Drones in SF, 1 Year Later

Big Brother is watching. With the proliferation of GPS in our vehicles, cameras in our neighborhoods and businesses, smart devices in our homes, and computers (aka phones) in our back pockets, we can have limited expectations of privacy. But we still have a say in how surveillance technology is used to track us, especially when it’s employed by our government and law enforcement.

A precedent-setting conflict arose in San Francisco last year when Proposition E, Police Department Policies and Procedures, championed by then-Mayor London Breed, was placed on the March 5, 2024, ballot and approved by voters. It appeared straightforward, in that it greenlighted the purchase and deployment of surveillance drones by our police department, to assist local officers in their day-to-day crime-fighting efforts. Yet BASF’s Criminal Justice Task Force spoke out in strong opposition to the measure.

Policies and procedures are at the heart of the conflict as, once again, great minds in the Bay Area are scrambling to pioneer technology and enact the correlating legislation. In this uncomfortable phase of trying to balance public safety with privacy, it’s important to understand what has transpired.

Why San Francisco wanted—and needed—drones

The last time the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) had air support, in the form of a single helicopter, was 2000. In recent years, technology has given us new—and safer and more cost-effective—ways to aid and support law enforcement, including with automated license plate readers (ALPR) and stationary cameras. The acquisition of Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) or “drones” was considered a natural next step in building the arsenal of equipment used to keep the city and its residents safe. “Everyone seems to be exploring surveillance technology,” said Brian Hofer, Executive Director of Secure Justice, a Bay Area–based nonprofit group that seeks to minimize the negative impact of surveillance technology through oversight, reforms, legislation, and policy-writing. “Is it going to come fast and furious? Absolutely,” he said.

“People want safety,” said Matthew Guariglia, Senior Policy Analyst at Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), “but they don’t necessarily want more policing and surveillance.” Proposition E was positioned as a measure to streamline policies and procedures by providing officers with new tools to solve crimes—and prevent them from happening. However, “Prop. E…allow[ed] SFPD to effectively experiment with a piece of surveillance technology for a full year without any approval or oversight,” Guariglia wrote in a blog post for EFF, a nonprofit organization that defends civil liberties in the digital world. “This gutted the 2019 Surveillance Technology Ordinance, which required city departments to obtain approval from the Board of Supervisors before acquiring or using specific surveillance technology.”

Six drones were purchased and have been in operation since August 2024. In November, SFPD reported the use of drones was instrumental in successfully booking a suspect in organized retail theft and arresting a suspected narcotics trafficker with a large quantity of narcotics. “Crime was the lowest it’s been in 20 years,” SFPD reported in January 2025, attributing an increase in arrests in part to the contributions of drone operators. “We also have new tools thanks to Proposition E that gives us the upper hand in these cases,” said SFPD Chief William Scott.

Pros v. Cons

Surveillance drones have proven their worth when used for search and rescue, in fire investigation and suppression, in the search for missing children and at-risk adults in Amber and Silver Alerts, and in hostage and high-risk situations. Ryan Kao, Director of Crime Strategies for SFPD, gives the example of a drone surveilling a car crash, providing an assessment of injuries and the need for services. “That’s what the helicopter pilot did—a guy with a radio—but at a fraction of the cost.” And by providing officers in the field with critical information, such as when they are in the pursuit of armed suspects, drone air support calms officers down and improves public safety. “They’re the best de-escalation tool I’ve ever seen,” said Hofer. “Officer-involved shootings have plummeted.”

But, Hofer cautions, the use of drones must be “narrow.” The SFPD website page states “Drones are only used for law enforcement purposes, like criminal investigations and critical incidents” and “SFPD has a robust policy on drone usage that complies with federal, state, and local laws and ensures individuals’ constitutional rights are protected.” But there are concerns about monitoring public gatherings, from parades to protests, as well as questions about when it’s appropriate to collect and share recorded data from those events. Will this lead to over-policing, particularly of people of color? What constitutes invasion of privacy? How do we avoid the possibility of surveillance being used as a tool for intimidation?

While some laud the remarkable speed by which the drone program was implemented in San Francisco, BASF, EFF, the ACLU, and other civil rights organizations point to the bypassing of policies and procedures. “BASF is highlighting the issues: consent, lack of oversight, privacy concerns,” said Saira Hussain, Senior Staff Attorney for EFF. By leveraging residents’ fears about crime, she said, the city is “passing reforms without knowing they would work; spending massive amounts of money; chipping away at ordinances, transparency, and awareness; and treating the city as a lab.”

