Law Enforcement Use (VLOS Sight)

[Southern Style]

As I have posted, I am actively flying for a LE Agency in Florida. All licensed and insured, policy and procedures in place. I was asked a question that I would love to hear some of your views on:

Situation: While flying during a Hostage Situation, I was sent to do a Recon of the residence checking windows sufficient for putting a throw phone thru. I noticed that the front door was half open. A SWAT supervisor made a comment, "Hey, can you fly into the residence and see where he is?"

Now, I understand that the P4 or the Inspire 1-V2 are a little expensive to be getting swatted out of the air by the suspect or flying in side a small spaced residence, but I fly daily inside my house using a micro drone (cost: $30 each) for training. Understanding the rules of VLOS, which is always followed, and understanding the P4 or Inspire 1 have GPS, self leveling, and kinda a mind of their own should you have a fly away, but these micro drones do not. If you lose signal, they fall! AND, understanding that all of the Part 107 rules are there because you are in National Airspace, if I fly into someone's residence, am I still in National Airspace? I know I am going deeper than I should be thinking, but, there is no danger of a fly away flying a micro drone into a residence.

Yes, I know... I only get about 5 minutes of flight time with these micro drones, but I can fly around a house in 2 minutes and get a layout of the floor plan and check things out. Even if it falls, we can retrieve it later, or just buy another one. These are much more expendable!! The micro drone has the camera to enable the SWAT leader to see the lay out and see what he is dealing with once entry is made.

I am wondering if I should look into a Part 107 waiver for VLOS for these situations. I just think that these micro drones cause no threat to manned aircraft, no threat of fly away, and are actually being used INSIDE a house and not outside..

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm...........

VIDEO ATTACHED:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[sar104]

Interesting question(s). On the specific issue of the extent of the NAS, it does not include enclosed spaces such as buildings.

 

[Southern Style]

UPDATE:

Just a quick note, I heard back from my friends at RemotePiolt101 who did some research for me. You are correct, that the NAS does not cover inside the residence (which makes sense) and should fall under State and Federal laws as far as Search Warrants and Privacy Acts.. So, with that in mind, does anyone see any issues I might encounter (pending the search warrant for the residence or privacy laws)? I'm sure that I will have in depth conversations with administration as to if we have authority to send in a robot to see the interior, would this be the same for a small sUAS?

Oh boy... I wish I never had this thought.. LOL...

 

[BigAl07]

As stated above, once inside the building (open stadium does NOT count) you are free to do as you wish so long as it is within the Dept's SOP and local/State law. The FAA has no authority if the aircraft is not in NAS and it can't "inadvertently" go into NAS.


Which MICRO UAS are you using inside? We use the Blade GLIMPSE for inside flights and it works great.

 

[MapMaker53]

But in a SWAT situation where you are sending it into a building, would the live wifi video feed transmit through the walls if you don't have VLOS? btw... None of the FAA sUAV regulations apply to light-weight micro drones as far as I know. Do you actually need a Part 107 for a commercial micro drone?

 

[Southern Style]

I play with several.. I usually fly the Wizard X220 for playing outside, freestyle, and obstacle tracks.. when inside, I play with the Eachine 010 (video). It gets great signal to my FPV gear.. i fly from inside the house, out the front door, over the roof, and around the pool and back in the screen door.. no signal loss. I flew from outside in the front door all thru the house with no issues also. I know I would have to be relatively close to target house, but that's not a problem. I will research the Blade Glimpse.. it's still up in the air as to what we will use, it was just a thought.. I'm checking into making it happen..

 

[Southern Style]

I have the Part 107 because I am considered commercial.. weather flying the Inspire 1, Phantom 4, or the Eachine 010 micro drone, I would still be on the clock.. paid.... commercial...

 

[Blessed77]

I'm curious how this ever turned out? Any luck moving forward?


Another option would be use a micro drone that weighs less than .55 lbs. You could enter through a window and also fly out after.

I'm curious how privacy laws could effect you guys. I'd imagine it would be no issue with a warrant.

 

[ldcfla]

I read somewhere that LEO in Florida could not use drones for "surveillance".

 

[ldcfla]

Florida Statute 934.50, illegal to use drone for surveillance without a warrant.

