Law enforcementdrones

Research does not necessarily support the effectiveness of body-worn cameras in achieving those desired outcomes. A comprehensive review of 70 studies of body-worn cameras use found that the larger body of research on body-worn cameras showed no consistent or no statistically significant effects.[3] This meta-analysis was rated by CrimeSolutions and resulted in a No Effects rating for the impact of body-worn cameras on use of force, assaults on officers, officer-initiated calls for service, arrests, traffic stops and tickets, and field interviews (i.e., stop and frisk). See Practice Profile: Body-Worn Cameras’ Effects on Police Officer Behavior. This profile is based on a meta-analysis published in 2020.

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Can policeusedrones without a warrant

Agencies should consider how body worn cameras will meet their mission needs and requirements prior to procurement and use of the technology. To provide general guidance to law enforcement practitioners, NIJ, NIST and the FBI developed a table listing operating characteristics and associated functionality descriptions based on existing technical resources about criminal justice use of video.[5],[6] The operating characteristics and associated functionality descriptions in the table can help agencies determine what they need as they consider the commercial products available.

[note 2] Hyland, S., Body-Worn Cameras in Law Enforcement Agencies, 2016, Bureau of Justice Statistics, November 2018. Note that this survey excluded federal agencies, sheriffs’ offices with only jail or court duties, and special-purpose agencies such as transit police and campus police.

Police drones at night

Developed by the NIJ-funded NLECTC Sensor, Surveillance and Biometric Technologies Center of Excellence, A Primer on Body-Worn Cameras for Law Enforcement provides an introduction to body-worn camera systems. The  report discusses the functions and features of body-worn camera systems and highlights issues and factors that law enforcement organizations should consider before and during implementation.

3 Kelsey D. Atherton, “Amazon Patent Lets Drones Perch on Streetlight Recharging Stations Like Pigeons,” Popular Science, July 20, 2016.

9 Laura W. Murphy et al., The Future of Drones in America: Law Enforcement and Privacy Considerations – ACLU Statement for the Record for a Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing (American Civil Liberties Union, March 20, 2013).

Drones remotely dispatched from the field could be part of law enforcement’s future, but, before this becomes a reality, more law enforcement agencies need to deploy UAVs on a regular basis. As more and more agencies decide to deploy drones, they need to ensure their officers are properly trained and utilizing UAVs in a way that keeps public safety and privacy at the forefront of their deployment practices. Agencies should also seek out companies who are leading the way in UAV advancements to explore how to best integrate UAVs into law enforcement’s response to in-progress calls.

[note 1] RCTs provide the highest degree of confidence that observed effects are the result of the program and not of other factors.

In November 2018, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) published a report on the use of body-worn cameras by law enforcement agencies in the United States in 2016.[2] This report showed that:

According to the 2018 BJS report, the main reasons (about 80% each) that local police and sheriffs’ offices had acquired body-worn cameras were to improve officer safety, increase evidence quality, reduce civilian complaints, and reduce agency liability.

In March 2013 the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) published a written statement to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee entitled, The Future of Drones in America: Law Enforcement and Privacy Considerations. In this statement, the authors point out that UAV technology is advancing rapidly, becoming more powerful and affordable and that the interest by police departments in using drones is increasing. The ACLU advocated for the strengthening of current laws to ensure UAV technology will be used responsibly and within constitutional values.9 The ACLU recommends, at a minimum, that the U.S. Congress should enact the following core measures:

[note 5] Home Office Centre for Applied Science and Technology, Body-Worn Video Technical Guidance (pdf, 10 pages), May 2014

With advancements in unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) technology, specifically nests, it may now be possible to deploy autonomous UAVs to assist officers with in-progress calls for service. Nests, simply put, are a protective home or base station where UAVs can stay charged and ready to be deployed from the field. Remotely deployed UAVs could be used to provide officers with real-time information, making their jobs safer and increasing the efficiency of crime-solving and documentation tasks.

[note 3] Lum, C., et al, Research on body-worn cameras: What we know, what we need to know, Criminology & Public Policy, pp. 93 – 118,  March 24, 2019

[note 4] CrimeSolutions is the NIJ-funded federal clearinghouse of evaluation research, showing what works, what does not work, and what is promising across broad expanses of criminal and juvenile justice programs and practice. Learn more about CrimeSolutions.

VGA, HD 720P, and 1080 HD are predominant standard resolutions. The higher the resolution, the more storage is needed. Estimates below were created assuming H.264 compression with medium to high motion at 30 frames per second (fps) derived using a heuristic formula widely used in industry. Actual storage utilized is dependent on scene complexity and the motion of the video captured. Consider what sort of analysis may be conducted on the video before selecting a resolution. For example, if forensic video analysis is anticipated, a resolution less than VGA is not recommended.

