Drones Are Changing Law Enforcement—For Better and Worse

A man was spotted holding what appeared to be a gun in Chula Vista. Officers could have rushed in, weapons drawn. But instead, a drone arrived first—and quickly revealed the “gun” was nothing more than a cigarette lighter.

It is the kind of scenario where drones can be a game-changer for public safety.

That’s where my conversation with Inside the Issues host Alex Cohen began.

The Evolution of Police Drone Use

For years, FAA rules limited how law enforcement could use drones. Initially, officers treated them like remote-controlled aircraft—something they pulled out of the trunk to peek over a fence. But recent changes allow drones to operate miles away from officers, completely transforming their role.

Now, police can send drones ahead of them to 911 calls, allowing them to assess situations before arriving on the scene. It’s a shift that provides real safety benefits—reducing the likelihood of tragic misidentifications and use-of-force incidents.

The Chula Vista Model

Chula Vista became one of the first U.S. cities to get FAA approval for drone-based surveillance, setting the standard for other departments. I first met their team in 2015, when they were already thinking ahead. They built strict policies to ensure transparency, avoiding the kind of backlash that derailed similar programs elsewhere.

Other cities—like Santa Monica—followed suit, using drones for tasks like managing post-event traffic flows. These measured, accountable implementations helped ease public concerns about the “big brother” implications of persistent surveillance.

A Tool for Safety, Not Surveillance

Drones aren’t just for crime response—they’re a force multiplier for search-and-rescue operations. Instead of sending officers on foot to search for a missing person, drones can cover vast areas in minutes, making a real difference in emergencies.

And when officers do respond to high-risk calls, drones create a crucial buffer. In my Forbes piece over a decade ago, I argued that pulling officers back from immediate danger buys time for better decision-making. In the real world, that can mean the difference between life and death.

Think of cases like Tamir Rice—where a split-second misidentification had fatal consequences. If a drone can confirm that what looks like a weapon is actually a toy or a lighter, we prevent unnecessary tragedies.

The Privacy Problem

Of course, not every use of drones is so clear-cut. The concern comes when they’re deployed for wide-area surveillance.

We’ve already seen the risks. In Baltimore, police flew manned aircraft 24/7, tracking every person’s movements across the city. Drones could easily do the same. When law enforcement can rewind footage to see everywhere someone has been, we’ve crossed a major privacy threshold.

Who Gets to See the Footage?

Another open question: Should drone footage be subject to public records laws?

On one hand, government transparency is critical. But should anyone be able to request and obtain drone footage? If police are flying over someone’s backyard, does that footage become public record?

Right now, courts are sorting it out. But the real answer should come from lawmakers—not judges. States like California need to create clear policies about how drone footage is stored, accessed, and used.

The Bottom Line

Drones are here to stay in law enforcement. When used responsibly, they improve safety and reduce unnecessary police encounters. But without clear guardrails, they could turn into a tool for mass surveillance.

The challenge, as we discuss in the segment, is making sure we get the balance right.