The search for technology-driven solutions has been the goal of various police departments. They seek to foster the safety of suspects, officers, and the public, improve the apprehension of criminals, and reduce crime rates. This goal has seen the adoption of various technologies, including but not limited to social media and drones among law enforcement forces. The adoption of drone technology in law enforcement has been met with mixed reactions. Some police departments and security agencies support using unmanned aerial systems in law enforcement to foster its effectiveness. But, activists, lobbyists, the police and security agencies alike differ on its effectiveness. Critics raise pertinent concerns over the privacy of the people and the violation of their rights bestowed upon them by the constitution. This paper explores the history of drone technology, controversy, key strengths and limitations, the potential of drone technology, and the role of public safety manager besides the need for drone use policy. The background of drone technology gives clear insights into its development and focus evolution to include law enforcement. The potential of drone technology is high, and the need for a policy guideline is imperative. While marred with controversy, drone technology’s strengths are beneficial to law enforcement despite some of the limitations that could limit its efficacy.
Background on Drone Technology
Unmanned aerial systems (UAS) have been used for centuries though they were solely applied in military operations. The first recorded use of the UAS was in 1849, when the Australians used unmanned balloons loaded with explosives to attack Venice, an Italian City (Kindervater, 2016). While balloons would less likely be considered a UAS today, the Australians ushered a new technology that has advanced significantly. The British military used sky view photography in 1915 in the Battle of Neuve Chapelle in which they captured over 1,500 aerial maps depicting the trench fortifications of the Germans (Kindervater, 2016). It was not until the First World War did the United States start developing drone technology. According to Smith (2015), in 1916, the U.S. created its initial pilotless aircraft, and shortly afterward developed the Kettering Bug. In 1930, the Navy started testing radio-controlled aircraft leading to the Curtiss N2C-2 drone created in 1937. However, World War II ushered in the mass production of the UASs for the military with the creation of the Radioplane OQ-2 (Smith, 2015).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Initially, drone technology was considered an expensive and unreliable toy. According to Kindervater (2016), in 1982, Israel changed this notion with the successful deployment of manned aircraft and UASs to destroy Syrian aircraft. Jointly with the U.S., Israel developed the RQ2 Pioneer drone, a cheaper, medium-sized unmanned aircraft in 1986. Improvements in the technology allowed the U.S. to use the Predator drone while searching for Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan in 2000. In the early 2010s, new uses for the drones were proposed, including their deployment to police operations (Kindervater, 2016). Since the introduction of the unmanned aerial system in law enforcement, contentious issues have been raised over their effectiveness and potential violations.
Controversy
Although the world continues to embrace technological advancement in many areas, drone technology elicits mixed reactions. Despite its alleged benefits in law enforcement and rescue operations, critics raise controversial concerns about its use. Sakiyama et al. (2017) highlight that people are concerned about the technology’s capacity to safeguard against contravening their rights. Similarly, Salter (2014) notes that contentious questions about how to protect property owners from aerial trespassing and to define people’s rights on airspace property are common in the introduction of drone technology. In this case, opponents against the technology view the introduction of drones as a violation of the same laws that protect their property, such as land, from trespassing.
Apart from property issues, some parties are more concerned about their privacy. Bentley (2018) states that people fear that their right to privacy, as contained in the Fourth Amendment, could be in jeopardy if drone technology is allowed in law enforcement and other missions apart from rescue missions. The author stresses that people are concerned about unmanned aerial vehicles’ ability to collect images and data without being detected. The amount of information to be collected and the duration of storage in the police archives is also a concern (Sakiyama et al., 2017). In this case, it is unclear on the sensitivity of the data that could be collected, an aspect that can expose highly sensitive and private information such as a medical condition or private life to the police departments. A major issue in this note is the possibility of sensitive information being used for unscrupulous activities by the police (Bentley, 2018). Thus, privacy is a key controversy surrounding drone technology.
Another controversial issue is the safety of drones use. People critical of the drone technology argue that the fact that the drones fly unmanned they could pose safety dangers to the public (Sakiyama et al., 2017). According to them, the unmanned aerial systems are only programmed to move but lack the sense to detect and avoid collisions while in the air. Their potential to detect likely collision and move to safety is controversial. Therefore, after the collision, falling drones pose a serious danger to the people in particular when used closer to large crowds of people.
