Constitutional Issues in Using Drones in Policing - CANCELLED

• In Event: Technological Advancements and Intelligence in Modern-Day Policing

Abstract

The use of drones in policing presents significant constitutional concerns, particularly under the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments. The First Amendment protects freedoms of speech and assembly, which may be chilled by pervasive drone surveillance. Protesters and journalists could be deterred from exercising their rights if they fear government monitoring, raising concerns about potential viewpoint discrimination and overreach.

The Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures is central to the debate on drone surveillance. Traditional legal frameworks require warrants for searches that violate a reasonable expectation of privacy. However, drones can conduct persistent aerial surveillance without physical intrusion, creating uncertainty about when a warrant is necessary. Supreme Court rulings such as Katz v. United States and Carpenter v. United States suggest that prolonged drone surveillance may require judicial oversight, but legal standards remain unclear.

The Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause is implicated when drones contribute to disproportionate surveillance or biased law enforcement actions. If drone surveillance leads to discriminatory targeting or coercive evidence collection, it could violate procedural due process.

As drone technology advances, courts and lawmakers must address these constitutional concerns to balance public safety with civil liberties and privacy rights.

Author

• Joseph A. Sorgini, Immaculata University