Canpolice dronesseeinyour house

With regard to recordings that have been flagged for use as evidence or for another previously specified purpose, technical means should be employed to mitigate the privacy risk. Within the rules of evidence, and in particular, the jurisprudence with respect to the reliability of evidence, images of bystanders and other non-targeted individuals should be anonymized, for example, through face blurring, and the distortion of sound wherever possible.

During large public events or protests, drones monitor crowd movements, identify potential hazards, and assist in crowd control efforts, ensuring public safety.

LEAs should make a reasonable effort to inform the public that officers are equipped with BWCs and that people’s actions and words may be recorded when they interact with, or are in the vicinity of, law enforcement officers. Transparency is integral to the public’s ability to exercise their rights under privacy laws.

Drones help detect and monitor illegal activities such as poaching, illegal logging, and unauthorized land use, providing valuable evidence for prosecutions.

If intermittent recording is implemented, there should be strict criteria for turning cameras on and off, including criteria for determining whether the officer should have control in turning the cameras on or off, or whether this should be done remotely.

Extended flight times and transmission ranges are critical for covering large areas and prolonged operations. Drones like the DJI Matrice 350 RTK offer flight times up to 55 minutes and transmission ranges up to 9.3 miles, allowing for extensive surveillance, suspect pursuit, and monitoring without frequent battery changes​.

U.S. Department of Justice. “A Primer on Body-Worn Cameras for Law Enforcement,”Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, September 2012.

After natural disasters, drones assess damage, identify hazards, and help coordinate response efforts, ensuring efficient use of resources and faster recovery.

One of the most important operational decisions LEAs must make in implementing a BWC program is whether BWCs should record continuously or whether officers should have the discretion or duty to turn them on and off, and, in either scenario, under what circumstances. These choices  have important implications for privacy.

After Hurricane Harvey, drones were deployed to assess damage, locate stranded individuals, and survey flood-affected areas. The aerial imagery provided by drones helped in coordinating rescue operations and allocating resources effectively, contributing to a more efficient response effort​.

Police drones are designed to withstand harsh environments and adverse weather conditions. Models like the DJI Matrice 350 RTK and Parrot ANAFI USA feature rugged, weather-resistant designs with high IP ratings, ensuring reliable performance in rain, wind, and extreme temperatures.

Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for Newfoundland and Labrador. “Guidelines for Video Surveillance by Public Bodies in Newfoundland and Labrador,” May 2005.

The approval to operate BVLOS was a game-changer, allowing CVPD to deploy drones over a wider area without requiring a visual observer to maintain line of sight with the drone. This capability significantly expanded the operational range of its drones, enhancing their effectiveness in responding to emergencies and providing situational awareness.

The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) has integrated drones into its operations for tactical missions, including SWAT operations and hostage situations.

Police dronesat night

Drones capture detailed aerial images of accident scenes, allowing investigators to reconstruct incidents accurately and efficiently, minimizing road closures and disruptions.

Real-time video transmission provides instant situational awareness to officers on the ground. Drones equipped with this capability, such as the BRINC LEMUR 2, can stream live footage to command centers, enabling real-time decision-making and coordination during emergencies and tactical operations.

Generally speaking, the aim of a BWC program is to record law enforcement officers’ interactions with the public in the course of their duties. BWCs are generally used for collecting evidence, and protecting officers against unfounded allegations of misconduct. Another significant argument for BWCs is enhancing officer accountability and professionalism.  Given this context, and the increasing quality of recordings and sensitivity of microphones, the images and sound captured by BWCs for the most part will be about identifiable individuals. The recordings will thus be considered to contain personal information and will be subject to Canada’s personal information protection statutes.

According to the FAA, the number of drones used by public safety agencies will be over 30,000 by 2025, representing a growth of 300% from the 10,000 in use by PSAs in 2020.

Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. “OPC Guidelines for the Use of Video Surveillance of Public Places by Police and Law Enforcement Authorities, ”March 2006.

If use of recordings is contemplated for any purposes that are supplementary to the main BWC program purposes, for example, officer training, research, or performance evaluation, these secondary purposes need to be reviewed to ensure compliance with applicable legislation, and employees need to be well informed of them.  In addition, criteria should be established to limit the privacy impact, such as blurring of faces and any identifying marks, and excluding recordings with sensitiveFootnote 8 content.

