Would Have Allowed Police To Operate Armed Drones

A bill that would have allowed police to place stun guns or more deadly weapons on drones died in a legislative committee when it was put on "hold" by the three co-chairs of the panel.

The Connecticut Post reports that the bill was the only item on the agenda for the General Assembly Public Safety & Security Committee. The meeting was reportedly brief.

Police had said the bill, which would have also required law enforcement to obtain a court-ordered warrant before using a drone, would enhance public safety. The aircraft, they said, can be particularly effective in monitoring events where a large number of people gather, and help detect threats. But legal analysts said it could make police vulnerable to federal prosecution.

In a statement released to the media, David McGuire, executive director of the ACLU of Connecticut said the legislature "sent a loud and clear message that Connecticut does not need and will not accept police equipping drones with weapons. The defeat of this police drone weaponization proposal is a victory for public safety and civil rights.

"Connecticut does not need police wielding flying weapons in our towns and communities. Our state does need strong police accountability, transparency, and oversight to build public trust in law enforcement.

"The key privacy concerns addressed by this underlying bill remain. Connecticut residents still need and deserve protection from intrusive police drone spying. With four Connecticut police departments using drones right now, privacy protections from police drones remain a problem in need of a solution.”

The Connecticut Police Chief's Association reportedly is opposed to the bill's requirement for a warrant for drone use. Carroll Hughes, a lobbyist for the association, pointed out that there were 20 public safety drones flying during the Boston Marathon this year. "It was safe. Nobody had a problem," she said. Hughes said that the warrants are "very restrictive."

According to the report, Peter Sachs, an attorney and recreational drone pilot who founded both the Drone Pilots Association and the Drone Law Journal, lobbied against the bill. He said in a statement that it was appropriate that the bill failed. “It had nothing to do with the warrant requirement. All parties had already accepted that provision," Sachs said. "It was due to the inane amendment from the Judiciary Committee that would have permitted law enforcement to fly armed drones. Those who offered that amendment failed to consider that such an exception would have placed law enforcement in the position of violating several federal aviation regulations.”

FMI: Original Report