TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (April 28, 2015) – A Bill that would expand current limitations on the use of drones in Florida, and have a practical impact on the federal surveillance state, heads to the governor’s desk after unanimously passing the state House today.
Sen. Dorothy Hukill (R-Port Orange) introduced Senate Bill 766 (SB766) in February. The legislation would expand the current limits on drones by banning any person, state agency, or political subdivision from using unmanned aircraft equipped with imaging devices “to record an image of privately owned or occupied real property or of the owner, tenant, or occupant of such property with the intent to conduct surveillance on the individual or property captured in the image in violation of such person’s reasonable expectation of privacy without his or her written consent.”
The Florida House unanimously passed the bill 117-0. The Senate approved the measure 37-2 last week. The bill now head to Gov. Rick Scott’s desk for his signature.
The ban would include state and local law enforcement, as well as other state or local agencies and private individuals with a few exceptions. Law enforcement would be able to use a drone with an imaging device under the same conditions as it can currently conduct general surveillance. This includes with a warrant, to counter a high risk of terrorism, or if there exists an imminent danger to life or property.
The legislation also includes an expansive definition of “image.”
Image means a record of thermal, infrared, ultraviolet, visible light, or other electromagnetic waves; sound waves; odors; or other physical phenomena which captures conditions existing on or about real property or an individual located on that property.
SB766 provides both civil and punitive remedies against anyone guilty of violating these sections.
In 2013, Florida became one of the first states in the country to pass legislation limiting the use of drones by law enforcement. That law only allows law enforcement agencies to use drones to collect “evidence or information” if they have a warrant, with just a few exceptions mentioned above. When SB92 passed in April 2013, the Tenth Amendment Center noted it was a solid first step that legislators could build on in the future.
An amendment added in committee that the stated the ban on drones with imaging devices “is not intended to limit or restrict the application of federal law to the use of drones for surveillance purposes” was removed from the final version.
Impact on the federal surveillance state
SB766 focus exclusively on state and local drone use and do not apply directly federal agencies, the legislation would throw a high hurdle in front of some federal programs.
Much of the funding for drones at the state and local level comes from the federal government, in and of itself a constitutional violation. In return, federal agencies tap into the information gathered by state and local law enforcement through fusion centers and a federal program known as the information sharing environment.
The federal government encourages and funds a network of drones at the state and local level across the U.S., thereby gaining access to a massive data pool on Americans without having to expend the resources to collect the information itself. By placing restrictions on drone use, state and local governments limit the data available that the feds can access.
With the FBI rolling out facial a nationwide recognition program last fall, and the federal government building biometric databases, the fact that the feds can potentially access stored photographs represents a potential dystopian nightmare. By limiting the images obtained and stored by drones at the state and local level, it limits the information available to share with the federal programs.
SB766 makes up part of a bigger strategy to put an end to government drone surveillance. Each bill introduced, passed, and signed into law creates and builds momentum for other states to do the same.
The governor has 15 days from the date the legislature transmits the SB766 to his desk to sign or veto. If he takes no action, bill will automatically become law.