The Minneapolis Police Department is developing a plan to add unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), or drones, to its law enforcement strategy.
Police and some proponents of the new equipment say it’ll help MPD bolster its law enforcement capabilities as the department tries to deal with a sustained crime wave amid staffing shortages.
“We’re not going to see the numbers (of officers) we used to see,” said Cedric Alexander, the commissioner of the new Minneapolis Office of Community Safety, on a Humphrey School of Public Affairs panel last month, suggesting the department needs to find other ways to police the city.
But many residents are concerned about the equipment’s potential for abuse – such as their use for surveillance and violation of privacy rights that could follow – and whether a department seen by many as unaccountable should have access to that type of technology.
Drone uses
In a presentation to Minneapolis City Council public health and safety committee members late last month, MPD Commander Jonathon Kingsbury said the department plans to use drones to “enhance response to public safety emergencies and needs.” That includes crime scene and accident reconstruction, search and rescue, and other active emergency situations.
As of the end of August, Minneapolis had 604 sworn officers, but that number drops to 571 when you subtract 33 officers on a continuous leave of 78 hours (roughly two weeks) or more, according to data from the city.
Amid staffing issues, using drones, “we can cover a lot of area quickly in search of a lost child, vulnerable adult or even a suspect much more so than officers on foot or in squad cars,” Kingsbury said.
He said the UAVs can be sent into places officers can’t normally reach, like the tops of some buildings, as well as situations that could put an officer’s life in danger. A drone can much more quickly help police determine the size and scope of a natural disaster like a flash flood, for example.
A 2020 law requires all law enforcement agencies statewide to report when they deployed drones without a search warrant, the reason for deploying the equipment, how many times and how much it cost.
Minnesota law enforcement agencies used drones without a search warrant more than 2,200 times in 2021, according to a legislative report by the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension from earlier this summer that looked at drone usage by public safety agencies statewide. That number was up more than 93% compared to 2020.
Despite justification for the equipment being for use in emergency situations, nearly half of those uses (1,042) were “over a public area for officer training or public relations purposes.” UAVs were used “during or in the aftermath of an emergency situation that involves the risk of death or bodily harm to a person” about 23% of the time (512).
Kingsbury emphasized that the program wouldn’t be used for random or continuous surveillance of an individual or group. Any targeted surveillance would require a search warrant signed by a judge.
The proposed policy would ban MPD from using the drones to harass or intimidate, collect data on protests and demonstrations or for random surveillance of residents who aren’t involved in a criminal investigation. It would also prevent the department from equipping the drones with weapons (lethal and less-lethal) or facial recognition technology, and from using facial recognition on any footage captured by a drone.
Kingsbury told council members that the department plans to finalize the policy in the next few weeks before purchasing the equipment in the next month or two. The estimated cost of the drones — which will come out of the MPD general fund — will be between $30,000 and $40,000, he said, though it was unclear how many individual devices that amount would pay for.
Between six and 10 officers within the department will take part in training to receive a pilot’s license to operate the drones, and only “the commander of special operations, or the deputy chief, or above” will be able to authorize their use, Kingsbury said.
[image_credit]REUTERS/Carlo Allegri[/image_credit][image_caption]A 2020 law requires all law enforcement agencies statewide to report when they deployed drones without a search warrant, the reason for deploying the equipment, how many times and how much it cost.[/image_caption]Community concerns
Council members heard testimony from nearly two dozen Minneapolis residents during a public comment session on the drones.
Proponents of the department’s use of the drones argued they could limit the potential for interactions between police and civilians that could turn ugly. For example, some drones have speakers that police could use to communicate with people in distress while keeping their distance.
The equipment could also be used to bolster the department’s response to crime as it continues to struggle with staffing shortages.
Joe Tamburino, a criminal defense attorney who lives downtown, said the drones could help reinforce police response to increased criminal activity citywide. He cited July 4, when police were stretched thin struggling to handle multiple incidents happening downtown that included shootings and people throwing fireworks in people’s apartments.
“Sometimes police can’t get to a situation in an emergency as fast as a drone can,” he told council members. “Now if there was a drone that was able to do that, it could’ve done surveillance. It could’ve seen what vehicles are being used. It could get license plates and we could’ve known what was happening.”
