Rand Paul Introduces Bill to Protect Americans From Unwarranted Use of Domestic Drones

“Like other tools used to collect information in law enforcement, in order to use drones a warrant needs to be issued. Americans going about their everyday lives should not be treated like criminals or terrorists and have their rights infringed upon by military tactics,” said Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) in a statement released today. 

To that effect, Paul has introduced the The Preserving Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act of 2012, which would do the following: 

1.       Prohibits the use of drones by the government except when a warrant is issued for its use in accordance with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment.

2.       Includes the following exceptions:

1)       patrol of national borders;

2)       when law enforcement possesses reasonable suspicion that under particular circumstances, swift drone action is necessary to prevent “imminent danger to life;”

3)       high risk of a terrorist attack

3.       Allows any person to sue the government for violating this Act.

4.       Specifies that no evidence obtained or collected in violation of this Act can be used/admissible as evidence in a criminal, civil, or regulatory action.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • o3||

    execption 2 is big enough to drive a truck bomb thru.

    item 4 is teh stupid.

    DOA

  • jasno||

    Yeah, doesn't

    1) patrol of national borders;


    allow unlimited drone use in the constitution-free zone that most of us live in?

  • ||

    #4 just will let them collect information and 'reverse-engineer' how to get that information "legally"

  • ||

    He would have a much better chance with this if it had a nifty improvised catchy expansive acronym.

  • SIV||

    ^THIS^

    PFUSA? WTF?

  • sarcasmic||

    PuhFooSuh!

  • ||

    Some possibilities:
    The LIBERTY Act
    The SHIELD Act
    The MONACLE Act
    The WORKER B Act (more important than drones)
    There. Go.

  • R C Dean||

    The Domestic Reconnaisance Oversight and Control Enforcement Act

    You're welcome.

  • ||

    DROCEA?

  • juris imprudent||

    Domestic Regulation Of Needless Electronic Surveillance Act.

  • ||

    How about PATRIOT act II?
    Protecting
    Americans
    Totally from
    Really
    Invasive
    Overhaead
    Technology

  • ||

    The Preserving Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act

    Preserving Freedom from USA?

  • Loki||

    +10 internets

  • ||

    I particularly like #4. It's a nice "fuck you".

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    1)patrol of national borders;

    I assume that includes the bullshit 100-miles from a border so we can set up a checkpoint at any place and any time rule?

  • SIV||

    If one of these drones crashes into a little girl we could name the law after her.

  • ||

    Limited thinking. Clearly the propr strategy is to bomb a little girl first, then push for this. Rand has always been a little too jumpy.

  • o3||

    esp if she is kilt at her lemonade stand

  • Auric Demonocles||

    But who is going to introduce a bill to protect commenters from unalt0texted articles?

    ...Or from block happy spam filters?

  • Sharon Stone||

    I suspect strong bi-partisanship will attempt to defeat this bill.

  • ant1sthenes||

    "Specifies that no evidence obtained or collected in violation of this Act can be used/admissible as evidence in a criminal, civil, or regulatory action."

    Can it be used for unilateral executive-ordered assassination?

  • Loki||

    Includes the following exceptions:...

    2) when law enforcement possesses reasonable suspicion that under particular circumstances, swift drone action is necessary to prevent “imminent danger to life;”

    So Law Enforcement will just always claim a "reasonable suspicion that under particular circumstances, swift drone action is necessary to prevent 'imminent danger to life;'"

    I'd like it a lot more if he'd take out this exception, but of course then he'd never be able to get enough votes to pass it.

  • Brett L||

    See parts 3 and 4. No amount of claiming imminent danger to life allows them to introduce as uncontested evidence or be immune from suit or civil action.

  • Dr. Frankenstein||

    It's definitely a "The dog looked scary loping towards me and I was in fear for my life" loophole as is the "high risk of terrorist attack" exemption.

  • John||

    How is a drone any different than a police helicopter buzzing around? I guess maybe they are cheaper and can be used more than a helicopter. But in principle they both seem to be the same. I am having a hard time getting worked up over this. What am I missing here?

  • ||

    You're right, the bill should be expanded to include helicopters too.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    Helicopters have people in them.

    Drones are controlled by robots or something.

  • jasno||

    Well in 10 years I don't suppose it will be practical for a swarm of police helicopters to place an entire city under surveillance. The same is not true of drones.

    Also, if I'm sunbathing naked in my backyard(shudder), I can hear the helicopter and cover-up. Not so much for a drone.

  • SugarFree||

    It's much like the difference between GPS trackers and actually having to follow suspects around. It's not a difference in kind, but rather degree. Once the cost of following everyone around all the time falls, it doesn't make sense not to follow everyone around all the time. The total surveillance state will then be complete.

    And, frankly, the police have not been proven to be good stewards of the technology they control now, giving them even more makes no sense whatsoever.

  • John||

    All true. It will quickly become a difference in degree so great that it becomes a difference in kind.

  • SugarFree||

    And, of course, it will be the case that eventually a drone will film the murder of some telegenic little white girl and the call to arm the damn things will go out. They already murder us with impunity, just try to imagine the constellation of excuses created by cop-drone "misfires."

  • John||

    You won't support Emma's law requiring the arming of all police drones? Monster.

  • Brett L||

    "Please put down the weapon. You have 20 seconds to comply"

  • Chupacabra||

    Yes, but if it stops just one person from drinking raw milk, it will be worth it.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    You're writing about that turncoat again? Cancel my subscription!

  • Brett L||

    Its almost like he can do more good away from the fringe. That can't be right.

  • libertard||

    President Mitt Romney vetoes the bill.

  • ||

    This Act is just what I'd expect from a SELL OUT!

  • NoTalentAssclown||

    Oh man Paultards, this guy is so in the pocket of the Republican Party, he's basically just doing Mitt's bidding. Just another Team Red puppet...

    /sarc

  • JD||

    It needs a clause making it legal to shoot them down over your property.

  • ||

    Get yourself a little remote-controlled plane and learn to fly it. If a helo-drone appears over your land, you can just stage an accidental mid-air collision.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement