WhenLa Prensapublisher and longtime Chula Vista resident Art Castañares first filed a public records request in 2021 to review video footage from police department drones,he wanted“to see how police use the new drones and whether they may be violating people’s privacy rights as they fly over thousands of homes around the city.”
Chula Vista officials resisted, prompting a lengthy legal fight. This spring, theCalifornia Supreme Court refused to hear the case, essentially affirming an appellate court ruling that the city’s blanket refusal to prevent the public from accessing drone video footage was too broad. A San Diego Superior Court judge had initially sided with Chula Vista before the case was taken to the 4th District Court of Appeal.
The implications of this lawsuit could affect over a dozen California cities that already use or are exploring using drones as first responders.
“Our lawsuit created a statewide legal precedent that improves the public’s access to police records that agencies have tried to shield from disclosure,” Castañares said in an interview.
Castañares isn’t the only one worried. Verónica Marquez, a high-school teacher and 34-year Chula Vista resident, also expressed concerns. In the last six months, drones have passed over her home or within two blocks at least 15 times for various reasons.Calls have rangedfrom “unknown” problems and reports of suspicious vehicles to serious matters, such as “assault with a deadly weapon.”
“I believe the public should have access to video footage,” Marquez told me. “It makes me distrust the police more because if they had nothing to hide, they wouldn’t be preventing access.”
Over a phone call, First Amendment Coalition legal director David Loy put it this way: “Drone footage is no different in public disclosure rules. There is no exception for drones.”
Afriend of the court lettersubmitted jointly by Loy’s organization, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press cautioned that the trial court’s interpretation “would blunt public understanding and oversight of law enforcement’s use of new technologies beyond the drone program at issue in this (records) request.”
Chula Vista, the second largest city in San Diego County, became the first U.S. city to receive Federal Aviation Administration approval to use drones at low altitudes and beyond visual line-of-site into the national airspace. Each month Chula Vista police send out drones to hundreds of 911 calls, and since March 2021, from at least fivelaunch sites, which include a community college and two hospitals.
Like Chula Vista, numerous California cities have contracted withFlying Lion, a private company that specializes in developing programs for first-responder drones, includingRedondo Beach,Irvine,Santa Monica,Beverly Hillsand others. Seemingly every corner of the state has implemented or begun exploring a drone program, spanning fromHemet,Costa Mesa,Orange CountyandFullertontoElk Grove,San RamonandFremont.
The Beverly Hills Police Departmentalready deploystheir drones for hours of surveillance, as part of their “ubiquitous coverage” of city limits. The Los Angeles County Police Chiefs Association has argued for expanded use of surveillance technologies and pairing data collection with drones, “such as public-safety cameras or satellite feeds and (license plate readers) and enhanced by analytical technologies such as facial recognition software or other (artificial intelligence),”CBS 8 reported.
Chula Vista residents lambasted city officials four years ago after theSan Diego Union-Tribune uncoveredhow the police department recklesslyshared license plate data with immigration authorities. Marquez questioned the rationale for expanding data sharing between law enforcement agencies, especially those that enforce immigration laws.
“I understand that each entity has its own tasks to fulfill, so the fact that they share information with each other seems deceptive to me,” she said. “And doesn’t it violate people’s privacy – regardless of their immigration status?”
As a member of Chula Vista’s Technology and Privacy Task Force two years ago, I participated in a briefing with city police where they showcased various tools with surveillance abilities, including their drone program. At the time, a senior officer assured us that the aircraft tilted its camera upward to reduce the chances of inadvertently recording private property on the way to an incident.
But if the first instinct for law enforcement to withhold footage, how can we be sure? Other police agencies could also intentionally integrate drone footage with other surveillance technologies – like the LA County Police Chiefs Association advocates for – without considering parallel policies to ensure transparency and accountability.
So while police departments increase their reliance on drones as a novel force multiplier, is there the same effervescence for protecting privacy and civil rights, especially when private industry is a driving force?
The Chula Vista police officers have become ambassadors for their drone program. In March, Police Chief Roxanne Kennedy was apanelist at the World Police Summitin Dubai, where she promoted the program on a global stage. She also is an advisory board member for the 10th edition of the Commercial UAV Expo, scheduled for later this year in Las Vegas.
The proliferation of drone response programs is big business. Several former Chula Vista police officers who played critical roles developing the city’s program now work in the private sector, helping expand this technology.
Given the forces at work, it’s clear that La Prensa’s lawsuit will have much bigger implications than just the potential disclosure of video footage in Chula Vista. For Castañares, he believes “the impact of our case affects not only police drone videos from Chula Vista, but also from any public agency using unmanned aircraft systems.”
At least in this case, the state Supreme Court correctly determined the law of the land must be more nuanced, with greater room for transparency and accountability so that police departments using drone technology in California don’t hastily circumvent privacy rights in their zeal to expand surveillance.
Pedro Rios is the director of the American Friends Service Committee’s U.S./Mexico Border program and a longtime human rights advocate. His columns have appeared in The San Diego Union-Tribune and Washington Post.
