https://www.nytimes.com/2023/0...-labor-day-nypd.html

The beating of drums. The bleating of horns. And now: the buzz of police drones.

New York City’s Labor Day revelry will have a new noise this year as the Police Department plans to deploy the remote-controlled, camera-equipped aircraft to monitor large gatherings — even backyard parties — connected to West Indian American Day celebrations in Brooklyn.

The plan was announced at a briefing on Thursday in Brooklyn ahead of J’Ouvert and the West Indian American Day Parade, events that honor the region’s diaspora — New York is home to over 600,000 residents of non-Hispanic Caribbean descent. The celebrations commemorate emancipation, but have been the setting of violence in years past, with shootings marring previous events.

Both events are set to take place Monday, with J’Ouvert, a predawn carnival procession, kicking off the celebrations at around 6 a.m. in Crown Heights. The festivities typically attract around two million people.

Kaz Daughtry, an assistant police commissioner, said that the drone teams would be present starting Thursday night and would remain on duty through Monday morning.

“If a caller states there’s a large crowd, a large party in the backyard,” Mr. Daughtry said, “we’re going to be utilizing our assets to go up, to go check on the party, to make sure if the call is founded or not.”

But such robotic oversight is intrusive and illegal, critics said, and some noted that those being watched are predominantly Black.

“Deploying surveillance drones over New Yorkers gathering with their friends and families to celebrate J’Ouvert is racialized discrimination and it doesn’t make us safer,” Daniel Schwarz, who scrutinizes technology and privacy for the New York Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement. “As the N.Y.P.D. keeps deploying these dystopian technologies, we must push for stricter guardrails — especially given the department’s lengthy history of surveilling and policing Black and brown communities.”

Efforts to reach the West Indian American Day Carnival Association were unsuccessful.

The move was the latest expansion of the city’s use of drones. The police used them to broadcast announcements after this summer’s Pride parade in Washington Square Park in Manhattan, telling people that it was time to head home. During mayhem in Union Square last month after a video game console giveaway went awry, the police used drones to identify areas where officers should respond. The city used them this summer to monitor shark activity at beaches, and the police said in July that drones would deliver public service announcements in the event of a natural disaster.

“We have to push back on the sci-fi aspects of drones,” Mayor Eric Adams said in a news conference Friday. “No one’s going to be monitoring what you’re talking about, your conversation.”

The move was the latest expansion of the city’s use of drones. The police used them to broadcast announcements after this summer’s Pride parade in Washington Square Park in Manhattan, telling people that it was time to head home. During mayhem in Union Square last month after a video game console giveaway went awry, the police used drones to identify areas where officers should respond. The city used them this summer to monitor shark activity at beaches, and the police said in July that drones would deliver public service announcements in the event of a natural disaster.

“We have to push back on the sci-fi aspects of drones,” Mayor Eric Adams said in a news conference Friday. “No one’s going to be monitoring what you’re talking about, your conversation.”

Mr. Adams said the drones, which he referred to as a “smart, excellent tool,” would be used from a safe distance — “not down flying in someone’s backyard to see what they have on the grill.”

Albert Fox Cahn, a lawyer and the executive director of the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, described Thursday’s announcement as “a lawsuit in the making.”

Mr. Cahn noted that while police forces have long been allowed to use planes and helicopters for surveillance, the use of low-flying drones — some of which can record audio — to monitor a barbecue raised questions about New Yorkers’ constitutional rights against unlawful searches.

“This is ripe for abuse,” Mr. Cahn said. “The mayor keeps doing this. Whenever there’s something that might generate a bad headline, he looks for some technological gimmick that can fix it.”

Mr. Adams, a retired police captain, has been vocal about his support for technology in policing. In addition to drones, Mr. Adams has pushed for the introduction of robotic dogs and GPS trackers.

“He’s big into technology in terms of trying to keep the city safe in innovative ways,” John Chell, the Police Department’s chief of patrol, said of the mayor in an interview with WPIX this week. “We can get the drones there quicker than a police car, and they can spot out what the situation is from overhead, and give us a heads up of what we’re looking at.”

Mr. Cahn said that despite that argument, a drone was not the same as a human responder who could render aid or break up a fight.

“Camera systems sometimes can be helpful in investigating crimes, but they’re really ineffective as a deterrent,” Mr. Cahn said. “We continue to have police peddling the myth that their technology somehow will magically keep us safe, when in fact, it’s long term structural investments in public safety that are proven to be effective.”

The new SIGforum banner sitting right above this post seems quite fitting.

I’m a big supporter of drone use by police. We’ve had situations where they’ve kept officers at a safe distance dealing with an armed person. They also cut the time spent shooting an accident scene by 80%, allowing roadways to be opened up much quicker. They also make search and rescue efforts much more efficient. I’m a big fan.

How they are planning on using them, however, is a bunch of crap. Using a drone to look into people’s back yards is crossing the line. The question is- is it unconstitutional? I would think it would violate the persons expectation of privacy but I’ll have to do a bit of research.

Show a judge probable cause and get a warrant, the same as, for example, a phone tap.

quote:

Originally posted by cooger:
Using a drone to look into people’s back yards is crossing the line. The question is- is it unconstitutional? I would think it would violate the persons expectation of privacy but I’ll have to do a bit of research.

I am not a lawyer, but am a 4th Amendment nerd.

Classroom answer: It's an evolving area.

If the courts apply the same rules they've applied to surveillance by aircraft since the 1980s, you generally have no REP against an overflight by government if they're obeying the rules (navigable airspace, etc.) applicable to the public. And you very rarely have REP against observations IN public.

