On Constitutional Grounds : Help Thwart Federal Surveillance Program

Showing posts with label Help Thwart Federal Surveillance Program. Show all posts

Tenth Amendment Center: To the Governor: Kentucky Passes Bill to Put Limits on Drone Spying, Help Thwart Federal Surveillance Program

FRANKFORT, Ky. (March 12, 2018) – On Friday, the Kentucky House gave final approval to a bill that would require police to get a warrant before engaging in drone surveillance in most situations. If signed into law, this legislation would not only establish important privacy protections at the state level, it would also help thwart the federal surveillance state.

Rep. Diane St. Onge (R-Lakeside Park) and Rep. Reginald Meeks (D-Louisville) introduced House Bill 22 (HB22) on Jan. 2. The legislation would prohibit the use of a drone for a “search” unless authorized under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 10 of the Kentucky Constitution. In effect, the proposed law would require officers to have a warrant before gathering information with a drone in any situation that would require officers on the ground to get a warrant. In order for the search to be valid, the warrant would have to specifically authorize the use of an unmanned aircraft system.

The proposed law would require police to minimize data collection on non-suspects and would prohibit the disclosure of any such data without a court order.

Any information collected in violation of the law would be inadmissible as evidence in any civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding in the state.

HB22 would also prohibit the operation of any drone equipped with a lethal payload.

On March 6, the Senate passed HB22 by a 38-0 vote with some technical amendments.The House previously approved the measure by a 94-0 vote. On Friday, it concurred with the Senate version 84-0. The bill now goes to Gov. Matt Bevin’s desk for his consideration.

Impact on the Federal Surveillance State

Although the proposed law would only apply to state and local drone use, it throws a high hurdle in front of some federal programs.

According to a report by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, drones can be equipped with various types of surveillance equipment that can collect high definition video and still images day and night. Drones can be equipped with technology allowing them to intercept cell phone calls, determine GPS locations, and gather license plate information. Drones can be used to determine whether individuals are carrying guns. Synthetic-aperture radar can identify changes in the landscape, such as footprints and tire tracks. Some drones are even equipped with facial recognition.According to research from the Center for the Study of the Drone at Bard College, 347 U.S. police, sheriff, fire, and emergency response units acquired drones between 2009 and early 2017—primarily sheriff’s offices and local police departments.

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.

According to its website, the ISE “provides analysts, operators, and investigators with information needed to enhance national security. These analysts, operators, and investigators… have mission needs to collaborate and share information with each other and with private sector partners and our foreign allies.” In other words, ISE serves as a conduit for the sharing of information gathered without a warrant.

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.

Currently, 18 states—Alaska, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin—require law enforcement agencies in certain circumstances to obtain a search warrant to use drones for surveillance or to conduct a search.

In a nutshell, without state and local cooperation, the feds have a much more difficult time gathering information. This represents a major blow to the surveillance state and a win for privacy.

WHAT’S NEXT

Gov. Bevin will have 10 days (excluding Sundays) from the date HB22 is transmitted to his office to sign or veto the legislation. If he doesn’t act, it will become law without his signature.

Mike Maharrey
March 12, 2018 at 12:53PM

Tenth Amendment Center: Massachusetts Committee Passes Two Bills to Limit Drone Spying, Help Thwart Federal Surveillance Program

From Tenth Amendment Center

...from Tenth Amendment Center

BOSTON, Mass. (Feb. 27, 2018) – A Massachusetts joint committee has passed two bills that would limit the warrantless use of surveillance drones. The legislation would not only establish important privacy protections at the state level, it would also help thwart the federal surveillance state.

Sen. Michael Moore (D-Shrewsbury), along with a bipartisan pair of cosponsors, introduced Senate Bill 1348 (S1348) last year. Sen. Patrick O’Connor (R-Plymouth and Norfolk) and 11 cosponsors introduced Senate Bill 1349 (S.1349). The bills are virtually identical and both carried over to the 2018 legislative session.

The legislation would prohibit the use of drones in criminal investigations without a warrant in most situations.

The bill includes an exception to the warrant requirement in the event of an emergency “when there is reasonable cause to believe that a threat to the life or safety of a person is imminent.” If used in an emergency situation, law enforcement would be required to file an affidavit describing the grounds for the emergency access within 48 hours.

