|
 The measure, which passed the state's Senate and Assembly with
broad support, would have required law enforcement agencies to
obtain a warrant before using an unmanned aircraft, or drone, except
in emergencies such as a fire or a hostage-taking.
"There are undoubtedly circumstances where a warrant is appropriate.
The bill's exceptions, however, appear to be too narrow," Brown said
in his veto message.
Brown said the bill could have imposed standards on law enforcement
beyond what is required by both the U.S. and California
Constitutions.
Under the measure, other public agencies would have been allowed to
use drones, or contract for their use, to achieve their "core
mission,' so long as that mission was not to gather criminal
intelligence.
The law would have also required that data, video or photos
collected from the drones be destroyed by public agencies within a
year, except in certain cases.
Supporters of the bill said it would protect civil and privacy
rights of state residents and prevent warrantless surveillance.
"The era of govt. surveillance continues," the bill's author,
Republican Assemblyman Jeff Gorell, tweeted on Sunday evening. He
expressed disappointment over the veto.
The measure faced opposition from law enforcement groups, including
the state's police chiefs and sheriff's associations, as well as the
Los Angeles District Attorney.
[to top of second column] |
Idaho and Virginia have also passed laws restricting uses of
pilotless aircraft because of privacy concerns. The Federal
Aviation Administration, under growing pressure to set rules that
would permit broader drone use, on Thursday loosened restrictions by
granting six television and movie production companies permission to
use the aircraft to shoot scenes on closed sets.
(Reporting by Curtis Skinner in San Francisco; Editing by Mary
Wisniewski and Paul Tait)
[© 2014 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2014 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
 |
