Gov. Mike DeWine has signed a new statewide drone law that spells out how Ohio police can use unmanned aircraft, when they need a judge’s permission, and what the public is allowed to see. The measure bans lethal weapons on law-enforcement drones, treats most drone video and flight logs as public records and, supporters say, updates old rules for new technology. Civil-liberties advocates counter that it could turbocharge warrantless surveillance. The statute takes effect 90 days after DeWine’s signature.
What the bill does
The law requires police to get a search warrant before using a drone to enter or look into the interior of a home, business or other location in situations where an in-person search would otherwise need one, and it says surveillance gathered in those warrant-required circumstances is generally inadmissible in court if officers skipped the warrant, according to the Ohio Legislature. It also directs agencies to document and retain flight and surveillance data, treating most of that material as public records unless an existing exemption applies.
When police can fly without a warrant
The statute spells out a long list of situations where officers can fly drones without a warrant, including patrols within 50 miles of a national border, emergencies or other exigent circumstances, responses to environmental or weather disasters, photography of crime scenes and traffic crashes, and physically nonintrusive flights in navigable airspace to see what is visible to the naked eye, according to Cleveland.com. Police can also use drones for pre-event threat assessments at large public gatherings. The law bars law-enforcement agencies from using drones equipped with lethal weapons and restricts public entities from buying systems made or assembled by specified foreign adversaries, while giving agencies several years to swap out any restricted equipment.
Supporters and critics
Backers say the measure finally fills a gap in Ohio law and offers clear rules for fast-changing technology. Opponents argue the exceptions are so broad that the warrant rule could become the rare exception. “In many ways, it is a blank check for law enforcement and government to continue warrantless surveillance limited only by their financial resources,” ACLU of Ohio legislative director Gary Daniels said, as reported by Cleveland.com.
Legislative backing
The bill won bipartisan support in the General Assembly, and sponsor Rep. Bernard Willis called it a “thoughtful and collaborative effort” aimed at modernizing oversight and preparing Ohio for new air-mobility infrastructure, according to WOSU. That cross-party backing helped send the proposal to the governor’s desk.
Legal implications
Because the law draws a line between interior searches that need a warrant and a detailed list of warrantless exceptions, courts are almost certain to be asked to decide where that boundary really sits. Judges may have to sort out questions such as whether a particular flight was truly physically nonintrusive or whether a recorded image must be released under Ohio’s public-records law. The statute itself says that surveillance data gathered in situations that would otherwise require a warrant is not admissible if officers did not obtain one, while still allowing admission of evidence gathered under the enumerated exceptions, per the Ohio Legislature, setting up potential Fourth Amendment and public-records court fights.
Local police agencies will now have to update policies, training, and record-retention practices to match the new rules, and residents and journalists can expect more public-records requests for drone video and flight logs as departments adjust. Observers say how agencies actually implement the law, and how courts interpret its carve-outs, will ultimately decide whether the drone statute delivers the balance its sponsors promised.
