Health & Fitness
Sheriff's Drone Desire Slipping Past City Leaders
Seems Alameda County city leaders were unaware they had been "sold" on Sheriff Ahern's desire for a drone.
Residents of Alameda County, rest assured, you have been sold on Sheriff Gregory Ahern’s desire for a drone…according to Sheriff Ahern.
(via interview with KQED’s Stephanie Martin ) “I have sold it to the community. Everyone I’ve talked to except the ACLU is in favor, 100 percent in favor.”
“We have not had the conversation at the city level yet”. That’s just one of many Alameda County city leaders who hadn't even heard about Sheriff Ahern’s desire for a drone (save for a few who “read about it in the papers”).
Find out what's happening in Alamedafor free with the latest updates from Patch.
Turns out if you like city leaders who favor privacy and civil liberties & may even take the time to fight for them on your behalf …you might be better off in Newark, Emeryville, or Berkeley. Especially Berkeley (They have a joint subcommittee on drones made up of members of the “Peace and Justice Commission” and “Police Review Commission”). The rest have very few thoughts on the drones. Over in Livermore:
“On the City Council level it has not been researched or discussed or direction given to staff.”
Find out what's happening in Alamedafor free with the latest updates from Patch.
The sheriff has been working towards a drone purchase since some time before this Homeland Security grant request was submitted in July of 2012 (obtained via joint MuckRock/EFF FOIA request). The request cites many search and rescue uses and he favors citing these in the public forum. One thing he also favors since coming up against resistance on the privacy/civil liberties front from organizations like the ACLU, EFF & Alameda County Against Drones, is downplay what they cite as the most troubling use…surveillance. From the Sheriff department request for a drone (they insist on calling it ‘UAS’ – Unmanned Aerial System) :
“A UAS would be valuable to assist with barricaded suspects, surveillance (investigative and tactical), perimeters, intelligence gathering, rough terrain, suspicious persons, large crowd control disturbances, etc.”
“Alameda County Against Drones“ (or ACAD), a coalition which “opposes the use of law enforcement and corporate drones” states that “drones present too much potential for abuse, since they are small, relatively inexpensive, and have powerful surveillance capabilities...We believe that such capabilities would inevitably be abused to spy on political dissidents, people of color, or other marginalized groups.”
“I don’t want to lock myself into just felonies”. During a February 14th Alameda County Public Safety Committee hearing on drones (featuring the Sheriff, the ACLU, ACAD…and apparently ZERO ALCO city leaders), the Sheriff backtracked from a statement he had just made saying he’d only use the drone for surveillance in felony cases.
“The ACLU hopes he will adopt a policy that does not contain loopholes that would permit the drone to be used for warrant-less surveillance. The ACLU also does not believe that the county should acquire a drone unless and until enforceable, meaningful safeguards are in place. Even if the policy were perfect, it could be unilaterally amended by the Sheriff in the future; that does not provide sufficient safeguards.” Linda Lye from ACLU of Northern California, who has been working with the Sheriffs department on revising their drone policy.
There were no votes on the agenda for the hearing on 2/14, which begged the question…why are we here? Turns out it was to learn that the Alameda County Board of Supervisors have only the authority to object to the Sheriff’s purchase of a drone on a budgetary level, according to Alameda County Counsel Donna Ziegler:
“Your board is not allowed to exercise that supervisory authority in a way that would interfere or obstruct the sheriffs ability to make law enforcement decisions.” But even though the board can object on a budgetary level, there are some restrictions: “If the budget authority is used in a way that is not truly a budget concern but in fact encroaches on the ability of the sheriff to make law enforcement decisions and exercise law enforcement authority, the courts will invalidate the actions of a board of supervisors.” (VIDEO of full statement here)
So if the Board of Supervisors can’t tell the Sheriff how to Sheriff… Who CAN limit/restrict the sheriffs use of a drone over the cities of Alameda County?
“The state legislature could pass a statute (two bills have already been introduced) and congress could pass legislation (reps Lofgren and Poe have introduced a bill)." Bill co-author Zoe Lofgren represents nearby San Jose, CA: "The expanded use of drones on U.S. soil raises serious Constitutional and civil liberties issues that Congress needs to address."
Seems fitting that the public and city leaders have input on the matter, since it’s their heads the drone could be flying over, collecting "data". Any policy may be purely symbolic (as would be the case with Berkeley’s proposed ‘no drone zone’), but public outcry can certainly help influence matters. Very recently SFPD Chief Greg Surh scuttled a plan for some officers to carry tasers due to push-back from the community.
Oakland city leaders seem to only address issues brought before them in the form of policy. From the office of Council member at-large, Rebeccah Kaplan:
“No proposal has come to the city for consideration at this point. As such, we’re not able to comment…we don’t comment on proposals before we receive them.”
Oakland Public Safety Committee member, Lynette McElhaney: “This matter has not yet come before the Public Safety Committee as of yet.”
No response from Noel Gallo, Oakland City Council member and head of said committee.
No other city in Alameda County has come anywhere near matching Berkeley’s work on drone policy which “predates the sheriffs desire for a drone” states Bob Meola of the Peace and Justice Commission, but there are some thoughts stirring:
Alan Nagy – Mayor of Newark: “My initial reaction is that the use of drones is fraught with a host of privacy and other issues that have yet to be addressed.”
Kurt Brinkman – Mayor of Emeryville: “I would support the use of drones only after a full and complete understanding of when the drones could or would be used…I am quite concerned with the purchase of any drone without a public conversation about the use of the said drone.”
Far from sold, Sheriff.
It’s pretty clear the concerned public will need to make first contact with their city leaders on the matter of the Sheriffs desire for a drone. After all, one mayor didn't have time to read the materials I sent, but did have the time to go into detail how being mayor was only a part-time job.
------------------------------------