Tony Farrar and Dr. Barrar Ariel. “Self-awareness to being watched and socially-desirable behavior: A field experiment on the effect of body-worn cameras on police use-of-force, ”Police Foundation, March 2013.

A final consideration is whether a less privacy-invasive measure would achieve the same objectives. While there may be a business case for a BWC program, alternative measures should be considered to see whether they can adequately address operational needs with less adverse impact on privacy. The least privacy invasive measure is the preferred choice.

As a highly recommended best practice, a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) should be completed prior to the use of BWCs to help identify the potential privacy risks of the BWC program. A PIA can be invaluable in helping LEAs eliminate those risks or reduce them to an acceptable level.  For example, there may be additional considerations, such as context and cultural sensitivities, that should be considered in deciding whether to use BWCs in particular situations. A PIA should include a plan for consulting and engaging with the community where BWCs are to be deployed.

Commission d’accès à l’information du Québec.  “Rules for use of surveillance cameras with recording in public places by public bodies,” June 2004.

In general, it will be difficult for LEAs to justify the necessity of continuous recording. Recording may be more readily justified, however, in relation to carefully defined incidents or operational requirements.

How to spot apolicedrone at night

At this time, we simply observe that if the use of such analytics can be justified under privacy laws, the capability to analyze recordings must be carefully managed so as not to exceed the documented purposes of the BWC program. Integrating recordings with video or audio analytics should only be considered on a case-by-case basis, under very limited circumstances to be determined by the head of the LEA involved, and subject to a new PIA as necessary.

Since then, more and more police departments have started drone programs. As of 2022, over 1,000 police departments in the United States had adopted drone technology.

The Chula Vista Police Department (CVPD) has been at the forefront of integrating drones into law enforcement work for years.

Pros and Cons ofdrones inlaw enforcement

The considerations in implementing a BWC program are complex, and pilot projects are recommended as an important precursor to widespread adoption. It is generally good practice, when deploying new technologies, to try them out in the field on a limited basis. If a LEA decides that adopting BWCs is appropriate, a pilot project would demonstrate how BWCs actually perform in their specific environment and whether this technology produces useful results that satisfy the intent of the program. The pilot project could also inform the crafting of a clear policy framework, applicable training requirements, and required supervision.

Drones patrol borders and coastal areas, identifying and tracking suspicious vessels or individuals involved in drug trafficking or smuggling activities.

Under privacy legislation, LEAs are responsible for protecting personal information from unauthorized access or use, disclosure, copying, modification and destruction, as well as loss and theft. Reasonable steps must be taken to safeguard recordings, such as:

Since launching the first Drone as First Responder (DFR) program in 2018, CVPD has seen significant improvements in response times and situational awareness. CVPD deploys drones to the scene of an incident immediately after a 911 call, providing real-time video feed to officers en route. This capability has helped in various scenarios, including locating suspects, monitoring large events, assessing crime scenes, and significantly reducing the number of calls officers respond to.

The Daytona Beach Police Department (DBPD) employs drones for traffic accident reconstruction and investigation, among other use cases.

See article Self-Awareness to Being Watched and Socially-Desirable Behavior: A Field Experiment on the Effect of Body-Worn Cameras on Police Use-of-force.

The Mesa Sheriff’s early adoption led the way for the use of drones by law enforcement elsewhere, showcasing the value drones could provide public safety operations by providing aerial perspectives that were otherwise difficult or even impossible to obtain.

Law enforcement officers should be required to notify people of recording both images and sound whenever possible. Officers could make a short statement that meets notice requirements under applicable legislation in their jurisdiction.  A prominent pin or sticker on the officer’s uniform could also be an option depending on the circumstances.

There are several other drones out there that can be used by law enforcement—here are some common characteristics to look for when vetting a drone for police work.

By deploying drones to incident scenes, police departments can reduce the need for multiple ground units and allocate resources more strategically. Additionally, the ability to capture aerial imagery and live video feeds helps departments improve the overall quality of incident documentation and evidence collection.

Artificial intelligence (AI) and autonomous flight capabilities are becoming increasingly common in police drones. These technologies enable drones to navigate complex environments, avoid obstacles, and conduct missions with minimal human intervention. Skydio is known for its autonomy—its Skydio X2 has advanced AI for obstacle avoidance and autonomous flight, making it ideal for dynamic and challenging scenarios​.

