towards adapting to the modern policing challenges. The use of drones is among the most recent introductions to public policing and an indication of the changing scope of technology in the facilitation of law enforcement. However, this use of drones is now at the center of emerging concerns and questions regarding the apparent infringement of the privacy policy. Ideally, no laws exist to supplement each other as opposed to creating a hiatus in the application. For this reason, there has been a recurrent debate around the need to balance the need for safety and security, with the need to protect the individual rights of the citizens. For this reason, this paper argues that there should be limits on the time, manner, and method of their use and that the police should have a formal, transparent policy in place to notify the public of its use.

Background

Drones have gradually replaced helicopters as the most accessible mode of surveillance and information gathering within the police force. Primarily, the police use such drones for a wide range of reasons, which are all pertinent to the safety of the citizens. Part of the reasons why drones have become a critical part of the policing process is because unlike other forms of airplanes such as helicopters, drones may be able to stay in the air longer and in most cases even unnoticed (Završnik, 2015). Police officers use drones to regularly inspect highly frequented locations such as schools and shopping malls. In essence, while this extent of surveillance may come out as intrusive, it has been noted that the approach has been able to salvage potentially volatile situations such as in the case of terror attacks or the attack by an active shooter.

On the same note, drones have also constantly played an essential role in the process of documenting crime scenes and the sequential process of combing such scenes for additional information. The officers use such orthomosaic maps to conduct an in-depth analysis of the crime scenes and to offer an accurate conclusion about such views. In essence, this is an essential step in the course of achieving accurate and reliable evidence that can be applied in a court of law. The police have also used disaster sites in the past as an experimental zone for the application of drones. The drones support such missions because they are less prone to fire and even when gutted by such fire, there is a lower risk of lives lost of the loss of expensive helicopters (McCrisken, 2010). Drones have also often come in handy when dealing with other issues such as accident and traffic management or search and rescue missions. In the wake of terrorism, drones have also been actively used in the process of detecting bombs and other hazardous material, which may often lead to security risks.

The five uses of drones perhaps present a critical background on which to understand the role of drones in achieving greater extents of security and safety. The ability to ensure a higher level of situational awareness has been argued as the most critical function of drones in the modern social context. Law enforcement agencies, therefore, argue that this use of drones is a crucial aspect in the process of undertaking the process of policing especially due to the reduced level of risk associated with the use of such drones. Perhaps, these advantages introduce a concern regarding the best way to balance these advantages with the reality of the outright infringement of privacy. The fears that emerge in this case, therefore, the need to understand the boundaries that these law enforcement agencies have in the course of undertaking the process of surveillance and the limits that exist within the law to safeguard civilians from the instances of unlawful infringement of privacy (Robakowska et a., 2017). The following section will assess the various cases that set a precedence on the issue of the use of drones for security reasons.

Drones and privacy

The federal government has shown all indications of possible widespread permission for the use of drones. The assertion and the reality that this technology is likely to become ever more powerful over time has become the basis for widespread fears regarding the future of privacy and the rights that individuals have such cases (Gorkič, 2015). Studies argue that the government has also been at crossroads in the attempt to balance between the observable pressure to consider the rights of the citizens to privacy, while also appreciating the need among such citizens for protection against internal and external risks.

First, while it is agreeable across the board that these UAVs are useful across the board for a variety of important reasons such as search and rescue it is pleasing that this may also set the stage for a potential mission creep among this law enforcement agencies. The possibility of these tools being used for other controversial outcomes has been at the center of emerging legal battles as the threats of outright privacy breach becomes more real. The contradiction stems from the fact that security is among the most basic needs for any nations especially in the United States where there is a significant concern around terrorism and internal aggression. The ability to balance between the need for security on the one hand and privacy on the other is the reason for the foreseeable attempt by the law enforcement agencies to introduce critical tactical approaches that may lead to mission creep. On the other hand, there has been an emerging argument around the underlying exclusive right by the justice department to undertake the process of tracking individuals for varying reason without a warrant.

The legality of the matter has been tested on more than one occasion as civilians and other rights groups as they seek a more precise interpretation of the law on the rights of the individuals in as far as the issue of tracking is concerned.