Despite some support, the response to the proposed policy was overwhelmingly negative.
Residents expressed concerns about the potential for privacy and civil rights violations, and worried the proposed policy was too vague, allowing officers to exploit loopholes and use the technology in more situations than outlined.
Others cited a report from the Minnesota Department of Human Rights earlier this year that found the department had engaged in a pattern or practice of racial discrimination in its policing over a decade. The report describes police allegedly using covert social media accounts to surveil Black activists, organizations and elected officials.
Many expressed doubt that the department would hold itself accountable should they violate the proposed policy, and therefore shouldn’t have access to the equipment funded by taxpayers.
“The last thing we need is to exacerbate the already strained relations between MPD and the citizens of Minneapolis by introducing technology that carries vast potential for abuse, with little to no real meaningful public input or oversight,” Mill District resident Susan Van Pelt told council members.
Larger concerns
MPD hasn’t yet acquired the equipment, but Munira Mohamed of Safety Not Surveillance, a coalition of a dozen Twin Cities groups, said in an interview that the use of surveillance cameras or drones as a solution for staffing issues poses the danger that law enforcement agencies may turn to these options more often going forward.
Mohamed said the stakes are too high for institutions that deal with crime and civil liberties to rely on technology in many situations. Facial recognition algorithms tend to be rife with racial bias, and law enforcement’s use of that technology could worsen racial discrimination in policing, she said.
“You have all of this new technology and new algorithms and new ways of surveilling people and tracking people’s data, but you need some kind of human controls, you need some kind of human element that’s able to make the decision that we want to protect people’s civil rights,” she said. “A computer shouldn’t be making any kind of decision when it comes to life and death circumstances like the criminal justice system or in law enforcement.”
Well, the city has to come up with some kind of real plan to eliminate this runaway gun violence besides having block parties. Like thugs, gangbangers and criminals really care about those things or communities that hold them. I have a surprise for you.They don’t.
What would you rather have: High speed police chases thru the city, or a drone following a suspected vehicle? Or using the State Police Helicopter, which costs 100x as much to operate compared to a drone.
Or, maybe Mpls doesn’t want any police at all and just let all the carjackers run rampant.
I would rather the state patrol use drones to replace that helicopter. Its patrol route passes right over our house, which noticeably increases the stress level in our otherwise placid neighborhood. I’m not a fan of police drones, (or of the MPD,) but drones do have some obvious logical uses.
Police exist to prevent crime, catch criminals and save lives. Will drones help them to accomplish this? Yes.
Example. Carjackers fleeing the crime scene or other criminals trying to evade arrest, With a drone you can follow them without need for a risky police chase. You can see where they are going and block their path. Earlier apprehension puts them in jail not able to continue to offend.
We need to make it far harder for criminals to escape capture and prevent situations where they pressure others to hide them. If community leaders have other solutions for lowering crime rates in their community, let’s hear them. No other advanced society has the issues with violent crime that we do.
Police officers enforce the law, they do not prevent crime. Strong public education, clean water (no dissolved lead) and abundant employment opportunities are the most effective crime prevention.
Your article does not support your argument
“Bottom line, the picture the economists’ data sketches out is complicated. On the one hand, Black communities generally appear to benefit from larger police departments when it comes to lowering the homicide rate and the rate of other serious crimes. But their data also shows these findings don’t seem true for cities with the largest Black populations. And throughout the country, they find significant racial disparities in low-level arrests, with lots of Black people getting prosecuted for low-level crimes, resulting in many lives damaged without necessarily improving public safety.”
Maybe you didn’t read the article. The connection isn’t simple, clear, or without other negative effects that are connected to long-term issues.
“…also find adding more police officers to a city means more people getting arrested for petty, low-level, victimless crimes, like disorderly conduct, drinking in public, drug possession, and loitering. Black people are disproportionately the target of these low-level arrests, saddling them with crippling court fees and forcing many kids — sometimes unnecessarily — into the criminal justice system.” Unjust policing creates significant long-term issues that make policing more difficult, push communities to solve things in their own ways, and reduce individual and neighborhood economic opportunities.