Notification is also important in encounters between law enforcement officers and the public. Should non-uniformed officers use BWCs, there is an increased risk that the public will be unaware that recording may potentially take place.

Nova Scotia Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Review Office. “Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Review Office Video Surveillance Guidelines.”

Police Executive Research Forum. “Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program.” U.S. Department of Justice, Community Oriented Policing Services, 2014.

LEAs contemplating storing BWC recordings in the cloud should be mindful of potential security concerns as well as any legal constraints that may apply in their jurisdiction. For example, British Columbia’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and Nova Scotia’s Personal Information International Disclosure Protection Act may not allow public bodies to store personal information outside of Canada. Québec’s Act Respecting Access to Documents Held by Public Bodies and the Protection of Personal Information imposes certain conditions on the storage of personal information outside the province.

There must be a demonstrable operational need that a BWC program is meant to address.  What operational needs do LEAs have for which BWCs are a solution?

Now that we’ve covered an array of use cases, let’s dive deeper, and look at some real-world examples of how police departments and other law enforcement agencies are actually using drones in their work.

As part of the IPP, CVPD received special FAA approval to fly drones BVLOS (Beyond Visual Line of Sight), which is otherwise prohibited under the Part 107 rules.

How far canpolice dronessee

LEAs should have the capability to redact third party personal information to facilitate access, for example, blurring of faces.

Here are the top five police drones on the market, including information on their primary use cases, price range, supply chain  details, and key features.

This document was developed by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada in collaboration with the privacy oversight offices in Alberta, New Brunswick, and Quebec and in consultation with the privacy oversight offices in British Columbia, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador, Northwest Territories, Nova Scotia, Nunavut, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan and Yukon .

Canadian personal information protection statutes generally define personal information as being “about an identifiable individual.”Footnote 3 Under Québec’s Act Respecting Access to Documents Held by Public Bodies and the Protection of Personal Information, personal information is “any information which relates to a natural person and allows that person to be identified.”

When the retention period is up, recordings should be disposed of in a secure manner in accordance with applicable policiesFootnote 9 and regulations.

Despite regulatory hurdles making them hard to launch, DFR programs have been slowly growing throughout police departments in the U.S.

The Chula Vista Police Department (CVPD) in California pioneered the first Drone as First Responder (DFR) program in the United States in 2018.

The Urban Institute Justice Policy Center. “Using Public Surveillance Systems for Crime Control and Prevention: A Practical Guide for Law Enforcement and Their Municipal Partners,” September 2011.

High-resolution cameras are a standard feature on most police drones, providing detailed imagery for surveillance, crime scene documentation, and search and rescue operations. Cameras on drones like the DJI Matrice 350 RTK and Parrot ANAFI USA offer resolutions up to 48 MP, enabling officers to capture clear and precise images from the air.

A Drone as First Responder (DFR) program refers to the automatic deployment of drones to the scene of an incident immediately upon receiving a 911 call, providing real-time situational awareness to first responders as they travel to the scene.

BWCs record not only the actions and speech of an individual, but also individuals’ associations with others within recording range, including friends, family members, bystanders, victims and suspects. The recording of individuals through the use of BWCs raises a significant risk to individual privacy, and LEAs must be committed to only deploying BWCs to the degree and in a manner that respects and protects the general public’s and employees’ right to personal privacy.

Office of the Yukon Information and Privacy Commissioner. “Guidance for Public Bodies on the Use of Video Surveillance,” 2014

The NYPD’s drones provide a live feed to command centers, helping officers monitor crowd movements, identify potential hazards, and respond quickly to incidents. In 2024, the NYPD launched its own DFR program, which deploys drones to the scene of gunshots as soon as they’re detected by a system called ShotSpotter.

This guidance document aims to identify some of the privacy considerations law enforcement authoritiesFootnote 1 (LEAs) should take into account when deciding whether to outfit law enforcement officers with body-worn cameras (BWCs). Also described is the privacy framework that should be part of any law enforcement BWC program in order to ensure compliance with Canada’s personal information protection statutes. This guidance is meant to support LEAs in developing policies and procedures governing the use of BWCs. It relates to the overt use of BWCs, that is, BWCs that are used in view of the public and with the understanding that the public has been informed of their deployment. The covert use of BWCs is not addressed through this guidance.