An Assessment of the obvious implications of this scenario raises chills among various interest groups that have been on the forefront in agitating for private rights. Essentially, the question that has been asked severally is the risk that stands out in a situation where the society recurrently suffers under the threat of surveillance from agencies that do not require a search warrant to undertake the various processes (Modh, 2015). The psychological point of view also questions the extent to which the human mind can adapt to a state of camouflage in instances where they are being watched. The debate centers on the long- term implications of surveillance on the individuals being watched.

According to the study, it is possible for citizens to foster a tendency around the ability to disguise their personality or behaviors with the view of protecting themselves from the possibility of being caught by such drones engaging in criminal activity. For this reason, even from a psychological point of view, it has been argued that these drones rarely act as a deterrent to crime despite them creating major concern around the privacy breach they present to the civilians.

The legal premise on which the use of drones has been challenged assumptions on the lack of an underlying basis on which to determine the extent of a privacy breach that can be termed as legal or the illegal. A recent case involved a concern presented by a couple on a possible case of voyeurism among security agencies (Sehrawat et al., 2017). In essence, according to the complainant, a New York police helicopter repeatedly filmed a couple that was making love in their balcony. The filming occurred while the couple was in what would be termed as their private residence. In the end, when the NYPD was put on the spot on the issue, the agency argued that it was well within their means to take the specific action because that is their job description at the end of the day. Nonetheless, this is some of the issues that have been argued out on the legal premise especially due to the apparent assumption of rightful job delivery by the law enforcing agencies.

The concerns around outright discrimination also form another critical point of contention. The reality in the United States is that there will always be a sense of perception based on transgenerational oppression. For instance, it is possible to find a situation where officers are manning these drones focus on specific races and ethnic groupings because of the underlying assumption of criminality that is a result of various stereotypes. The criteria used to focus on one person and not the other in such cases where the drones are deployed may often end up being prejudicial and to some extent border on discrimination.

The various law enforcement agencies have also been put on the spot on the issue of institutional abuse in the process of dealing with the process of surveillance. The argument made by most of the rights movement is the argument that it is impossible to deal with the police on the issue of accountability first before addressing the need for these drones. The assertion also introduces this conversation to the various past legal cases and their determination.

Legal Precedence

The challenge that Law Enforcement agencies face in the current context is the reality that the law already has set precedence on the issue of privacy. For this reason, it will be critical for the criminal justice system to begin a process of addressing the loopholes that have continues to emerge due to the introduction of technology. For instance, about the case Oliver v. the U.S. (1984) 466 U.S. 70, 179 the matter at hand was the contention around the right by the law enforcement agencies to conduct searches even when the process is not sanctioned by law ( Fakhoury, 2014). The matter at hand was the legality that such law enforcement agencies have to conduct such searches especially on open fields or own privately owned property without having a prior warranty to undertake such searches.

The court in the case made a necessary conclusion that is still valid to date. The argument made was the fact that given the right to privacy concerns in the United States, the court would be at fault if there was a decision to allow the officers to continue with the current approach to searches. The court, therefore, upheld the need always to have a process of seeking a warrant before the officers or the agencies have the right to undertake such searches. The question that emerges from this precedence is the actual definition of open space and what stands out as private property. Ideally, this conversation raises concern around the modern view of drones and their approach to operations. The fact that drones fly on open ground and transverse private property means that such drones may end up on the other side of the law in most instances because there is no control over the extent to which the drones may go in the end. The case may be contrasted to the situation by United States v. Jones (2012) 565 U.S. 400, 404-405. In the case, the police officers came under pressure for the alleged decision to set a GPRS tracker on a suspect’s car to track the suspect’s movements.

According to the officer, the suspect had been on the police watch list for a long time, and this was one of the most plausible ways of keeping track of his movement incognito. In the end, there was a court case where the defendant was questioning the right the officers had in placing the tracker on the vehicle incognito. The court ruled that the decision by the officers to set the tracker was in bad faith and a contradiction of the 4th Amendment, which in essence protects the rights of such individuals against instances of direct searches or infringement of privacy without a prior and legally obtained warranty. The decision to terminate the actions by the individual officer as a violation of the fourth amendment has become a critical premise for the determination of future cases that address the issue of privacy and the limits of police indulgence even where there are clear reasons and the necessity to take up such actions.

