Last week, New York City Mayor Eric Adams and Interim NYC Police Commissioner Tom Donlon announced the city’s Drone as First Responder (DFR) program. The initiative is now active in five commands (two drones each) within three of the city’s five boroughs.
Several cities globally have adopted Drone as First Responder (DFR) programs, including Chula Vista, CA, a pioneer since 2018; Carmel, IN, which recently launched a program; Denver, CO, planning drone deployments for 911 calls; and even in Mexico, where Ensenada’s drone initiative reduced crime by over 10%. The NYPD joining this trend is only a good thing, as these programs improve response times, situational awareness, and public safety.
How many people dying in a traffic crash want to see a drone respond to their 911 call? How many crimes have video cameras in gas stations ever stopped?
No, police just want more surveillance. This is not about protecting or serving. Sorry, but all this does is delay a real response. .
Arthur, I sense your fears, but drones don’t delay real responses, they make them better. They don’t replace responders; they help them. For example, in a traffic crash, drones can arrive quickly, assess the scene, and give paramedics and officers the information they need to act faster and smarter.
I get it, cameras alone don’t always stop crimes, drones enhance awareness and provide evidence that helps investigations. Programs like Chula Vista’s, a city I know well, have shown that drones improve response times and public safety, not just surveillance.
Drones are also cheaper than helicopters or fixed wing aircraft, making them a practical and more economical option for smaller departments. As technology gets better and more affordable, we’ll likely see more police using them, provided they follow clear rules to protect privacy.
And where do they buy these drones from?
Not one word on the source, (or cost per drone) in the official announcement.
If they are sourced from China, is the NYPD sure all the software back gates have been shut?
Huawei was shut down in the US mobile market on suspicion of back gates, without any actually been found.
In France the interest is in urban and para-urban (range not long enough for rural areas) delivery of defibrillators to heart attack victims by drone. (Drones almost all made in China, Parrot, the French pioneer was driven out by state funded Chinese firms.)
Sounds simple but the practicalities of always having a drone able to respond in each sector, even in areas with strong 5G mobile networks for control, are great.
Expect the cops too will take some time to become effective.
Montgomery Co, MD has been using their drone program for over a year and have posted several videos of their success stories on YouTube ( Montgomery County Department of Police ).
Neighboring Washington, DC started their drone program a little earlier this year (I think it was this year), and they actually send out “Alerts” to their public notification emails when they deploy the drones. While rules can be broken and anything can be abused, DC posts information on, and about when they use their drones right on their website: Drones and Unmanned Aircraft Systems. DC also reports that their drones are US of A sourced, so China snooping is not a factor.
As for actually stopping crimes, I fully agree that drones, like any other cameras do not stop crimes; however, we may never know how many crimes have not occurred because of the drone’s significant assistance in apprehending a repeat offender who may have otherwise escaped to commit another crime another day.
First off, they will be patrolling with video analytic technology. That is against my “reasonable expectation of privacy”. It’s illegal to record and store an individuals movements without a court order to do so.
Secondly, it’s demonstrable that crime has not gone down even as video camera use has exploded. Their premise is either laughably wrong OR a smoke screen to get “approval” for their city wide monitoring and recording effort. Once the get approval, they will be used beyond the stated purpose. Guaranteed.
It’s illegal to record and store an individuals movements without a court order to do so.
Nonsense. If that were the case, citizens with cell phones couldn’t record police actions involving individual officers - and the right to do so has long been settled.
Or did you mean that it is legal for we the people, but illegal for the cops, to record and store such imagery?
You do realise that many police departments have been using automatic license plate detection software for over 10 years now? Most patrol cars have this technology running while they’re driving. Chances are, you’ve been run through the system many times without you even noticing.
Yes, and such tracing devises by police are also being successfully taken down as unconstitutional intrusions. Government recording and logging of citizens w/o a warrant is illegal. This is the USA and it’s none of the governments business unless they have a warrant to do it. Sorry, but we used to have civics and government classes in school.
Yes, police body cameras and patrol car dash cams are legal in all U.S. states. These devices are used for:
Transparency & Accountability - Building public trust by documenting interactions.
Evidence Collection - Providing reliable records for investigations and trials.
Training - Helping improve police practices.
And Yes, police can legally use drones for various tasks, including surveillance and search and rescue operations. However, regulations vary by state, particularly concerning the requirement for a warrant before conducting surveillance.
States Requiring Warrants for Police Drone Surveillance:
Alaska
Florida
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Maine
Montana
North Carolina
Oregon
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Wisconsin
These states mandate that law enforcement obtain a warrant before using drones for surveillance, except in certain emergency situations.
Federal Regulations:
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) oversees drone operations nationwide. Law enforcement agencies must adhere to FAA guidelines, which include:
Certification: Agencies can operate drones under a Certificate of Authorization (COA) or the FAA’s Part 107 rules, which require remote pilot certification.
Operational Restrictions: Drones must be operated within the visual line of sight, during daylight hours, and below 400 feet above ground level, unless specific waivers are obtained.
Privacy and Civil Liberties:
The use of drones by police has raised concerns regarding privacy and civil liberties. To address these issues, many agencies have implemented policies that outline acceptable uses, data retention protocols, and measures to protect individual privacy. Public transparency and community engagement are also emphasized to maintain trust.
Body cams and police dashcams are used at the scene of an active investigation. That’s a big difference from government surveilling everyone from a drone and then using that collected data to start doing trend analysis and construct background analysis on people.
Unless there is a crime, it’s none of the business of police to record where I go or who I visit or where I go to spend my money. This should be self evident.
It seems the discussion has really drifted from Drone as First Responder (DFR) to random surveillance as someone would have us to think. There is no law concerning videoing in public, the fear/argument concerning drones is that they have an ability to view private areas, such as private property completely concealed by a privacy fence. These are the types of cases where drone laws are introduced and debated ( https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/columnist/komando/2023/02/09/how-legally-avoid-drone-surveillance-around-your-private-property/11205343002/ ). Back to the topic of DFR, my bet is that the jurisdictional rules of fresh and hot pursuit (yes, they are different) equally apply to the jurisdiction concerning the drone. With that said, try and stop an officer (to ask for a warrant), with a body worm camera for the purpose of being on topic, who is in fresh pursuit of a person for certain felonious assaults against another and see how that ends up.
Is all this out of hand, Bubba? It’s starting to feel that way. With drones (40% used for surveillance), cameras on every corner, and phones tracking us like a clingy lap dog, it’s no wonder people feel like privacy is a distant memory.
The problem is that organizational tools designed to protect us often go too far, collecting more data than necessary and quietly invading personal lives. Without clear rules, it’s like we’re all auditioning for a reality show we never agreed to join. While a bit of paranoia is understandable, the solution isn’t fear—it’s action. Demand oversight, transparency, and boundaries to ensure these technologies are used responsibly.