“The economists also find troubling evidence that suggests cities with the largest populations of Black people — like many of those in the South and Midwest — don’t see the same policing benefits as the average cities in their study. Adding additional police officers in these cities doesn’t seem to lower the homicide rate. Meanwhile, more police officers in these cities seems to result in even more arrests of Black people for low-level crimes. The authors believe it supports a narrative that “Black communities are simultaneously over and under-policed.” The economists don’t have a solid explanation for why bigger police forces appear to lead to worse outcomes in these cities, and they plan to investigate these findings more deeply in future research.”
But maybe the most important quote for any attempt to use this research to defend a simplistic point of view is this. “Whether you’re an activist who’s been shouting “defund the police” in the streets, or a conservative who flies a “thin blue line” flag in front of your house, if you’re looking for someone to rile you up with a megaphone, Williams is not your guy.”
Cherry-picking elements out of context like you have indicates you aren’t really interested in making things better. You are interested in defending your preconceived beliefs even if they are incorrect.
“The idea that police do not prevent crime is completely false.” That is overly simplistic and not helpful. To say it is completely false is to say that adding police always prevents crime. Something that is clearly not true based on the article you posted as well as many other studies. You can’t claim to be trying to be part of a rational, balanced discussion while at the same time posting things like you did. Including the suggestion that anything contained within any proposal that you associate with “defund the police” is incorrect.
It also doesn’t address whether adding police is the most effective way to prevent crime. The most effective crime reduction action in the last century was removing lead from gasoline. That didn’t require adding any police at all. Address the root cause or hire more people to deal with the problems caused by not addressing the root cause.
Absolutely …. use the drones. We have become a society that wants protection and perfection from our police officers and then complain when everyone does not get protection and perfection because of the overwhelming number of criminals and predators (and all the rights they have) in our society. Along with protection and perfection and near perfect personal accountability from authorities and lower taxes and positive policing and lots of personal and civil rights … and …. and, but too many are not willing to ‘pay a price’ to achieve all that society wants. I have no problems, as I follow the laws, of allowing officers to use advanced technology to reduce crime and save lives and regain control of the inner city streets. Our leaders are supposed to create improvements, but too many aren’t willing to ‘pay the price’ … the improvements are just supposed to magically appear, apparently.
Whatever you think about MPD, and their behavior, including Drones, your best option is to provide input on policy, and conduct review.
There will be drones, mostly likely some will be used by MPD.
I suspect that the use of the drones can be monitored for flight time, and the video can be time stamped; their use, as was stated will be controlled by a chain of command.
Will they be abused. Not if they are properly monitored. Their application and benefit will be considerably more than was implied here.
I have very mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I can see where it would totally make sense in certain emergency situations and be very useful for an already strained police department. On the other hand, the potential and temptation for abuse is undoubtedly quite high and very frightening.
We’re already being surveilled and filmed by Ring doorbells, dashcams, security cameras and cell phones everywhere we go these days. “Privacy” is a thing of the past, and we can’t pretend these technologies aren’t already sometimes being used for nefarious purposes. I guess we need to ensure our policies (and the genuine enforcement of them) keep up with the changing technological landscape?
PSS: This looks like the same activists that demanded police where body cameras, and now when the MPD want cameras in the air, all at once they are worried about privacy, but they weren’t when they demanded police wear body cameras, Someone explain the difference other than the view can be better, safer faster and more efficient up there. Looks like nothing more than do what you can to hobble the MPD in addressing the crime issue. And they appear to have a City Council that believes and supports that hypocracy.
No one was ignoring privacy issues with respect to the wearing of body cameras. There are policies around the use of body cameras meant to protect the privacy of those who may be filmed. Those discussions, concerns, and policies date all the way back to the initial contemplation of body camera use.
And sounds like the same policy can’t be applied to drone footage? And what privacy are folks worried about? You are filmed at target, walking down the side walk by folks ring cameras, at most any major retailer, parking lots at Menards, where you work, etc. etc. etc. (cheaper than security that can only be in 1 place at a time). Sorry, just sounds like a bunch of BS to keep de-funding/de-fanging the police, and giving the crime wave more juice!
Body cameras record police interactions to help determine what actually happened. Primarily because there is a long history that it is not at all uncommon for officers to falsify reports and testimony.