It does feel like a contemporary version of the cart before the horse. In 2018, four years before Kao, who spearheaded the drone program, stepped into the role of SFPD’s Director of Crime Strategies, there was no job description. “Whoever sits in this chair gets to define the scope of the job of finding new ways of solving old problems,” he said. Proposition E was written, said Kao, “to let the police department try it [surveillance] and we’ll find the balance with effective and responsible utilization. We’re figuring it out as we go.”

And that’s where the legalities get murky.

Interpreting the legality of San Francisco’s drones program

“There was no drone policy,” said Hofer. “Voters approved Prop. E, and SFPD illegally obtained drones, then got approval after.” Illegally, because this path is in violation of California Assembly Bill AB-481, which require law enforcement agencies to get approval before purchasing any military equipment.

“Prop. E should not have been on the ballot,” said Guariglia. The issue, he said, is how the drones were purchased and employed without having first gone through the proper channels, without established check and balances. “Prop. E may have passed, but that does not supersede AB-481,” he said. “And there is no enforcement of AB-481. So, it’s not that drones are bad—we need to modernize—it’s that Prop. E allowed SFPD to encroach upon our right to privacy without oversight.”

Hofer agreed. The process should have been performing and presenting an impact analysis first, then putting guardrails in place, then sending the proposal to elected officials for approval.

There’s also a lack of accountability. While we’re regulated by local and state law, said Hussain, the police department doesn’t really need to follow any reporting requirements. “AB-481 doesn’t have an enforcement action,” she said.

While BASF’s Criminal Justice Task Force also supports the need for modernizing our police department with new technology and tools, it strongly opposed Proposition E because police policy should not be an issue decided at the ballot box. “Prop. E vastly expands secret police surveillance and infringes on San Franciscans’ right to privacy,” the task force declared in a statement. “Prop E further erodes our community’s confidence in our police department by reducing independent police oversight.”

“Police are not elected,” said Guariglia, “and should not be able to buy equipment without public consent.” Drone supporters, however, counter that the department did have public consent, because Proposition E passed with 54% of the vote.

The need to establish guidelines and guardrails

“We understand the community we serve, and we’re sensitive to them,” said Kao. “We protect them in the way they want to be protected.” It’s also important to note the Police Commission still provides independent oversight over the department. In response to accusations that drones invade people’s privacy, Kao said, “Drones are better than surveillance, they’re overt. All flights are logged and audited.” (Access the 2024 flight logs here.) He added that drones are also more transparent. “Cameras throughout the city are always recording,” he said. “Drones are only recording public places. It’s less pervasive.”

While his statements are comforting, we’re still waiting while San Francisco formulates operating procedures and policies, which is reportedly a work-in-progress. A template is available in the ACLU’s model bill for Community Control Over Police Surveillance (CCOPS). Recommendations include requiring city council (or Board of Supervisors) approval for the funding, acquisition, and use of surveillance technology; guidelines for the collection, retention, and sharing of any data; scheduled release of reports to the public; as well as penalties for violations.

The ACLU’s recommended guardrails include limiting drone operations over certain gatherings, for example employing drone surveillance only when a crowd over a set number of participants is planned, or when violence or disorder is reasonably expected. Law enforcement leaders should also consider whether attendees are likely to be “chilled by surveillance,” in other words, intimidated by the possibility of their being observed and recorded. An example might be a march for a politically hot issue, such as transgender or abortion rights, an event where an attendee would not want to be recorded and/or have that recording saved or shared with the risk of future repercussions. “If the policies are adhered to, you’re safe,” said Hofer.

“At the end of the day,” said Kao, “I want people to say ‘I’m happy with how the police department is using the drone system.’” He hopes people will see how drones help protect “life and limb” as well as property, and he understands that reaching that point will need to involve earning and building trust in the program. “It’s incumbent upon us that the rules are not too loose or too tight.” Those rules must respect both public safety and privacy.

“People want more surveillance tech,” said Hofer, “however, I reject the normalization of surveillance, and I think there’s a world where it’s possible to not be constantly surveilled, where we retain our privacy—if we fight for it.”

“I hope that we can do better,” said Hussain. “I hope we can be transparent about how this tech is being used and have a say in it, like state law allows us to.”