Non-classroom answer: The "interesting" cases will probably involve somewhere where there's a subjective expectation of privacy (think backyard with multiple layers of opaque fence and tree cover that'd preclude "normal" aerial observation) and REALLY intrusive maneuvering of the drone to get past those barriers. Or, drone use that violates FAA restrictions imposed on the "normal" citizenry. Bad facts can create really restrictive case law.

My opinion is worth precisely nothing, but that's my bet.

Aren’t there some laws about flying over people? I know some of the video channels I watch with drone flyers often say they can’t fly over people or vehicles.

If they fly over my yard perhaps another drone may just crash into them?

I.i.r.c.
I thought we decided that gadgets, gizmos and widgets ,
Although interesting,
Won't deter bad people.

Drones are just money makers.

Invest in camo netting, kids.

quote:

Originally posted by DennisM:

quote:

Originally posted by cooger:
Using a drone to look into people’s back yards is crossing the line. The question is- is it unconstitutional? I would think it would violate the persons expectation of privacy but I’ll have to do a bit of research.

I am not a lawyer, but am a 4th Amendment nerd.

Classroom answer: It's an evolving area.

If the courts apply the same rules they've applied to surveillance by aircraft since the 1980s, you generally have no REP against an overflight by government if they're obeying the rules (navigable airspace, etc.) applicable to the public. And you very rarely have REP against observations IN public.

Non-classroom answer: The "interesting" cases will probably involve somewhere where there's a subjective expectation of privacy (think backyard with multiple layers of opaque fence and tree cover that'd preclude "normal" aerial observation) and REALLY intrusive maneuvering of the drone to get past those barriers. Or, drone use that violates FAA restrictions imposed on the "normal" citizenry. Bad facts can create really restrictive case law.

My opinion is worth precisely nothing, but that's my bet.

Florida vs Riley talks about police using a helicopter at 400 feet looking for a marijuana grow. The court ruled in favor of the police in that one because they were in legal airspace and observing with the naked eye. I would think that a drone at a much lower altitude and using an electronic device (camera on the drone) would go against this ruling. Of course the facts aren’t the same and I’m not a Constitutional scholar so I could be way off.

There are a lot of things the Supreme Court will have to tackle in the future regarding police use of technology- LPRs, AI and facial recognition, and drones.

They are using them to patrol an area where there will be thousands of people drinking in a mass of humanity.

That’s completely different than our earlier discussion of using them to patrol a neighborhood just because.

One makes a little more sense than the other. The earlier discussion about flying then in a neighbor just to look around when nothing is going on and no one called in a piece disturbance is a ridiculous waste of time and resources.

I hope someone buys one of those anti drone guns and takes a few down if they begins flying them over peoples houses. Keep dropping some expensive drones and they might get the hint.

quote:

Originally posted by 1s1k:
They are using them to patrol an area where there will be thousands of people drinking in a mass of humanity.

That’s completely different than our earlier discussion of using them to patrol a neighborhood just because.

One makes total sense and the other is a ridiculous waste of time and resources.

I keyed in on using them to look into people’s back yards. I’m ok with using them over crowds at large festivals in public spaces but not to look at parties in someone’s yard.

quote:

Originally posted by cooger:

quote:

Originally posted by 1s1k:
They are using them to patrol an area where there will be thousands of people drinking in a mass of humanity.

That’s completely different than our earlier discussion of using them to patrol a neighborhood just because.

One makes total sense and the other is a ridiculous waste of time and resources.

I keyed in on using them to look into people’s back yards. I’m ok with using them over crowds at large festivals in public spaces but not to look at parties in someone’s yard.

You were quick with the reply. I had changed my reply to talk about exactly what you said. Over an area like a park with a massive gathering I’m ok with it. Over a house just because it’s close to the main gathering point I don’t think so. Time to set up the net guns.

I got my FAA certification for my drone use (have since decided not to renew).

I’m curious if they have proper FAA waiver to fly over people, if the FAA has since changed the rules and how they apply to LE use, or if the cops figure they can just do what they want since they’re the cops.

quote:

Originally posted by 911Boss:
I got my FAA certification for my drone use (have since decided not to renew).

I’m curious if they have proper FAA waiver to fly over people, if the FAA has since changed the rules and how they apply to LE use, or if the cops figure they can just do what they want since they’re the cops.

I would guess the latter but I could be wrong. Also for flying at night.

I'm guessing it won't be long before one of the cops crashes a drone into someone's face and the practice has to end.

First, they'll just be observing/recording you. Then they'll be dropping in the cops themselves.

Video of big drone w/passenger.

We have used them for years

quote:

Originally posted by frayedends:
I'm guessing it won't be long before one of the cops crashes a drone into someone's face and the practice has to end.

Qualified immunity........

quote:

Originally posted by 4MUL8R:
We have used them for years

How and for what? Perhaps some context would be helpful here...

Blue Thunder 1983 - predicted this 40 years ago... JAFO



We're not at war, so drone manufacturers need a market, Law enforcement, Federal and then state is a big market, worldwide.

On one hand I can see sending a drone out in response to a call to inspect the situation vs sending a squad car. Someone complains about noise you could fly over and see if it's a problem or just someone bitching before using up street level resources on a nothing run keeping resources free for worse situations than 15 guys watching a football game on a big screen in the back yard...

As long as it's a situation where there is a valid complaint that needs investigation, but just to fly it around looking for potential criminal activity it's problematic.

Cops do that daily anyway, pull over a car for a tag, light, slight weave, and then see if they can get consent to search to find something or catch a felon with warrants in the car. Happens every day and we think little of it...