The court in the case of United States v. Jones (2012) 565 U.S. 400, 404-405 set important precedence that is still viable to date and especially when assessing the relationship between a GPRS tracker and a drone. Ideally, both serve the same purpose, which is the ability to link the perceived offender to his specific location (Polivy, 2012). For this reason, the decision by the court would still hold even in instances where the officer’s intended motive was to improve the outcome of security. On the same note, in all the case studies presented, there is an underlying trend by the court to defend the right to privacy as basic freedom for the citizens an issue that confirms the need to protect the right at all cost.

In the case of Kyllo v. U.S (2001) 533 U.S. 27 the law enforcement agencies were trying to pursue an individual perceived to have been engaged in the illegal business of growing and distributing marijuana. However, this was just an assumption, and there was minimal evidence available that would support the decision by the officer’s assumption. The officers then decided to use a heat tracking device that would be used to test whether the suspect was using additional heat to grow marijuana. Consequently, the suspect made a formal complaint regarding the apparent infringement of the individuals’ right to privacy. The court sitting on the day was subjected to the need to define the application of the 4th amendment and the need to protect the rights of the individual citizens against the risk of a breach of privacy.

The court in the case heard that the officers lacked proper warrants of arrest and only depended on hearsay in the process of making the final decision on the matter. The decisions made in the case would, however, create a critical premise on which to hedge future instances of determination on the role and the application of warrants in the course making decisions on the process of pursuing a perceived offender. The court ruled that the officer did not have the right to set the detector within the property without a warrant despite the reality that marijuana was a forbidden drug by that time. The pronunciation of the court on all the instances confirms the power and the applicability of the fourth amendment.

The Fourth Amendment

The Constitution through the 4th amendment provides for the need by the government to -provide safety as a critical part of the overall process of ensuring the stability of the country. The amendment is subjective about the need to ensure that the officers, for instance, respect the need for privacy for all citizens regardless of their underlying suspicion of wrongdoing (Malco, 2012). The fact the fourth amendment is quite upfront on the fact that the courts have a hard time deciding of the various cases especially in instances where the decision to stand in support of the need for privacy as per the 4th amendment would compromise the state of safety and security.

Recommendations

The research reveals a variety of issues that are useful in the process of determining the possible introduction of drones to support the process of law enforcement. One of the critical conclusions that stand out in the research is the reality that in the end, both security and privacy are essential elements in a country. The determination of how, when and the reason for unleashing the drones then forms parts of the conversation. The questions asked in this case relate to the application of drones as a supportive instrument in the process of achieving the set safety and security measures in a country.

For this reason, this paper notes the need for a change needs tact. For instance, California v. Ciraolo is a case in point of understanding the dynamics in the issue and finding on drones. In the example, a drone was used to move past the property of an individual to assess the chance that the intrusion may fail to gather the anticipated realization that the fact that peace safety and a central need, then there must be a way of dealing with other concerns. The process of dealing with the issue of drones may, therefore, focus on the underlying situation in each of the specific cases. This would be a basis for determining whether it is more plausible to allow such drones to operate or whether the rights of the citizens to privacy are more important. The proposal made in this paper is that the use of drones is a welcome and critical move in the course of addressing the various safety issues. However, there must be rationality in the determination of which instances warrant the infringement of the right to privacy. The argument also proceeds to state the need also to address the alternative options that may be applicable in a given case as a replacement for the drones in a bid to avoid such instances of voyeurism and the concern around the ability by the agencies to show ultimate accountability in the process.

Conclusion

In the end, the law still stands, and this means that the process of law enforcement must consistently address the possibility of infringement of fundamental rights as a precursor to the process of resolving the security risks that emerge. The case studies confirm that the courts will always seek to deal with any lacuna in the legal setting by introducing measures, which define the extent of civil liberties in the given situation.