Benefits of drones inlaw enforcement

Two major FAA regulations are obstacles to the use of autonomous UAV technology: Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) flight, and Detect and Avoidance (DAA). The BVLOS regulation states that a pilot must keep the UAV in visual line of sight at all times while in flight, thus preventing the possible of any autonomous or remotely directed flights.4  The FAA recognizes this regulation needs to be relaxed for the continued advancement of autonomous UAV technology. However, crash avoidance technologies such as Detect and Avoidance would need to be further developed and tested in order for the FAA to authorize autonomous UAV flights. With manned aircraft, a fail-safe is already built in with a human pilot being able to “see and avoid” if necessary. With unmanned aircraft, the pilot is on the ground or, in the case of autonomous UAVs, there is no pilot at all to “see and avoid” and take evasive action. Currently, “sense and avoid” technology is being developed to allow UAVs to talk to each other and sense and avoid when other aircraft come to close.5 To help the technology move forward, the FAA has already granted several exemptions to Amazon to develop technology and methods so they can make their autonomous “Prime Air” deliveries a reality. Police might be able to gain similar allowances if they join others to advocate for an expansion of these exemptions for public safety testing and deployment.

CVPD’s experience is a great example of how UAVs can make departments more efficient in their deployment of officers. During the same four days, the UAV was also used to locate a wanted subject hiding in a field and to direct officers to two other disturbances that had moved from their original location. Chris Rittler, CEO for CAPE Aerial, said, “Chula Vista is modeling the future of drone integration in public safety by utilizing drones as first responders.”† This program is not solely focused on law enforcement; projects are also underway to fly medical specimens from University of California–San Diego for quicker results and cost savings, testing food delivery from restaurants to consumers using Uber, and testing the integration and communication between driverless cars and unmanned aircraft systems. The initial 30-day pilot program experienced similar success to that seen in the first week. Even though they are still assessing the specifics of the data obtained about the impact of UAVs, CVPD has begun to deploy UAVs on a routine basis for patrol duties, anticipating legislation and technologies to allow them to fly beyond the line of sight and to extend field time through improved battery life and nesting in a fashion similar to commercial drones that will soon fly the skies.

Police using dronesforsurveillance

Based on these reviews and the existing research on the impact of body-worn cameras use, it is clear that further research is essential to determine the value of body-worn cameras use and potentially the more effective ways body-worn cameras could be deployed. Given the growing use of body-worn cameras, it would be best to build in rigorous evaluations as law enforcement agencies expand their use of this technology.

One California police agency included privacy considerations in a pilot program to use drones for general law enforcement as a part of their proof-of-concept effort in 2018. The Chula Vista Police Department, which serves a city of about a quarter-million residents recently tested the viability and effectiveness of UAVs for in-progress calls. (See sidebar.) Their initial results are an encouraging sign that UAV could soon become a part of police deployment in the very near future.

To help the field reach a future in which UAVs are assisting officers routinely on in-progress calls, departments need to utilize UAVs, educate the public, lobby for legislative changes, and be willing to try new things like the pilot project in Chula Vista. If these efforts are made, within the next decade, there could be cities deploying UAV nests on the tops of fire stations and other government buildings, increasing officer safety and allowing agencies to better allocate their officers’ time.

Pros and Cons of drones inlaw enforcement

Body-worn cameras are widely used by state and local law enforcement agencies in the United States. They are worn principally by officers in the performance of duties that require open and direct contact with the public. Despite their widespread and growing adoption, the current evidence regarding the effectiveness of body-worn cameras is mixed. Some studies suggest that body-worn cameras may offer benefits while others show either no impact or possible negative effects. The mixed results of these studies strongly imply that additional research is needed. In particular, more studies employing randomized control trials [1] are needed.

Can police drones see in your house

Disadvantages of drones inlaw enforcement

The third and probably most significant issue associated with the use of autonomous UAVs (at least for law enforcement) is privacy. When most people hear the words “drone” and “government” together, they immediately think of the predator drone used in theaters of combat: a weaponized UAV that can fly thousands of feet in the air surveilling the public undetected., a misconception that leads to fear of the technology.

[note 6] Scientific Working Group on Imaging Technology, Recommendations and Guidelines for Using Closed-Circuit Television Security Systems in Commercial Institutions, Version 3.0, June 8, 2012.

