Drones are a modern police technology frequently used and relied upon to tackle a range of law enforcement tasks. A wide range of missions are levied by police on these intriguing aerial systems, which operate with varying degrees of autonomy. However, like most modern dual-use technologies, drones come with both positives and negatives, including an ample dose of ambiguity and latent controversy. Drones clearly illustrate that, for every presumptive advantage of a specific technology, there is a reciprocal drawback. Far cheaper than using a manned helicopter, safer than chasing armed suspects, and more clandestine in standoff surveillance than a stakeout, drones offer many benefits to police. However, the technology’s critics, detractors, and foes are stridently against the continued use of drones in policing. Over the last 10 years, drones have become both vital and integral to many police departments while aggravating civil libertarians and privacy advocates. The struggle to define, characterize, govern, and operate drones as a steadily maturing technology remains bogged down in the traditional gap between rapidly acquired technology upgrades and society’s often lackluster and cumbersome efforts to guide, curb, or regulate them. As such, police departments are caught in the middle, and legal foundations for operational clarity are vague. Given the prevalent use of drones in the Russia-Ukraine war and the several years of solid experience using drones to augment police work, their unique capabilities cannot be dismissed.

Employed for traffic enforcement, crime scene investigation, site surveillance, HAZMAT oversight, search and rescue (SAR) operations, and hostage incidents, drones have maximized and leveraged limited police resources to establish significant gains for police work. However, for every operational asset drones provide, they also come with an array of cautions rooted in concerns about privacy issues and Fourth Amendment objections. A 2020 university report noted the issue among Texas law enforcement agencies and included these recommendations: police should use drones to surveil only scientifically selected crime prone areas; targeted individuals should not be surveilled on public or private property absent a warrant; arming drones is acceptable, but only for the purposes of combating other armed drones; any data collected by drones should be deleted within 60 days unless it is linked to a specific criminal investigation; and police-operated drones should be marked with the same color scheme, lights, and markings found on other police vehicles. It is fair to ask whether these ideas enhance or erode law enforcement operations involving drones.