Bill to stop warrantless spying AND weaponized drones passed the New Hampshire House

[Keith and stuff]

HB 1620 passed the New Hampshire House on Wednesday with 3 separate voice votes. It has the same sponsor that got some national attention has year with his bill to completely ban drone use in New Hampshire. Some people found that bill unworkable so he came up with this compromise bill. It bans weaponized drones in New Hampshire and requires the government to get permission from landowners or a warrant from a judge in most cases. Private individuals also need permission from land owners to use drones, in many cases.

New Hampshire house passes bill to nullify warrantless drone spying
March 13, 2014
By William Kennedy
http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/03/new-hampshire-house-passes-bill-to-nullify-warrantless-drone-spying/
^ Click on the link to find out how to take action on this bill.

You can also join in on the conversation on Facebook.
https://www.facebook.com/tenthamendmentcenter/posts/10152281934781678

http://dantaguestudio.com/files/gimgs/14_-live-free-or-die-10.jpg


A New Hampshire bill to strictly limit drone use passed out of the state House on a voice vote on Wednesday. It now moves on to the Senate for consideration.

HB1620 would regulate the use of drones by governments, as well as individuals. It would require search warrants to use for surveillance and levy fines for violations. It also bans lethal or nonlethal arming of drones in the state.

The legislation defines “government” as “federal, state, and local agencies and departments and any political subdivisions thereof, including employees, agents, and contractors.”

The bill passed the House on a voice vote, meaning there was little if any opposition.

The legislation fully prohibits drone use by any government with just a few exceptions. These include a duly issued warrant, “to counter a high risk of a terrorist attack” if the Department of Homeland Security determines such a threat to exist,” “If law enforcement “possesses reasonable suspicion that…swift action is needed to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property,” and if the agency has prior written consent. In short, daily, general use of drones by government in New Hampshire would be stopped.

HB1620 puts restrictions on information gathered even under those exceptions.

If a government uses a drone under this paragraph, it shall within 24 hours permanently destroy all information gathered by the drone other than that relating directly to the purpose for which the warrant was obtained or to which the judicially-recognized exception to the warrant requirement applied.

While some might find the exceptions written into the legislation troubling, passage of HB1620 would be a huge improvement over the status quo. As things stand today, government entities and individuals can operate drones with no restrictions.

Not only does the bill directly prohibit the federal government from flying drones over New Hampshire expect for specific circumstances, it would also serve to put the brakes on more general federal plans to expand drone use across the U.S.

In fact, the federal government serves as the primary engine behind the expansion of drone surveillance carried out by states and local communities. The Department of Homeland Security issues large grants to local governments so they can purchase drones. Those grants, in and of themselves, represent an unconstitutional expansion of power.

The goal? Fund a network of drones around the country and put the operational burden on the states. Once they create a web over the whole country, DHS steps in with requests for ‘information sharing.’ Bills like these put a dent in this kind of long-term strategy. Without the states and local communities operating the drones today, it’s going to be nearly impossible for DHS plans to – take off.

LEGISLATION AND TRACKING

If you live in New Hampshire: Click HERE to find out what steps you can take to support HB1620

[phill4paul]

Let me know when N.H. creates a drone defense shield and the resolve to shoot one down.

[Keith and stuff]

Let me know when N.H. creates a drone defense shield and the resolve to shoot one down.

I'm not even sure what the means. Like the thing Ronald Reagan used to always talk about? Star Wars?

Here is the Union Leader article explaining the bill in detail.

March 12. 2014 4:35PM
NH House passes bill outlining how drones can, and can't be used
http://www.unionleader.com/article/20140312/NEWS06/140319556


CONCORD -- After two years of work by a key committee and the chief sponsor, legislation regulating the use of aerial drone photography and broadcasts by government agencies and private individuals easily passed the New Hampshire House Wednesday.

House Bill 1620 was passed to the state Senate on an overwhelming voice vote after sponsor Rep. Neal Kurk, R-Weare, said it balances the protection of privacy with the concerns of private drone manufacturers and "the many wonderful uses that drones can bring us."

"The bill protects us from some of the bad things that drones can do, but allows the industry to flourish," he said, noting that in "some countries," drones are used to deliver pizza.

Explaining the bill, Kurk said, "If the police and law enforcement are going to use a drone" to track a suspect or as part of an investigation, "they have to get a warrant." Kurk said. "But if the University of New Hampshire wants to fly a drone around to take pictures of moose, this bill has nothing to do with that.

"The private sector (individuals and businesses) can use drones any way we want," Kurk said, "but we can't follow and track people as long as there are recognizable faces, or stalking or harassing, or on the inside of buildings where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy."

Under the bill, after government agencies receive a search warrant to use a drone to gather evidence, any evidence gathered must be reported to the state Attorney General. The use of the drone in these cases would be limited to two days.