Strengths
Drones produce in-time surveillance information about criminals. This aspect is imperative, especially in barricaded criminals, since it can allow the police to identify the suspected offenders. Yang et al. (2019) explain that drone technology connects officers in the field with the national database for criminals. In light of this information, the drone technology allows officers to observe the suspects, transmit the information to the national database for comparison, and identification of the criminals. Besides, the provision of the in-time information allows the police to take swift, but appropriate decision before the criminals commit further crime. Drone technology allows law enforcement officers to monitor suspected criminals and process data about their movement, communication, and the type of weapons they have (Salter, 2014). Therefore, the drones’ ability to provide readily available information about criminals helps in proper decision-making within the police force.
Drones can penetrate restricted and heavily restrained places. Sometimes, criminals hide in places where the police’s access could put the officers at risk (McNeal, 2016). The safety of the police is paramount, just like public safety. Drones can be used to penetrate to some of the areas that could threaten police safety. Apart from monitoring criminals in secluded areas, the drones’ capability to penetrate areas that could be challenging for people to penetrate is helpful in rescue and search operations (Zaheer et al., 2016). For instance, drone technology could be used in collapsed building debris to identify the presence of people trapped in the rubble. Furthermore, some crime areas, especially during chemical attacks, require prior information before the police can access them physically (Smith, 2015). In light of this note, the drone technology is used to access the place and take information for analysis to identify the degree of the risk exposure that can be exerted to the rescue operators or the law enforcement officers. Therefore, the drones’ ability to penetrate areas that could pose limitations to human movement or high-risk areas is a key strength in rescue operations and law enforcement.
Drones can be remotely controlled. The drones’ ability to be controlled from a distance makes them effective in promoting the safety of the criminal suspects, the public, and the police officers (Yang et al., 2019). According to Salter (2014), the remote control allows the drone technology to facilitate police restraint. The drones give officers essential information that assists in their preparedness to promote their safety and that of the suspected criminals. Besides, the prior information is essential in enhancing public caution as it is useful in issuing an evidence-based warning. Zaheer et al. (2016) posit that disasters are laden with huge curiosity among revelers. Therefore the drone technology can help in crowd control by feeding the disaster management team with exact information on the dangers ahead. Thus, the remote control capability of the drones is beneficial in enhancing the safety of the people, the criminals, and the police. Apart from these benefits, it allows the search and rescue team or the police to prepare appropriately before embarking on their mission.
Size variation of drone technology devices is also a major strength. As Zaheer et al. (2016) submit, drones come in varying sizes, an aspect that enhances their applicability. The different sizes of the drones make them useful in varying situations. Small size drones could be used in rescue operations since they can penetrate through small spaces within rubbles. The authors further emphasize that the size of the drones allows them to fit in all situations. Apart from penetrating small spaces, the small size varieties can be useful in areas requiring them to operate discreetly. For instance, in pursuing criminals in barricaded areas requires small devices that can pass unnoticed. Notably, the need for larger drones cannot be overemphasized. According to the scholars, larger drones can be useful in disaster management, search and rescue operations, and crowd monitoring because they have more stable cameras. Stable cameras allow users to have more reliable information (Zaheer et al., 2016). In retrospect, drones come in different sizes that fit different situations.
Quality aerial imaging is another crucial drone technology strength. Yang et al. (2019) note that drone technology comes with excellent devices that could be used to take high-quality aerial videos and photographs. The drones collect extensive imaging data that can be used in law enforcement operations. Clear videos and photographs are essential in law enforcement because they enhance the possibility of proper situational analysis before initiating any operation. Zaheer et al. (2016) highlight that the high-resolution images captured through drone technology can be used in creating interactive 3-D models and 3-D maps for easier interpretation of data. Proper interpretation of the collected information is highly beneficial in law enforcement and search and rescue operations. For instance, rescue teams’ 3-D maps of disaster areas can be used to prepare better before entering hazardous areas. The law enforcement officers can recreate the interactive 3-D models to understand the possible situation better ahead of their mission (Alsamhi et al., 2019). For example, they can identify secluded areas that suspected criminals could hide while at the same time noting the areas that they could use for their safety during a law enforcement operation.