There are a number of both public and private industries trying to expand the commercial use of autonomous UAVs. For instance, Amazon and other delivery companies are already planning to use autonomous UAVs for deliveries.3 However, there are three major roadblocks for the integration of autonomous UAVs in the skies over the United States: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations, limited UAV flight time, and privacy concerns.

The first experiment allowed by the FAA to test the viability of drones to assist with police patrol responses was at the Chula Vista, California, Police Department (CVPD) in 2018. In partnership with CAPE Aerial, CVPD and the FAA conducted a 60-day pilot program utilizing UAVs to respond to in-progress calls for service within a one-mile radius of the police department’s headquarters.* This test allowed a pilot to fly a UAV beyond the line of sight, while a second officer positioned on the police headquarters roof used binoculars to check the sky for potential hazards the UAV might encounter. After just four days, the test resulted in the UAV being deployed 29 times for in-progress calls. Of these deployments, 30 percent were for disturbance-related calls; about 17 percent of the time, UAV pilots were able to check the area and clear the call without patrol officers having to respond.

8 Nicholas Kristofer Gentry, Raphael Hsieh, and Luan Khai Nguyen, “Multi-Use UAV Docking Station Systems and Methods,” United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Full-Text and Image Database, July 12, 2016.

In addition, there is at least one company that specializes in deploying autonomous UAVs from nests These nests are managed through a software that allows users to view live videos, check the status of UAVs, and set and change predetermined missions.

6 Christina Gomez and David R. Green, “Small Unmanned Airborne Systems to Support Oil and Gas Pipeline Monitoring and Mapping,” Arabian Journal of Geosciences, May 2, 2017.

This concept is very similar to what Amazon wants to accomplish with Prime Air. To that end, Amazon has already filed for several U.S. patents related to types of nest platforms or charging stations.7 One of the patents Amazon obtained was for a streetlight perch to be used by their delivery UAVs as recharging stations. Amazon also mentioned in the patent application that these perches could also be mounted on existing structures such as cell towers, church steeples, office buildings, parking decks, radio towers, telephone and electrical poles, and other vertical structures.8

Share this article with anyone using the following URL: https://www.policechiefmagazine.org/remote-drone-dispatch/?ref=9bb872bfcc1d163ffe46da9d7396e66e

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( LockA locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

As more and more agencies decide to deploy drones, they need to ensure their officers are properly trained and utilizing UAVs in a way that keeps public safety and privacy at the forefront of their deployment practices.

The second major roadblock for the integration of UAVs into policing is the limited flight time of drones due to current battery technology. The average battery life of most UAVs sustains around 30 minutes of flight time. UPS, Chevron, Amazon, and other companies are looking to combat this limited flight time to make autonomous UAVs effective. To solve this issue, many of these companies are looking to deploy “nests” or base stations around various parts of their services areas. These nests would provide protection from the weather and the ability for a UAV to either charge its batteries or swap them out with a set of batteries being stored in the nest. This would require the UAV to be down only for a few minutes before going back into service. In commercial or public uses, nests could be placed throughout a region, allowing the drone to recharge without having to return to a central headquarters. The technology is not hypothetical—nest technology is already being used to monitor gas and oil rigs for equipment failures and to provide security for large areas.6

These mixed findings are further reflected in findings from evaluations of ten body-worn camera programs that have met the stringent criteria for inclusion in NIJ’s CrimeSolutions, see Table 1.[4] Across these evaluations, researchers looked at a range of outcomes, including use of force, citizen complaints, arrests, and assaults on officers. Four of the body-worn camera programs evaluated were found to have no, limited, or even negative effects.

Whether they are called UAVs, drones, unmanned aerial systems (UAS), or quadcopters, unmanned aerial technology is quickly becoming commonplace in the skies around the world. There are currently 1.1 million UAVs in the United States, and this number is estimated to triple to nearly 3.5 million by 2021. UAVs are also finding many uses in police departments worldwide. Currently, 347 law enforcement agencies in 43 U.S. states are using UAVs to assist officers in the field.1 Police agencies are using UAVs for search and rescue, traffic collision reconstruction, investigations of active shooter incidents, crime scene analysis, surveillance, and crowd monitoring.2 Despite this wide range of use cases, most law enforcement agencies currently deploying UAVs are using them only for preplanned operations and scene documentation. How can law enforcement take the use of UAVs one step further to integrate it into their response of in-progress calls for service? With an increasing number of officers killed in the line of duty, could UAVs make an officer’s response safer? Is there technology that would allow a UAV to autonomously respond to the scene of an in-progress call and provide aerial support to responding officers? If so, can law enforcement overcome the issues holding the integration of UAVs into general service back? The answers to these questions will determine the path forward for autonomous UAVs in policing.