The biggest difference between the two bills is that S1348 would specifically allow government agencies to use drones for “purposes unrelated to a criminal investigation or law enforcement purposes.” Information gathered in these situations could not be introduced in a criminal trial, hearing or grand jury proceeding, and could not be maintained, shared, or used for any “intelligence purpose.”

Both bills include a blanket prohibition on weaponized drones.

The legislation also places restrictions on data retention and sharing. Police would be required to destroy any information incidentally collected on areas or individuals not named in a warrant within 24 hours.

Any information collected in violation of the law would be inadmissible in any judicial, regulatory, or over government proceeding.

Both bills were reported favorably by the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security.

Impact on the Federal Surveillance State

Although the proposed law would only apply to state and local drone use, it throws a high hurdle in front of some federal programs.

In a nutshell, without state and local cooperation, the feds have a much more difficult time gathering information. This represents a major blow to the surveillance state and a win for privacy.

WHAT’S NEXT

Both S1348 and S1349 were referred to the Senate Ways and Means Committee for further consideration. At some point, the bills will likely be combined into a single piece of legislation.

Mike Maharrey
February 27, 2018 at 01:35PM

Tenth Amendment Center: Kentucky Committee Approves Bill to Limit Drone Spying, Help Thwart Federal Surveillance Program

From Tenth Amendment Center

...from Tenth Amendment Center

FRANKFORT, Ky. (Feb. 23, 2018) – Yesterday, a Kentucky Senate Committee passed a bill that would require police to get a warrant before engaging in drone surveillance in most situations. Final passage of this legislation would not only establish important privacy protections at the state level, it would also help thwart the federal surveillance state.

Rep. Diane St. Onge (R-Lakeside Park) and Rep. Reginald Meeks (D-Louisville) introduced House Bill 22 (HB22) on Jan. 2. The legislation would prohibit the use of a drone for a “search” unless authorized under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 10 of the Kentucky Constitution. This would require police to get a warrant before conducting drone surveillance in most situations. In order for the search to be valid, the warrant would have to specifically authorize the use of an unmanned aircraft system.

The proposed law would require police to minimize data collection on non-suspects and would prohibit the disclosure of any such data without a court order.

Any information collected in violation of the law would be inadmissible as evidence in any civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding in the state.

HB22 would also prohibit the operation of any drone equipped with a lethal payload.

On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee reported HB22 favorably with an amendment. The amended language provides some liability exemptions for certain contractors and emergency responders using drones for non-surveillance purposes.

The House previously passed HB22 by a 94-0 vote.

A similar bill passed the Kentucky House during the 2017 session, but never made it to the Senate floor for a vote.

Impact on the Federal Surveillance State

Although the proposed law would only apply to state and local drone use, it throws a high hurdle in front of some federal programs.

In a nutshell, without state and local cooperation, the feds have a much more difficult time gathering information. This represents a major blow to the surveillance state and a win for privacy.

WHAT’S NEXT

HB22 will now move to the Senate floor for debate and a vote.

Mike Maharrey
February 23, 2018 at 01:41PM

Tenth Amendment Center: New Jersey Bills Would Put Limits on Police use of Drones, Help Thwart Federal Surveillance Program

From Tenth Amendment Center

...from Tenth Amendment Center

TRENTON, N.J. (Feb. 12, 2018) – Two bills introduced in the New Jersey legislature would ban warrantless drone surveillance in most situations. Final passage of this legislation would not only establish important privacy protections at the state level, it would also help thwart the federal surveillance state.

Sen. Nicholas Sacco (D-North Bergen) introduced Senate Bill 577 (S577) on Jan. 9. Rep. Daniel Benson (D-Hamilton Square) introduced a companion bill (A1463) the same day. The legislation would require police to get a warrant before initiating drone surveillance or engaging in any law enforcement activities using an unmanned aircraft in most situations.

It would also ban arming drones with lethal or non-lethal weapons.

The proposed law would allow warrantless drone surveillance if the law enforcement agency has probable cause to believe that a person has committed a crime, is committing a crime, or is about to commit a crime, and exigent circumstances exist making it unreasonable for the law enforcement agency to obtain a warrant authorizing use of an unmanned aerial vehicle. It would also allow the use of a drone without a warrant with the written consent of a property owner and for locating missing persons.

Any data collected that is not related to a criminal investigation must be destroyed within 14 days. The law enforcement agency must also ensure information gathered by a drone is strictly safeguarded and not made available or disclosed to the public or any third party.

