We used our UAV during the high risk search warrant and were able to follow a suspect who fled the residence. pic.twitter.com/rSAgYCWvTI — ACSO (@ACSOSheriffs) June 27, 2016

Earlier this week in San Leandro, California , law enforcement officers closed in on a house that they believed was being used as an illegal casino. But before deputies from the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office could secure the residence, one of the suspects bolted and started hopping fences. Luckily for the cops, the ACSO had a secret weapon: a drone. After the bust, they even bragged about it on Twitter.

"In this situation the suspect fled, and the UAV was able to observe the suspect flee and to alert the first responders to where he was so they could contain him and apprehend him as safely as possible," Capt. Tom Madigan, who was present for the bust, told Ars.

And what would have happened if the drone hadn’t been overhead?

"That suspect would have escaped undetected and could have potentially harmed our staff," Madigan added. "He made it over enough fences that he could have walked away undetected like he was a guy going for a walk."

The entire episode resulted in 14 arrests. According to the East Bay Times, some of those arrested were suspected of running digital poker and other games out of the house's detached garage.

This incident marks the third time in a month that the ACSO has deployed one of its drones. The first incident was a traffic stop in Fremont that went awry and left two police officers shot, while the second was a report of an active shooter at a local military base.

Since Ars last reported on the ACSO’s acquisitions of two drones in December 2014, the agency has expanded its fleet to include four more DJI Phantom drones. The ACSO has flown them on at least 35 missions, including some on behalf of other agencies.

These incidents demonstrate that the ACSO likely has one of the most developed law enforcement drone programs in California and perhaps in the country.

Elsewhere in California, the ACSO’s counterparts Ventura County and Tulare County have recently added drones as well. Meanwhile, Riverside County, Los Angeles County, and San Diego County have expressed interest, too. Nationwide, cities ranging from Louisville, Kentucky to Fairbanks, Alaska are considering following suit. It seems like only a matter of time before cop drones become as standard as police helicopters.

While ACSO officials tout that drone use is cost-effective and beneficial to public safety, legal experts worry that the agency—and others like it—are not doing enough to institute adequate privacy policies, public comment on drone acquisition, and deployments.

"Nothing but positives"

In Alameda County, the acquisition of drones has been fraught with controversy since Sheriff Gregory J. Ahern first approached the Alameda County Board of Supervisors in February 2013. At the time, the ACSO's top cop requested a purchase of "one to two" drones primarily for "search and rescue" missions. Protestors and civil liberties advocates fiercely argued for more oversight. A local activist group, " Alameda County Against Drones " voiced its opinion.

Nearly two years later, the ACSO hastily summoned local media (including Ars) to its office in Dublin, California to formally debut its two drones and its policy. That policy was denounced by local groups including the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California. (No non-journalist members of the public were present at the December 2014 meeting.)

The agency has posted about drone deployments only five times on its Facebook page, although Capt. Madigan told Ars the agency has flown about three dozen missions. According to the agency’s Facebook post, the ACSO’s first deployment was in September 2015. The ACSO required that Ars filed a records request under the California Public Records Act to be able to produce details of the other missions, which we have done. (The ACSO eventually did respond with its flight log, which we have published here.)

Capt. Madigan argued that the drone has adequate oversight and underscored that it is not used for surveillance.

"We're just trying to provide first responders a perspective they couldn't get," he said. "We have a number of people that we've trained to deploy the small UAV. We have a variety of pilots, both volunteer pilots and full time staff that are trained in the use. All missions have to be approved by my office and every mission I discuss with the sheriff-management oversight before any UAV is deployed."

The ACSO official reiterated that the agency sticks to its four-page "general order," issued in December 2014.

"We have nothing but positives from the use, and we're using them in limited, very specific instances, authorized by our policies," Capt. Madigan said.

That policy outlines specific missions for which the drone can be used. Among them are "Post-incident crime scene preservation and documentation," "Explosive ordnance disposal (EOD)," "Response to hazardous materials spills," "Public safety and life preservation," such as a hostage scenario, and "pursuant to a search warrant."

Oversight?

However, legal experts don’t feel that these policies are adequate.

Ryan Calo, a law professor at the University of Washington, told Ars that the ACSO in particular and law enforcement in general needs to do a better job of explaining the procurement process.

"Law enforcement should be highly transparent about the surveillance technologies it purchases along three lines," he e-mailed. "First, residents should understand the procurement process. What are LE's criteria for purchasing technology? What quality control standards does law enforcement have in place in terms of safety, privacy, and security? Second, residents should know what is being purchased and when. And third, residents should understand why a technology was purchased and how it is being used (especially if a given use differs from the originally stated purpose)."

Meanwhile, Nicole Ozer, an attorney with the ACLU of Northern California, said that the "general order" is not the same thing as a law and that the county needs to exert more oversight.

First off, as she pointed out, there are no penalties if the ACSO does not follow its own policy. Second, the policy doesn’t outline how the ACSO can expand its drone fleet. It’s troubling, she said, that in 18 months, the fleet’s size has tripled.

"Because this is a general order, not only were the mechanisms wholly lacking in how to purchase a drone, but the policy that’s in place is not legally enforceable," she said. "It lacks many safeguards that [could be] put into place for a drone. Transparency is just really lacking in a lot of these surveillance situations, and that’s part of the reason for trying to pass these local ordinances."

She pointed to a recent ordinance in nearby Santa Clara County that mandates explicit board approval prior to the acquisition of any surveillance technology, including drones.

"It cries out for there to be action by local lawmakers, and we know that Californians want local lawmakers to take action on surveillance," Ozer said.

On Thursday, Ars contacted the offices of all five members of the Alameda County Board of Supervisors . None of them responded.