Drones are tools controlled by officers that have the potential to gain access to areas that they otherwise would not be legally allowed to enter. That doesn’t mean there isn’t a way to ensure they are used properly; the same thing with facial recognition. But understanding the limitations and making those clear so that authorities can be held accountable when they are misused is a critical piece of making them work.
My initial reaction to this proposal is mixed. It’s a quick fix to too few cops on the streets of Minneapolis. So, the implementation of drones in our city neighborhoods must be mixed with stiff oversight and accountability provisions. It’s not too much of a stretch to make the connection between George Floyd’s murderer’s conviction and the sudden departure of hundreds of street cops to disability or retirement…accountability? Oh my, no! That’s just a place to which we simply cannot go, and haven’t been able to for several decades given the power of the Federation. So the new Commissioner has showed us a way forward; now he must follow that up with appropriate accountability measures within the rank and file cops on the beat.
Talk to cops about why the left. To file for PTSD you need to have medical verification. Drones can also help with mental health situations to better determine what is going on-if they have a weapon, where is the person situated, etc..
The federation has changed hands and there have also been some policy and state law changes. Drones have video that can be reviewed. They actually outlined measures to ensure how to limit abuse of the drones. It is in the presentation to the city council.
50 or more shots are being fired now with new cheap technology. This was reported on WCCO or Kare. If more people saw this report they would be more likely to change their views.
It’s the cops’ way of saying they can’t go into neighborhoods anymore. It presents the view that our communities are not a place where our police sereve, they are a territory which they occupy. Maybe this is the best we can do right now, but this kind of thing does nothing to solve the fundamental problems of city policing. Less than nothing.
Can you imagine all the idiots that will try to shoot them down?
It seems we often read about dozens or hundreds of shots fired and the resulting victims. The imbeciles who will try to shoot down the drones are much more likely to hit other citizens if the past is any predictor of the future.
What? Right …. duck hunters and pheasant hunters shoot a lot of other people as they are shooting at their pheasants or ducks. You do realize that drones are up in the air … how many people are up there?
Not a lot of duck hunting amongst the high rise buildings in Minneapolis
Police officers carry guns. Accountability is necessary for the department because of the nature of the job. I don’t see any reasons to not let them use drones based on accountability concerns. They’re separate issues to resolve. If we don’t trust the department to use a drone responsibly then we definitely shouldn’t let them use guns unsupervised. Drones are becoming another tool used by officers just like squad cars, police radios, body cameras and thermal imaging.
Guess some folks think, it sure would have been better to have fewer surveillance cameras and less face recognition at the Jan 6 insurrection! Sure wouldn’t want to violate those insurgents privacy rights to storm the capital and overturn our democracy.
Guess some folks think, it sure would be nice to ensure a free society by eliminating any suggestion that citizens have a right to privacy (even in medical topics) and the creation of a full, largely automated, surveillance system so that wherever anyone goes in public, we can record their whereabouts.
Anyone who thinks that is freedom has a perverted understanding of the term. Maybe if we allow unfettered use of drones by police forces they can start by having them follow anyone who suggests that violence is a legitimate method of political discourse, like the Oathkeepers, or is working to undermine democratic systems by furthering easily refuted anti-election propaganda.
I mean nobody that cares about the rule of law would pretend to care about common crimes while ignoring attacks on the very foundations on which those laws are built? They would have to be a fool or anti-American. Most likely both.
Whats the difference between the storming of the capital and street crime? Both illegal activities, thanks for the try at arm chair quarterbacking the day after with 20/20 hindsight. You ought to get out a little, you will find many, democratic and industrialized, countries in the world have a lot of camera’s, and they are safer than here in the USA. Why don’t you object to all those airport cameras, how about the ones at Hennepin county, and the ones in parking lots, what about the traffic camera’s those got to really be bad, how about those ring camera’s, I Phone camera’s, or is it just the ones that the MPD might use to catch bad guys?
The idea that crime rates in other countries are different due to camera use isn’t supported by any information at hand so that argument can be dismissed at this time. I am also assuming you aren’t trying to claim that car-jacking is a crime similar to insurrection. Just that they don’t have any different impact on how cameras are used. If that is the case, I don’t disagree.