Limitations
Despite the great strengths of the drone technology in law enforcement, its effectiveness faces stringent threats that could derail its usefulness. According to Smith (2015), the use of drone technology is counterproductive as the same targeted criminals use the same devices to monitor the police. The criminals use drone technology to plan and commit a crime, and therefore keeping pace with them is equally challenging. Armed with similar technology used to monitor their activities, the criminals can identify the police movement, preparedness, and communication to plan countermeasures. Salter (2014) argues that drones are easily accessible to different parties whose intentions of use could be suspicious. Salter blames weak regulations that allow anyone to access or develop a drone. Thus, the use of drone technology in pursuing criminals, apprehending them, and reducing crime rates can be counterproductive as the criminals use the same technology to plan and execute their criminal activities while monitoring the communication and movements of the law enforcement forces.
Training on how to operate the drone and its applicability can derail its application in fighting crime. Sakiyama et al. (2017) argue that while drone technology raises pertinent concerns, police officers need to be trained on when to use or not to use the unmanned aerial system. In particular, McNeal (2016) calls for training on ethical limitations of drone technology, its permissibility, and the situations that could allow its use without raising a public outcry. Hence, the police need to be aware of the devices’ applicability before being commissioned in the field. Additionally, the training focus is on ethical concerns and how to operate the systems. The drone technology comes with complex systems that require apt operation besides analyzing and interpreting the data (Kindervater, 2016). The law enforcement officers or rescue teams should be trained on how to operate them, read the transmitted information, and interpret the findings for proper decision-making. Thus, training of the drone technology users could derail its applicability and effectiveness due to the ethical issues it raises in addition to its complexity and the need for skillful operation.
Legislative uncertainty hampers the use of drone technology in law enforcement missions. Drone technology is relatively new, and legislation on its use in police operations is lagging. Salter (2014) postulates that while the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has developed certain guidelines and rules governing small, unmanned aerial vehicles used for recreational and commercial activities, there are ambiguities on the drone application in law enforcement. The current laws do not address the police use of drones over private properties. On a different note, Smith (2015) claims that adding to the ranging confusion is the conflict between local laws and federal regulations. While federal regulations call for enhanced police, suspects, and public safety, some local laws emphasize more on privacy concerns to protect the perceived rights of their neighborhoods. The conflict limits the police use of drone technology due to the ensuing ambiguity.
Potential of the Drone Technology
Drone technology will potentially improve the effectiveness of law enforcement. Alsamhi et al. (2019) point out that using an unmanned aerial system in the crime area allows law enforcement officers to scan the area, identify criminals, and monitor events to prevent further crime. For instance, in a hostage situation, drone technology can be highly effective. The drones can be used to surveil against the hostage captors without drawing their attention, thus minimizing the creation of anxiety and animosity that can cause further damage to the captives. Hence, drone technology, with its ability to provide in-time surveillance information and 3-D images, will foster law enforcement operations.
The adoption and deployment of drone technology in police departments will reduce the cost of law enforcement considerably. Kindervater (2016) summarizes that drone technology reduces manpower and the needs associated with law enforcement personnel. He expounds that field personnel has to drink, eat, expel waste, and rest, all of which cost time or money. However, with the deployment of drone technology, such needs are eliminated or minimized since only a few officers are involved in its operations. Furthermore, McNeal (2016) argues that cost-saving is not only on resources but also on human life. The scholar explains that by promoting the safety of the police, suspects, and the public, drones reduce the loss of human lives, culminating from heavy weaponry attacks or extended hostage situations. Hence, drone technology reduces policing costs both in lives that could have been lost and resources, including time and money.
The Need for Drone Use Policy
Besides the legislative regulations, drone technology policy in law enforcement departments is imperative. Any technology should not hurt but help people, and thus policy guidelines are important to regulate and enhance the proper application of emerging technologies (McNeal, 2016). As far as the unmanned aerial systems application is concerned, a policy code governing their use will stipulate the situations that warrant their employment. According to Kindervater (2016), drones should be used to promote the safety of officers, suspects, and the public. In this case, a policy document should highlight situations that could endanger the lives of people. For instance, a policy guideline can highlight the need for drone technology that should be exercised in search and rescue missions, hostage situations, hazardous material incidents, armed barricaded suspects, detection missions for an explosive ordinance, active shooters, or any other high-risk tactical operations. Therefore, a policy guideline is imperative to enhance the safety of the people.