LEAs can also seek the aid of privacy experts before implementing a BWC program. Privacy experts can study the proposed use of BWCs in the community to ensure that any collection and use of personal information is done with a view to upholding obligations under privacy legislation.

Drones provide surveillance along borders, detecting illegal crossings and assisting border patrol agents in apprehending individuals attempting to enter the country unlawfully.

Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for Newfoundland and Labrador. “Guidance for the Use of Video Surveillance Systems in Schools,” February 2013.

As part of any BWC program, LEAs should establish written policies and procedures that clearly identify the program objectives and set out the rules governing the program. These policies and procedures should include the elements listed below.

Here’s a graph from Google Trends showing the rise of the term in searches online, starting with its first appearance in 2011.

Any plans to use video analytics in conjunction with BWCs should be carefully considered with regards to the initial justification of the program. With advances in technology, we are gaining increasing ability to search and analyze digital footage in increasingly sophisticated ways.  Databases of camera footage can be mined for information about specific individuals or specific activities. Previously anonymous individuals can be identified and tracked.

In hazardous environments like chemical spills or collapsed buildings, drones gather critical information without putting officers at risk, ensuring their safety while obtaining necessary data.

Drones provide real-time aerial views of large areas, helping officers monitor public events, track suspects, and gather intelligence without being detected.

These policies and procedures should be made available to the public to promote transparency and accountability. Demonstrating to the public that policies and procedures exist and officers are accountable for following them is essential to ensuring that individuals’ privacy rights are adequately protected. The documentation should also reflect evidence of community consultation and engagement as well as an understanding of cultural sensitivities.

Federal, provincial and territorial privacy laws grant individuals a right of access to their personal information, including that contained in audio and video recordings made using BWCs. This right is subject to specific exemptions such as law enforcement and investigation.Footnote 10 Under freedom of information legislation, individuals have the right to request access to information held by public bodies. LEAs should establish a process for responding to requests for information contained in BWC recordings. When providing access, care should be taken to ensure that the personal information of individuals other than the requester, such as their image and/or voice, wherever possible, is protected.

Technologies such as licence plate recognition, facial recognition and pattern recognition can be used in identifying, tracking and compiling dossiers on individuals. LEAs’ use of video analytics technology raises additional privacy concerns that require further scrutiny and care beyond the scope of this guidance.

Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. “Guidelines for the Use of Video Surveillance Cameras in Public Places,” 2007.

Drones assist in tracking and apprehending fugitives by providing aerial views of search areas, reducing the risk to officers and increasing the chances of a successful capture.

Policeusingdronesfor surveillance

David A. Harris. “Picture this: body worn video devices (“Head cams”) as tools for ensuring fourth amendment compliance by police,” University of Pittsburgh School of Law, April 2010.

Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia. “ Public Sector Surveillance Guidelines,” 2014.Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Saskatchewan. “Guidelines for Video Surveillance by Saskatchewan Public Bodies.”

At the federal level, please refer to Community Security Establishment’s IT Security Guidance document “Clearing and Declassifying Electronic Data Storage Devices”and the OPC’s “Personal Information Retention and Disposal: Principles and Best Practices”. In Québec, please see the “Guide to the destruction of documents that contain personal information” published by the Commission d’accès à l’information du Québec.

The use of BWCs inside private dwellings brings up special considerations, such as the higher likelihood that individuals will be recorded in highly personal situations.  Before proceeding with a BWC program, LEAs should identify their lawful authority for collecting personal information using BWCs. Generally, under public sector personal information protection statutes, public bodies may only collect the information they need to meet the purposes of their mandated programs and activities. As a second step, LEAs should evaluate whether the anticipated benefits of adopting BWC technology outweigh the resulting privacy intrusions. In other words, is it appropriate to equip officers with cameras given the privacy implications they raise?