The difference between various cameras is rooted in the fourth amendment. Cameras in public areas are not inherently problematic because there isn’t any expectation of privacy. However, drones have the ability to easily be abused because they can easily enter spaces where there is an expectation of privacy. Cameras are a technological extension of vision, but that technology doesn’t extend the purview of where law enforcement can look. Just like if the police hired a hacker who would hack your phone’s camera the fact that it is technologically possible doesn’t mean law enforcement should be allowed to do it.
Add to this larger picture the fact that the Minneapolis police force has acted in such deplorable ways over its recent history means the public is justified in not simply trusting them to do the right thing. They haven’t shown themselves to be trustworthy. Just like how the unfettered militarization of the police force has been a disaster we should be wary of the consequences here as well.
Last comment moderated out?
“The idea that crime rates in other countries are different due to camera use isn’t supported by any information at hand so that argument can be dismissed at this time.” Singapore for 1 disagrees with you!
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/singapore-double-police-cameras-more-than-200000-over-next-decade-2021-08-04/
“They haven’t shown themselves to be trustworthy.” Looks pretty prejudicial from this perspective, entire MPD guilty by association, not a good person in the lot.
The fact that Singapore is adding them is not actual evidence of their efficacy. That should be obvious. I also never said there was”not a good person in the lot” and suggesting I did is completely dishonest and clearly in bad faith. I said the MPD has shown it can’t be trusted and MPD is an organization. So unless you are saying that the bad behavior of the organization should be attributed to each member personally your point is, well, pointless.
The MPD has shown zero interest in holding itself accountable at any level. They have, in fact, worked diligently in avoiding accountability and actively worked to defend every bit of terrible behavior by any and all of its members. Remember, the second part of the saying about bad apples is that they ruin the whole barrel. A police force that works to be above the law isn’t fit to defend it. People defending or strengthening the current system aren’t interested in creating an effective police force because without accountability cops aren’t there to defend civil society. They are an occupying force beholden only to themselves.
Well, If you knew Singaporeans, which is quite evident you are not global, than you would know they don’t spend a nickle without expecting to get at least a quarter in return! “The MPD has shown zero interest in holding itself accountable at any level” Lets just call this 100% make yourself feel good, BS and move on. Yeah, just keep up with the bad mouthing while they keep knocking 60-70-80 + off every year in the streets not to mention the other escalating crime.
Just curious who the “H” are you trying to save by getting rid of the police? It sure isn’t the AA folks here in the city.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/25/us/minneapolis-crime-defund-invs/index.html
Quite the series of strawmen you set up there. Again, anecdotal stories are not actual evidence of efficacy no matter how many times you repeat it. I also never asked to eliminate law enforcement, just that it should be accountable. Your consistent bad-faith arguments showcase the weakness of your thinking and nothing more.
High-quality, accountable law enforcement is what I am asking for. You seem to be happy with law enforcement that is happy to defend any level of criminal behavior as long as the criminals have a badge. Defending bad cops and a system that defends them does nothing to reduce crime. It actually encourages it by distancing law enforcement from the public they are supposed to be serving. But people like you who are happy to defend the “thin blue line” mentality BS no matter how terrible their behavior make that goal nearly impossible to achieve.
If you don’t break the law, you should have no concerns about drones. Pure and simple.
My concern is not my behavior; it is that there need to be controls that prevent misuse by MPD. We know that some cops abuse their authority. How do we prevent abuse of drones to, say, stalk or harrass an ex? MPD has squandered the trust of citizens. They need to restore that before asking for new tools that are ripe for abuse.
Yes, let the police use drones for all the obvious reasons stated in various letters above. And let us continue to demand accountability from the police.
Let’s also get cameras on to catch drivers hurtling through the intersection long after the light changed to red. That plan was rejected some years ago based on personal rights or some such, but my personal rights are mightily challenged when the light turns green and I have to wait a few moments until I’m sure the intersection is actually clear.
“The proposed policy would ban MPD from using the drones to harass or intimidate, collect data on protests and demonstrations or for random surveillance of residents who aren’t involved in a criminal investigation.”
So yeah drones *can* be used for a lot of great things, but will *this* department use them that way? Who will bet me that within two years of deploying these things, MPD is caught red-handed harassing peaceful demonstrators and residents who aren’t involved in a criminal investigation. They have no meaningful independent oversight and nothing significant about that has changed since George Floyd’s murder.