Under the proposed law, evidence illegally derived by a law enforcement agency from the use of a drone is prohibited from being used as evidence in a criminal prosecution or disclosed in any other judicial proceeding, administrative proceeding, arbitration proceeding, or legislative proceeding, and may not be used to establish reasonable suspicion or probable cause that an offense has been, is being, or is about to be committed.

A similar bill passed in 2016, but Gov. Chris Christie pocket vetoed it.

Impact on the Federal Surveillance State

Although the proposed law would only apply to state and local drone use, it throws a high hurdle in front of some federal programs.

In a nutshell, without state and local cooperation, the feds have a much more difficult time gathering information. This represents a major blow to the surveillance state and a win for privacy.

WHAT’S NEXT

S577 was referred to the Senate Law and Public Safety Committee. A1463 was referred to the Assembly Homeland Security and State Preparedness Committee. The bills must pass their respective committees by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.

Mike Maharrey
February 12, 2018 at 11:20AM

Tenth Amendment Center: Kentucky House Passes Bill to Put Limits on Drones, Help Thwart Federal Surveillance Program

From Tenth Amendment Center

...from Tenth Amendment Center

FRANKFORT, Ky. (Jan. 18, 2018) – Yesterday, the Kentucky House unanimously passed a bill that would require police to get a warrant before engaging in drone surveillance in most situations. Final passage of this legislation would not only establish important privacy protections at the state level, it would also help thwart the federal surveillance state.

Rep. Diane St. Onge (R-Lakeside Park) and Rep. Reginald Meeks (D-Louisville) introduced House Bill 22 (HB22) on Jan. 2. The legislation would prohibit the use of a drone for a “search” unless authorized under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 10 of the Kentucky Constitution. This would require police to get a warrant before conducting drone surveillance in most situations. In order for the search to be valid, the warrant would have to specifically authorize the use of an unmanned aircraft system.

The proposed law would require police to minimize data collection on non-suspects and would prohibit the disclosure of any such data without a court order.

Any evidence collected in violation of the law would be inadmissible as evidence in any civil, criminal, or administrative proceeding in the state.

HB22 would also prohibit the operation of any drone equipped with a lethal payload.

The House passed HB22 by a 94-0 vote.

A similar bill passed the Kentucky House during the 2017 session, but never made it to the Senate floor for a vote.

Impact on the Federal Surveillance State

Although the proposed law would only apply to state and local drone use, it throws a high hurdle in front of some federal programs.

In a nutshell, without state and local cooperation, the feds have a much more difficult time gathering information. This represents a major blow to the surveillance state and a win for privacy.

WHAT’S NEXT

HB22 will now move to the Senate for further consideration. Last year, the House passed a similar bill, but the session ended before it came up for a vote in the Senate.

Mike Maharrey
January 18, 2018 at 03:28PM

Tenth Amendment Center: Virginia Bill Would Restrict Police Access to Cellphone Location Data, Help Thwart Federal Surveillance Program

From Tenth Amendment Center

...from Tenth Amendment Center

RICHMOND, Va. (Jan. 17, 2018) – A Virginia bill would end warrantless collection of a person’s historical location data. The legislation would not only increase privacy protections in the state, it would also hinder some federal surveillance programs.

Del. Betsy Carr (D-Richmond) introduced House Bill 604 (HB604) on Jan. 8. The legislation would prohibit a provider of electronic communication services or remote computing services from disclosing location data to an investigative or law-enforcement officer except pursuant to a search warrant.

HB604 builds on a foundation created by the passage of earlier surveillance legislation. Currently, a warrant is required for the disclosure of real-time location data only. HB604 would expand the law to cover historical location data.

IMPACT ON FEDERAL PROGRAMS

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 (ISE).

In other words, ISE serves as a conduit for the sharing of information gathered without a warrant.

In a nutshell, the federal government encourages and funds surveillance networks 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 surveillance, state and local governments limit the data available that the feds can access.

Passage of HB604 would limit the amount of location data Virginia law enforcement agencies can gather. If state agencies don’t have access to the data, they can’t share them with federal databases.

WHAT’S NEXT

HB604 was referred to Referred to Committee for Courts of Justice where it must pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process.

Mike Maharrey
January 17, 2018 at 11:33AM