There are various reasons why a LEA might contemplate adopting BWCs. LEAs could view the use of BWCs as bringing about certain benefits to policing or other enforcement activities.  For example, in addition to being used to collect evidence, BWCs have been associated withFootnote 5 a decrease in the number of public complaints against police officers as well as a decrease in the use of force by police officers.  At the same time, BWCs have significant privacy implications that need to be weighed against the anticipated benefits.  As the Supreme Court of Canada has notedFootnote 6, an individual does not automatically forfeit his or her privacy interests when in public, especially given technological developments that make it possible for personal information “to be recorded with ease, distributed to an almost infinite audience, and stored indefinitely”. And as the Supreme Court added more recently, the right to informational privacy includes anonymity which “permits individuals to act in public places but to preserve freedom from identification and surveillance.”Footnote 7

One of the first instances of a law enforcement agency employing drones was in 2013, when the Mesa County Sheriff’s Office in Colorado began using them in search and rescue missions and crime scene investigations.

And there are so many uses for cop drones that they can vary widely in size and capability, ranging from small quadcopters to larger, more sophisticated hexacopters with extended flight times and broader payload capacities.

Aerial imagery from drones helps document crime scenes comprehensively, preserving evidence and providing detailed perspectives that ground-based photos might miss.

Canpoliceusedroneswithout a warrant

From an accountability perspective, continuous recording may be preferable because it captures an unedited recording of an officer’s actions and the officer cannot be accused of manipulating recordings for his or her own benefit. However, from a privacy perspective, collecting less or no personal information is always the preferred option. The less time BWCs are turned on, the less personal information they will collect. Minimizing the personal information collected decreases the risk that personal information will be used or disclosed for inappropriate or unintended purposes. This applies both to members of the public whose personal information is recorded by BWCs as well as law enforcement officers. There may be times during an officer’s workday that having the camera turned on would not capture any information related to evidence collection or any other stated purpose of the BWC program, for example, when the officer is “standing by” or doing paperwork. LEAs also have a responsibility to respect officers’ personal privacy when off-duty or on personal time. As for recording the public, LEA programs should take into account situations that merit heightened privacy protections, such as when officers enter private dwellings.

LEAs should determine criteria for designating sensitive content, with input from the affected community, and ensure a higher level of protection for such recordings.

These days, police drones—also known as cop drones or law enforcement drones—have become indispensable tools in modern policing.

For further information on metadata, please see the Ontario OIPC’s “A Primer on Metadata: Separating Fact from Fiction” and/or the OPC’s “The Risks of Metadata”.

Equipped with thermal imaging and high-resolution cameras, drones help locate missing persons, including children and vulnerable adults, in challenging terrains and adverse weather conditions.

But it wasn’t until the mid-2010s that drone technology became widely accessible and affordable for police departments. Initially, military-grade drones were the primary models available, but advancements in commercial drone technology have since led to a broader range of options for public safety agencies (PSAs).

In one notable case, a drone equipped with thermal imaging was used to locate a suspect hiding in a dark, enclosed area. The drone’s live feed allows officers to approach and apprehend the suspect without putting themselves at unnecessary risk.

Now that we’ve gone over the top police drones on the market it’s time to get concrete, and look at specific use cases for drones in policing.

If images and/or audio are shared with the public for the purpose of identifying someone, other persons in the images should be obscured, with measures taken to safeguard the evidentiary integrity and reliability of the recording.

Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v. United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 401, 2013 SCC 62 at para. 27.

Police drones often carry multiple sensors to enhance their versatility. For example, the DJI Matrice 350 RTK can be equipped with various payloads, including high-resolution cameras, thermal sensors, and night vision cameras. This multi-sensor capability allows a single drone to perform multiple functions, from surveillance to thermal imaging, in a single flight​.

What arepolice dronesused for

It’s worth noting that, among all the types of public safety agencies, police are the ones using drones the most, with fire departments a distant second.

Privacy oversight offices have found it useful to use a four-part test to evaluate whether a proposed measure can be justified despite an intrusion on individual privacy. The test of “what a reasonable person would consider appropriate in the circumstances” provides a useful basis for LEAs in setting out the rationale for adopting BWCs. LEAs should be guided by this four-part test as set out below in determining whether to implement BWCs.

This innovative program was developed as part of the FAA’s UAS Integration Pilot Program (IPP), which aimed to test and evaluate the integration of drones into national airspace.

Read our Privacy policy and Terms and conditions of use to find out more about your privacy and rights when using the priv.gc.ca website or contacting the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada.