Another importance of the drone use policy is to protect the privacy and property rights of the people. Bentley (2018) presents that a proper policy on drone technology would ensure its use is well regulated to avoid unnecessary aerial trespassing and its deployment in private affairs. Bentley further underscores that while serious criminal activities need using drones, a clear policy on warrant acquisition before commissioning aerial surveillance vehicles should be obtained to minimize misuse of the technology by some dishonest police officers.
Role of a Public Safety Manager
Technologies like the unmanned aerial systems come with challenges that need the attention of a public safety manager. The public safety manager is the central contact person for strategy, organization, communication, and management of disaster situations (Kożuch & Sienkiewicz-Małyjurek, 2017). The manager is the point of contact and controlling officer whose mandate extends beyond assigning roles to overseeing their successful implementation within the expectations of public safety concerns. Thus, the public safety manager monitors law enforcement as well as rescue and search operations to ensure they do not violate public safety.
Law enforcement and rescue operations demand vast resources and personnel. The public safety manager manages people, equipment, and supplies during disaster operations (Kożuch & Sienkiewicz-Małyjurek, 2017). In this case, the manager prioritizes resource allocation, monitors its usage, and replenishment of new supplies as the need arises. As Alsamhi et al. (2019) opine, the manager creates and oversees the implementation of crowd control strategies to minimize damage to the public; besides, the manager motivates all stakeholders to observe the law while putting public safety first during operations.
Conclusion
Indeed, technological advancement has become a key area in different sectors. Law enforcement, as well as search and rescue operations, have not been censored. Unmanned aerial system (drones) is one of the advanced technologies that has found increased use in the contemporary world. Initially, drones were used for military operations, but the technology has been adopted in policing, attracting immense controversy. While the technology could potentially minimize the cost of law enforcement besides enhancing its effectiveness, safety, and privacy issues surrounding its application in the police department. The federal, state, and local governments should work on amicable legislation to regulate and promote the use of drones in law enforcement. Too, police departments should develop policies to reduce or eliminate police violations while deploying drone technology.
References
Alsamhi, S. H., Ma, O., Ansari, M. S., & Gupta, S. K. (2019). Collaboration of drone and internet of public safety things in smart cities: An overview of qos and network performance optimization. Drones , 3 (1), 13.
Bentley, J. M. (2018). Policing the police: Balancing the right to privacy against the beneficial use of drone technology. Hastings LJ , 70 , 249-296.
Kindervater, K. H. (2016). The emergence of lethal surveillance: Watching and killing in the history of drone technology. Security Dialogue , 47 (3), 223-238.
Kożuch, B., & Sienkiewicz-Małyjurek, K. (2017). Multidimensionality of risk in public safety management processes. In Risk management in public administration (pp. 115-147). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
McNeal, G. S. (2016). Drones and the future of aerial surveillance. Geo. Wash. L. Rev. , 84 , 354.
Sakiyama, M., Miethe, T. D., Lieberman, J. D., Heen, M. S., & Tuttle, O. (2017). Big hover or big brother? Public attitudes about drone usage in domestic policing activities. Security Journal , 30 (4), 1027-1044.
Salter, M. (2014). Toys for the boys? Drones, pleasure, and popular culture in the militarization of policing. Critical Criminology , 22 (2), 163-177.
Smith, K. W. (2015). Drone technology: Benefits, risks, and legal considerations. Seattle J. Envtl. L. , 5 , i.
Yang, F., Sakti, S., Wu, Y., & Nakamura, S. (2019). A framework for knowing who is doing what in aerial surveillance videos. IEEE Access , 7 , 93315-93325.
Zaheer, Z., Usmani, A., Khan, E., & Qadeer, M. A. (2016, July). Aerial surveillance system using UAV. In 2016 Thirteenth International Conference on Wireless and Optical Communications Networks (WOCN) (pp. 1-7). IEEE.
