Law Enforcement Drones Analysis

Prominent author and drone researcher Michael Smith outlines the best pathway to creating law enforcement drone use regulation, describing that “While it may be difficult for governments to adapt to changing technology, the courts have less flexibility and fewer resources to adequately regulate government drone use—which leaves state legislatures as the best avenue for addressing the issue” (Smith 424). This quote means that while all three branches of government sometimes struggle to keep up with rapid technology changes in the world today, the courts have the least ability to effectively regulate domestic drone use due to their rigid structure, overspent resources and the extensive amount of time it takes for substantive change to occur. This relates to my text as it will

Explaining why, Brumfield writes “First, LEAs will inevitably use armed drones due to the reduced costs and increased officer safety associated with operating a drone. Second, as LEA’s interest in armed drones grows, concern among civil rights groups about the domestic use of armed drones increases” (Brumfield 46). This quote references three major areas for my paper. By ‘reduced costs’ the author means that purchasing and maintaining drone technology for use in the field is cheaper than properly outfitting and paying an actual officer to accomplish the same task. This ties into the ‘increased officer safety’ which means that the use of unmanned aerial vehicles, drones, eliminates the need in certain situations for police officers to go into harm’s way. Finally the ‘concern among civil rights groups’ refers to the abundance of 4th amendment concerns the domestic use of drones creates. This relates to my text as it presents two major arguments in support of the domestic use of drone technology by law enforcement, reduced costs and increased officer