The criteria for activating cameras should address the need to minimize, to the extent possible, the recording of innocent bystanders or innocuous interactions with the public. Admittedly, it may not be possible to completely eliminate capturing images and audio of bystanders and other non-targeted individuals. With regard to recordings that are not implicated in an investigation (i.e. non-flagged recordings), setting and respecting limited and appropriate retention periods, and restricting access and viewing to a need-to-know basis will help mitigate the privacy implications.

While BWCs are visible on the officer’s uniform or glasses, they may not be noticed by individuals, particularly in stressful situations. Individuals also may not be aware that sound is being recorded in addition to images.

But as an overview, drones provide law enforcement with a bird’s-eye view of unfolding situations in real time, allowing officers to gather critical information without putting themselves in harm’s way.

Equipped with loudspeakers, drones disseminate important information to the public during emergencies, evacuations, or large gatherings, enhancing communication and public safety.

This surge in adoption was driven by the decreasing costs of drones and the increasing recognition of their utility in various operational contexts for police work.

Drones enhance perimeter security around critical infrastructure, prisons, and other high-security areas by providing continuous aerial surveillance and detecting intrusions.

In this article we’ll take a deep dive into law enforcement drones, covering what a police drone is, the history of drones in law enforcement, the top police drones on the market, the different ways police use drones, and more.

By the end of 2016—just three years after Mesa’s foray into the use of drones for public safety work—about 350 public safety agencies had acquired drones, including 167 police departments. These early drone programs focused primarily on traffic accident reconstruction, surveillance, and monitoring large events.

The case law at the federal level has generally held that information will be about an identifiable individual if it permits or leads to the possible identification of the individual, whether alone or in combination with other available information.

In SWAT operations or hostage situations, SWAT drones—another term for a police drone—provide crucial intelligence on suspect locations and movements, enabling safer and more strategic decision-making.

Employee privacy should also be taken into account. BWCs can capture law enforcement officers’ personal information, which is protected under most public sector privacy laws. Potential areas of concern include using BWC recordings to support employee performance evaluations. Employees may also have privacy rights under other laws and collective agreements that may affect a BWC program.

Want to learn more about how public safety agencies are using drones? Check out our in-depth guide, What Is a Public Safety Drone?

As drone technology has become more prevalent, it’s also become more specialized. And with that specialization we’ve seen drones and supporting software developed specifically for the needs of several types of jobs, including law enforcement.

Thermal imaging is crucial for operations in low-visibility conditions, such as nighttime or in smoke and fog. Drones like the DJI Mavic 3 Thermal and Skydio X2 are equipped with thermal sensors that detect heat signatures, allowing officers to locate suspects, missing persons, or hazardous materials that aren’t visible to the naked eye.

If you have a question, concerns about your privacy or want to file a complaint against an organization, we are here to help.

Are BWCs likely to be an effective solution to the operational needs that have been identified? LEAs should be mindful of the limitations of technology. Aspects of incidents may happen out of camera range, sound recordings may be incomplete due to range or background noise, or human error may compromise the usefulness of recordings and diminish their effectiveness. If recordings are meant to be used as evidence in court proceedings, LEAs should consider the requirements identified by Courts for accepting recordings as evidence as well as the evidence collection and retention measures proposed to ensure those requirements are satisfied.

The criteria developed should take into account fundamental freedoms, human rights, cultural sensitivities and any significant concerns expressed by the affected community.

Drones like the Parrot ANAFI USA and BRINC LEMUR 2 come with loudspeakers and two-way communication systems, allowing police officers to broadcast messages or communicate directly with individuals on the ground. This feature is particularly useful for crowd control, hostage negotiations, and disaster response​.

BWCs are recording devices designed to be worn on a law enforcement officer’s uniform, which can include glasses or helmets. They provide an audio-visual record of events from an officer’s point of view as officers go about their daily duties. The high-resolution digital images allow for a clear view of individuals and are suited to running video analytics software, such as facial recognition. Microphones may be sensitive enough to capture not only the sounds associated with the situation being targeted but also ambient sound that could include the conversations of bystanders.

BWCs should not be adopted simply because they may be considered a popular enforcement tool. They must be judged necessary to address specific operational circumstances in the jurisdiction they are deployed in.

A few years back, officers used drones after a major traffic collision to capture detailed aerial imagery of the scene, which was then used to create accurate 3D models to investigate the cause of the crash. This process significantly reduced the time required for on-site investigation, minimizing traffic disruptions and allowing the road to reopen more quickly.