 

[Southern Style]

YUP.... That's why we are using it for when a warrant is signed. Also remember that a Chief of Police or Sheriff can use whatever means necessary at his disposal when life is in imminent danger.. Not that we would use that every time, but we have used it when we had an active shooter, victim being treated for gunshot wounds, and they needed info to safely get the SWAT Team to a particular spot in the yard..

But those are exigent circumstances...

 

[Southern Style]

We are not using the sUAS for "evidence gathering or surveillance".. We actually have gotten with our local ASA (Assistant State Attorney) who has approved the verbiage to be added into all of our agencies warrants (narcotics related, Homicide searches during investigations, etc.) that are presented to them for approval before signing by a Judge.. So, when we have these instances, by the time I am called... wake up.... go get the gear.... arrive on scene, the warrant is pretty much being signed for the residence, "TO INCLUDE THE USE OF AN sUAS " and I am good to go...

Our Florida "Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act" (934.50) is a pain for LEO Drones, but paragraph 4b sure helps.. This allows the use of the sUAS if a warrant is signed and stipulates in the warrant that it will be used..

Its nice having an Assist. State Attorney assigned to your agency and given an office.. LOL.. Walk down the hall, tell him what you have, and its written, printed, and approved..

 

[ldcfla]

Any addition to your arsenal is a good thing.

 

[BigAl07]

Our Florida "Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act" (934.50) is a pain for LEO Drones, but paragraph 4b sure helps.. This allows the use of the sUAS if a warrant is signed and stipulates in the warrant that it will be used..

Its nice having an Assist. State Attorney assigned to your agency and given an office.. LOL.. Walk down the hall, tell him what you have, and its written, printed, and approved..

Good afternoon @Southern Style . I have a scenario that we are waiting for clarification on here in NC. I wanted to run it up the flagpole and see what your ASA in Florida has to say.

This is 100% hypothetical but we always want to know our bases are covered just in case. Let's assume we are providing Aerial Video live to the command post. We are merely there providing Situational Awareness to the boots on the ground and not "surveilling" in any way. In the course of providing aerial eyes (we are recording) the suspect comes out (behind the structure so it's not in plain site) and commits a crime.

Or let's say we are on scene and performing in an exigent scenario (let's assume hostage situ). We are merely putting eyes on the back of the structure to keep boots on the ground safe and "Aware". Suspect comes out the back door and commits a horrible crime and it's captured on video and seen live by the Command Staff watching in the Command Post.

In Florida, can this be entered into evidence? No one has established any kind of precedence about this to date so what do Florida statutes suggest the outcome would be?

 

[Nightwolf]

I'm not a LEO (thanks to all y'all who are) but I imagine your scenario would come down to "reasonable expectation of privacy". If he's in a walled in back yard that's one thing but where anyone can see him; someone did.

 

[KMF294]

Good afternoon @Southern Style . I have a scenario that we are waiting for clarification on here in NC. I wanted to run it up the flagpole and see what your ASA in Florida has to say.

This is 100% hypothetical but we always want to know our bases are covered just in case. Let's assume we are providing Aerial Video live to the command post. We are merely there providing Situational Awareness to the boots on the ground and not "surveilling" in any way. In the course of providing aerial eyes (we are recording) the suspect comes out (behind the structure so it's not in plain site) and commits a crime.

Or let's say we are on scene and performing in an exigent scenario (let's assume hostage situ). We are merely putting eyes on the back of the structure to keep boots on the ground safe and "Aware". Suspect comes out the back door and commits a horrible crime and it's captured on video and seen live by the Command Staff watching in the Command Post.

In Florida, can this be entered into evidence? No one has established any kind of precedence about this to date so what do Florida statutes suggest the outcome would be?

I can’t answer for Florida, but exigency is a legitimate exception to the warrant requirement. A hostage situation falls under that exception all day long. If the drone is providing aerial video at this point I cannot see any issue as it is lawfully present under the exigency exception. The purpose of the drone footage is not to gather evidence, but to provide necessary intelligence to law enforcement so that they can respond appropriately to save lives. If this was a situation in which evidence was being gathered for a narcotics case it would be different. The question then becomes whether the cartilage extends to the airspace above the property and if so, to what altitude? This is going to be different in each state depending on their courts interpretation.

