New York City Police Department (NYPD) has announced that it is buying 14 drones for such purposes as search and rescue missions and hostage situations. They say the drones only will be operated by licensed police force members as a way of providing tactical support to all of its bureaus.

Civil rights advocates fear that “tactical support” is so broad a term that it could include surveillance of individuals (using facial recognition software) at mass protests or other uses which diminish or violate ordinary citizens’ rights.

NYPD assures New York residents that it will not use the drones for routine patrol, traffic enforcement, immobilizing vehicles or suspects, equipping the drones with weapons or conducting searches without a warrant. (pinky swear!)

NYPD has one of the worst records of violating citizens’ rights of any law enforcement organization. Starting with “stop and frisk” which for years targeted young men of color, to the illegal shut down of Occupy Wall Street in Zucotti Park, to the secret surveillance of New York mosques in the aftermath of 9/11. Following losses in multiple lawsuits, including the last major law suit and court settlement of Hassan v. the City of New York, the NYPD admitted no misconduct or violation of the law.

In Hassan that “non-admission” of wrongdoing included conducting surveillance of at least 20 mosques, 14 restaurants, 11 retail stores, two grade schools and two Muslim student organizations and creating more than 20 maps of Newark noting the location of mosques and the ethnic composition of Muslim neighborhoods.

But wait, there’s more. The cops were taking photographs and video at mosques and collecting license plates, the lawsuit claimed. So, is there a plausible justification of “probable cause” for their surveillance?

Probable cause is a reasonable belief that a person has committed or will commit a crime. For probable cause to exist, a police officer must have sufficient knowledge of facts to warrant a belief that a suspect is committing a crime. The belief must be based on factual evidence, not just on suspicion.

“The NYPD’s surveillance program is based on a false and unconstitutional premise: that Muslim religious belief and practices are a basis for law enforcement scrutiny.” (ACLU)

The purported rationale is based on an ill defined “radicalization process” by which individuals turn into terrorists – a “process” so broad that it seems to treat with suspicion anyone who identifies as Muslim, harbors Islamic beliefs, or engages in Islamic religious practices. And uses “indicators” like “wearing traditional Islamic clothing [and] growing a beard,” “abstaining from alcohol,” and “becoming involved in social activism.”

NYPD installed “rakers,” whose task was to blend in with the Muslim community and compile information, listen in on conversations at Muslim restaurants and businesses, and identify Muslim “hotspots.”

NYPD also tracked people who changed their names, who were suspected of being Muslim converts or who had “Americanized” their names.

“The names of thousands of innocent New Yorkers have been placed in secret police files. Information is kept both in an intelligence database and on a standalone computer used to generate intelligence reports.” (ACLU)

Hassan claimed in court, that the actions of the NYPD were “founded and operated upon a false and constitutionally impermissible premise: that Muslim religious identity is a legitimate criterion for selection of law enforcement surveillance targets, or that it is a legitimate proxy for criminality.” Some of the very same false justifications Trump used for his “Muslim ban?”

So, what are the consequences of the NYPD illegally spying on Muslims?

Stigmatizing their religion, interfering with their religious practice, instilling fear and mistrust within their community, chilling free speech, and damaging their community relationship with law enforcement. How does that square with Protect and Serve?

As partial justification for the drone purchase, NYPD says that more than 900 different state and local police, fire and emergency units in the US have already acquired drones to help with their work.

Do you think that might exacerbate the potential for nation wide illegal surveillance or other civil rights abuses? And what about military drones?

“The US Army recently announced that it is developing the first drones that can spot and target vehicles and people using artificial intelligence (AI). This is a big step forward. Whereas current military drones are still controlled by people, this new technology will decide who to kill with almost no human involvement.” (Daily Mail)

Given the Defense Department’s record of shoveling excess military equipment to domestic law enforcement, what would stop them from eventually acquiring weaponized drones, that decide (AI) on their own who to target?

What could possibly go wrong?

Jeff Konicek is a retired educator and bonsai expert living in Laytonville.