Any evidence obtained through the use of a drone that is not directly related to the warrant must be destroyed.

Federal agencies would be allowed to use drones without a warrant in order to counter a "high risk" of a terrorist attack; if the use is for a "legally-recognized exception" to the search warrant requirement; or if the government has a "reasonable suspicion" that quick action is needed to "prevent imminent harm to life or serious damage to property."

Anyone, including government employees or contractors, who violates the law would be guilty of a Class B felony. A government agency in violation would be subject to a civil penalty of up to $10,000.

Kurk said during a hearing in January that the bill is not aimed at stopping private drone enthusiasts from using them in public places and unintentionally capturing the image of another person on the drone's camera.

He said his bill forbids "surveillance," which is defined in the bill as "intentionally" monitoring or observing an individual or group of people, or "the interior of a building or structure."

Kurk said the bill is not intended to stop drone photography of public events, such as rallies, or even riots, or events generally considered newsworthy by news organizations.

However, the bill does forbid intentional surveillance even in public places.

Kurk said at the hearing that he tried to balance privacy rights with the First Amendment right of someone to take photographs. He noted that nine states have laws regulating the use of drones.

He also said the bill contains a "preemption" provision that recognizes the authority of the federal government to supersede state law in certain areas.

The bill was recommended for passage on a 12-5 vote of the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee.

[phill4paul]

I'm not even sure what the means. Like the thing Ronald Reagan used to always talk about? Star Wars?

Here is the Union Leader article explaining the bill in detail.

March 12. 2014 4:35PM
NH House passes bill outlining how drones can, and can't be used
http://www.unionleader.com/article/20140312/NEWS06/140319556

I've read it, it's toothless and it means less than shit to the feds. But, it does look good on paper.

[Keith and stuff]

I've read it, it's toothless and it means less than shit to the feds. But, it does look good on paper.

Requiring all state and federal agencies to get warrants, requiring them to delete info not related to the case within 2 days and among other things requiring "Within 24 hours of the initiation of the use of a drone under this subparagraph, the government shall report in writing the use of a drone to the attorney general who shall annually post such reports on the department of justice website in a searchable format." is toothless?


644-A:2 Government Use of Drones Limited; Exceptions.

I.(a) A government may use a drone for law enforcement purposes only under the following conditions:

(1) If a government first obtains a search warrant signed by a judge and based on probable cause or the use is pursuant to a legally-recognized exception to the warrant requirement.

(2) If a government possesses reasonable suspicion that, under particular circumstances, swift action is needed to prevent imminent harm to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect, or the destruction of evidence. The use of a drone under this subparagraph shall be limited to a period of 48 hours of its initial use. Within 24 hours of the initiation of the use of a drone under this subparagraph, the government shall report in writing the use of a drone to the attorney general who shall annually post such reports on the department of justice website in a searchable format.

(3) If a government obtains the prior consent of the person who is the subject of the surveillance and the owner or lessee of the property which is the subject of the surveillance.

(b) If a government uses a drone under this paragraph, it shall within 24 hours permanently destroy all information gathered by the drone other than that relating directly to the purpose for which the drone was used or any evidence of another crime discovered inadvertently, and only such information may be retained or disclosed to another government.

(c) Evidence obtained by a government through the use of a drone in violation of this paragraph shall not be admissible in any judicial or administrative proceeding and shall not be used to establish reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed.

II. No government shall own, use, or exercise control over a drone that is equipped with any kind of lethal or non-lethal weapon.

III. Except as provided in paragraph I, no government shall use a drone for surveillance.

IV. A government that owns, uses, or exercises control over a drone in this state that causes injury to a person or a person’s property shall be strictly liable for such injury.

V. A government that owns, uses, or exercises control over one or more drones shall annually on July 1 submit a written report to the attorney general containing information on the number of such drones and the number of times each such drone was used during the prior year. The attorney general shall annually post such reports on the department of justice website in a searchable format.

[phill4paul]

Requiring all state and federal agencies to get warrants, requiring them to delete info not related to the case within 2 days and among other things requiring "Within 24 hours of the initiation of the use of a drone under this subparagraph, the government shall report in writing the use of a drone to the attorney general who shall annually post such reports on the department of justice website in a searchable format." is toothless?

How does the bill enforce against the fed? If the fed doesn't give a written report? What then? If the fed doesn't delete info in 2 days? What then? And if the fed just hides the information and does not post it to the DOJ website? What then? Toothless. Meaningless. Writing on paper.

[Keith and stuff]

How does the bill enforce against the fed? If the fed doesn't give a written report? What then? If the fed doesn't delete info in 2 days? What then? And if the fed just hides the information and does not post it to the DOJ website? What then? Toothless. Meaningless. Writing on paper.

You bring up good points. However, can we agree it isn't toothless are town, county and the NH state government? :)