 

[BigAl07]

I can’t answer for Florida, but exigency is a legitimate exception to the warrant requirement. A hostage situation falls under that exception all day long. If the drone is providing aerial video at this point I cannot see any issue as it is lawfully present under the exigency exception. The purpose of the drone footage is not to gather evidence, but to provide necessary intelligence to law enforcement so that they can respond appropriately to save lives. If this was a situation in which evidence was being gathered for a narcotics case it would be different. The question then becomes whether the cartilage extends to the airspace above the property and if so, to what altitude? This is going to be different in each state depending on their courts interpretation.

Thank you @KMF294 for your reply. I understand how it works in an Exigent situation up until the time an additional crime is committed within view of the aircraft. Seeing the crime LIVE (collecting evidence coincidentally) is a whole other ball of wax and we are concerned that such evidence would not be allowed in court. Let's take another example:

We are called to a Hostage situation and asked to "Get Eyes" on the back of the residence as SWAT is building an Action Plan for entering. They want to see what/who is around the back of the house so we fly streaming video back to the Command Post. In the process of this, the guy comes out the back of the house and executes the hostage "On Camera" but no officers/witnesses are there to see it "in person". Keep in mind we are operating in an Exigent situation and not evidence gathering because we do not have a warrant to do so. We are there to help add safety to the officers and the victim inside by increasing Situational Awareness on the back of the structure.

 

[loonie01]

The video could be subpoenaed by the judge as evidence. I would believe it goes along on the lines of civilians cell phones being confiscated for evidence if the crime was cought on the camera or building surveillance camera.

 

[Southern Style]

BigAl07:

Due to us being in Florida.... And having the "Unwarranted Surveillance Act" over our heads, the Command is requesting that an SD card NOT BE IN PLACE. Meaning as of now, we are just using it as "Situational Awareness".... No recordings are being made or even have the ability ... This is to ease the public's mind as no recording are being made and we are only interested in the specific incident at hand... Once we get a warrant, I think things and laws change as far as "If He Commits A Crime" while we are flying Situational Awareness.. The Warrant should cover anything that is viewed or recorded beings we have a WARRANT ... And I use that term in BOLD... Because having a warrant will change everything for us here in Florida.. As I posted before, it is really nice having an Asst. State Attorney in-house, with his own office, for us to run in and tell him what we have. We are working on blanket warrants (missing just the address, probable cause, and type incident) so it makes it faster for him to approve the warrant and get it signed by a Judge.. I watched a video from Modesto California... They have a Crime Scene Unit that is using the DRONE to chase burglar suspects and walk Officers into the suspects position (basically acting just like the LEO Helicopter)..

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

.. I WISH we had such lenient laws here !!!!!!! We can not even take photos at our Crime Scenes unless we have a warrant.. Traffic Fatalities, evidence markers, large scale shootings.. Unless we get a warrant, the laws look at photos as "GATHERING EVIDENCE".. I HAVE DIFFERENT VIEWS, BUT THEY DONT MATTER.,... LOL...

KMF294, Your response is exactly the avenue we are taking as of now, until we can get the laws changed or at least re-worded here in Florida...

Everyone be safe, and this is a GREAT THREAD for all Law Enforcement Officers... Its amazing on the fluctuations of laws from state to state pertaining to a UAS...

 

[KMF294]

Thank you @KMF294 for your reply. I understand how it works in an Exigent situation up until the time an additional crime is committed within view of the aircraft. Seeing the crime LIVE (collecting evidence coincidentally) is a whole other ball of wax and we are concerned that such evidence would not be allowed in court. Let's take another example:

We are called to a Hostage situation and asked to "Get Eyes" on the back of the residence as SWAT is building an Action Plan for entering. They want to see what/who is around the back of the house so we fly streaming video back to the Command Post. In the process of this, the guy comes out the back of the house and executes the hostage "On Camera" but no officers/witnesses are there to see it "in person". Keep in mind we are operating in an Exigent situation and not evidence gathering because we do not have a warrant to do so. We are there to help add safety to the officers and the victim inside by increasing Situational Awareness on the back of the structure.

Al to answer your question in a general sense of he law, if your are operating lawfully under the exigency exception to that warrant requirement than you are lawfully present where you are recording from. This triggers the plain view doctrine. Anything you observe from that plain view should be admissible. There really wouldn’t be much difference if you put a scout sniper in the same position to get eyes on and they witnessed the same crime occur through the scope.