Apart from requirements under personal information protection statutes, the use of BWCs can implicate other obligations of which LEAs need to be aware.  For example, BWCs can record video images, sound and conversations with a high degree of clarity. Thus, there may be additional concerns raised under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Criminal Code, or provincial legislationFootnote 2, for example, whether the use of BWCs in any given context intrudes on the public’s reasonable expectation of privacy or constitutes an interception of private communications, including in places accessible to members of the public.  LEAs also need to be mindful of additional legal implications whenever images and sound are recorded in private spaces, such as inside people’s homes or vehicles.

But a drone doesn’t have to be made just for law enforcement to qualify as a police drone. Many high-quality commercial drones can be used effectively by trained police officers.

The Honourable Frank Iacobucci. “Police Encounters with People in Crisis,” An independent review conducted for Chief of Police William Blair, Toronto Police Service. July 2014.

High-resolution cameras on drones capture detailed evidence in various investigations, including illegal dumping, wildlife crimes, and property damage.

In addition to images and sound, BWCs can also generate metadata, which can include transactional information about the user, the device and the activities taking place.  Metadata can include date, time, location and duration of the recorded activities, which, when connected to an identifiable individual, can be personal informationFootnote 4.

These programs have been particularly effective in urban areas, where traffic congestion and complex environments can delay traditional response times.

Without a doubt, the use of BWCs will result in a loss of privacy because recording individuals’ actions and conversations is inherently privacy invasive. As such, any privacy intrusion must be minimized to the extent possible and offset by significant and articulable benefits. With new technology, it may be difficult to foresee the full spectrum of positive and negative effects on day-to-day enforcement and the community being served. Undertaking a pilot project is highly recommended as a practical way of evaluating the privacy impacts of BWCs in relation to their benefits, before deciding whether or not to deploy them, how broadly, and in what circumstances.

Office of the Access to Information and Privacy Commissioner of New Brunswick. “Best Practice – Video Surveillance,” April 2014.

In light of the significant privacy implications of BWCs, strict retention periods should be imposed, taking into account the requirements of all applicable legislation. Setting and respecting retention periods will limit any opportunities for inappropriate disclosure or misuse of the information, including the potential for monitoring individuals without reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

Public awareness of the use of BWCs can be raised through the local media, social media campaigns, and on LEA websites. Individuals should be advised if BWCs are used, for what purpose, in what circumstances, under what authority and who they can contact in case of questions. As part of their commitment to fostering public awareness, LEAs should consider reminding the public that individuals have a right to access their own personal information, as well as a right to request access to information generally under freedom of information laws that apply to BWC recordings.

Retention policies for flagged recordings, including recordings to be used as evidence, should be consistent with applicable laws, such as the Canada Evidence Act and the applicable Police Services Act.  Under Canada’s privacy laws, personal information that has been used in making a decision affecting an individual needs to be retained for a sufficient period so as to afford individuals a reasonable opportunity to access it and challenge its accuracy. Recordings that have not been flagged as relevant to an investigation or potential legal action should have the shortest possible retention period.

Drones monitor traffic flow, identify congestion points, and assist in managing traffic during peak hours or major events, improving overall traffic management.

BWC technology represents a significant increase in sophistication from the early days of fixed cameras, when CCTV systems were being widely adopted and could only record images and not sound. At that time, a number of Canadian privacy oversight offices issued video surveillance guidelines for the public sector, which are set out at the end of this document.  While the basic privacy principles around video surveillance remain the same, the environment is now much more complex. As surveillance technologies evolve, ever larger amounts of personal information (both video and audio) are being collected in increasingly diverse circumstances (both static and mobile) with the potential of being linked with yet other personal information (e.g. facial recognition, metadata). It is understandable that LEAs would want to consider using new technologies to aid them in performing their duties. At the same time, however, BWC technology poses serious implications for individuals’ right to privacy. We believe that addressing privacy considerations from the outset can allow an appropriate balance to be achieved between the needs of law enforcement and the privacy rights of individuals.

After a BWC program has been adopted, additional PIAs are recommended as a best practice any time significant modifications to the program are contemplated. Significant modification would include a new collection of personal information and the introduction of new technologies or analytical tools.