Bill Requiring Arizona Police Warrants for Drone Surveillance Scrapped

An Arizona Legislator introduced HB2574 last month, intending to protect 4^th Amendment Constitutional Rights from unreasonable searches.

Passing of this Bill would have outlawed police drone use to collect evidence in criminal offenses. Arizona is one of at least 24 states considering passage of bills designed to address constitutionality of evidence obtained by police surveillance drones. Most of the legislation focuses on respecting a person’s privacy and constitutional rights by requiring police to obtain a lawful warrant before collecting information on a suspect.

But after the bill was met with heavy opposition by Law Enforcement Agencies, the bill was disbanded last week. In the alternative, the committee will review privacy and constitutional issues; economic factors; new technology; and business and government interests related to drone use.

Proponents of the bill argued that there is value to drone use for civil service, search and rescue efforts, but felt that there were no protections from unreasonable search for criminal prosecution purposes; and did not want Arizona to be perceived as a police state.

However, drone industry trade groups hold that many of the bills similar to the one introduced in Arizona, are fueled by misperceptions of invasions and privacy rights. They claim current laws in place are adequate to protect privacy. Many are of the opinion that technology may have advanced faster than laws to address U.S. domestic citizen’s privacy rights related to evidence collected in drone surveillance.

Any person arrested due to evidence obtained unconstitutionally in Arizona may potentially have a defense of constitutional violations. If a suspect’s 4^th Amendment Rights from unlawful search and seizure were violated, their criminal defense attorney will have an argument to challenge use of the evidence against the defendant, as unlawfully obtained. If the evidence is found to have been collected constitutionally, it will be suppressed, and the prosecution will be unable to use that evidence against the defendant. Depending on the circumstances, any evidence obtained after a person’s rights have been violated may also be suppressed. Such challenges, if successful, often lead to dismissal of charges, since material evidence cannot be used for prosecution.