Legal experts are very concerned that a new North Dakota law which allows law enforcement drones to be armed with so-called less-than-lethal weapons—including stun guns and beanbag rounds—could be highly problematic. The law, however, explicitly forbids lethal weapons . Previous drafts of the bill specifically included prohibitions on non-lethal weapons , language that was later removed.

Among other reasons, such weapons have been shown that they can, in fact, kill people. According to research by The Guardian, 39 Americans have died this year alone at the hands of police wielding a Taser. Meanwhile, the Associated Press reported Wednesday that more than 20 North American cities are pursuing large silicone-based projectiles as yet another alternative weapon.

North Dakota is believed to be the first state in the union to allow such weapons aboard state and local police drones.

The Peace Garden State has become something of a hub for drone research and development. It offers a bachelor’s degree in "Unmanned Aircraft Systems" at the University of North Dakota, while the state’s Air National Guard unit hosts a number of MQ-1 Predator drones. The state also hosts the country’s only Federal Aviation Administration-approved drone testing site that can fly both during the day and at night.

"It really takes a very subtle situational awareness to understand when it's ok to use less-than-lethal," Ryan Calo, a law professor and drone expert at the University of Washington, told Ars.

"The problem is that it will be used too often because the perception that the stakes are not very high, because sometimes less-than-lethal can be lethal," he said. "So it strikes me that putting less-than-lethals on drones creates a double remove: the officer doesn't have situational awareness, and they don't know whether a conversation could de-escalate [the situation]. That's one thing, and second, the fact that it's less-than-lethals will mean that [police will] hesitate less and will use it more often."

"I hear a lot of ideas about drones, and this is one of the worst," Calo added.

Brian Owsley, a former federal judge and current law professor at the University of North Texas, expressed similar concerns.

"Drones, like stingrays [or cell-site simulators], were designed for military applications and are now being sold by manufacturers for use by local law enforcement because they need to expand their market," he told Ars by e-mail.

"I question in what circumstance there would be a need for a use of force administered by a drone," Owsley said. "I think that people may file claims regarding excessive force, especially be targeted for non-lethal force when the recipient is not even near anyone to cause them harm. There could arguably be an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim."

Get a warrant

The law, known as House Bill 1328 , which took effect earlier this month, imposes a significant pro-privacy victory: requiring that police and sheriff’s deputies get a warrant when deploying a drone for surveillance.

Owsley noted that this warrant requirement was "great."

"That is the type of standard that is necessary for such surveillance," he added. "I also think it is really a step in the right direction to require police to retain the various data regarding drone flights, but I would like to see that this data was made public in an easily accessible manner."

However, in order to get the measure through the state’s legislative body, the bill’s author told Ars that he had to do a little horse trading with the state law enforcement lobby, the North Dakota Peace Officers’ Association, which had strongly lobbied against it.

Rep. Rick Becker told Ars that he had initially proposed the bill in 2013 (the state’s legislative body only meets every two years) but was defeated by the same group.

"This time the law enforcement lobby as well as the university group were more inclined to support it," he said.

"I submitted with prohibition of any weapons," he continued. "The law enforcement lobby offered an amendment and said that if the amendments were added, they would not oppose. The committee accepted amendments and I didn't fight them because I wanted the bill to pass at least to require warrants. The law says that law enforcement can't use drones weaponized with lethal weapons. But in 2017 when I get back, I will introduce a bill to also include non-lethal."

Neither the North Dakota Peace Officers’ Association, nor the International Association of Chiefs of Police, immediately responded to Ars’ request for comment.

Becker, who is also a plastic surgeon, said that while he doesn’t know of any North Dakota law enforcement agencies that have immediate plans to arm their aircraft with such weapons, made one more salient point.

"The gist of why I don't want the non-lethals allowed is the decision to use force on another citizen, the normal morals and process of thinking goes out the window when it's like you're playing a videogame," he said. "It's dehumanized, it's depersonalized."