The San Jose City Council has approved a new policy regarding its police department’s use of drones—likely making it one of the first law enforcement agencies in the country to formally adopt such limits.

The policy, which Ars is publishing here (the San Jose Mercury News was kind enough to share a copy), explicitly states:

The UAS [drone] would be used for the following limited purposes only: To ensure officer safety in situations where potential explosive devices are present; or To protect human life in emergency situations involving a threat to human life, such as an active shooter or hostage/barricade.

The policy also specifically forbids using the drone for surveillance and requires that it only be used to transmit real-time footage and data. Any San Jose Police Department (SJPD) drones “would not be used to record or store images.”

In an interview with the Mercury News, Mayor Sam Liccardo shot down the idea of any ongoing surveillance via drone. "There will be no surveillance, and San Jose will not be partnering with the NSA (National Security Agency)," he said. "This is an opportunity for us to use technology to keep the community and officers safe."

Over one year ago, news came out that the SJPD had purchased a $7,000 drone in January 2014. The acquisition was made with very little public notification.

But by August 2014, the SJPD issued a mea culpa after public outcry. “SJPD should have done a better job of communicating the purpose and acquisition of the UAS device to our community," the department said.

The new guidelines don’t mean that SJPD’s drone will be taking to the skies anytime soon: it still needs a Certificate of Authorization from the Federal Aviation Administration, which may not come until the end of 2016 or 2017.

San Jose authorities made these guidelines and disclosure on its own, but California nearly mandated such thoughtfulness. A bill that passed both the California Assembly and the California State Senate in 2014 would have required public notice prior to a drone’s use as well as a warrant (with some exceptions, including “imminent threat to life," traffic accidents, and the ability to “inspect state parks and wilderness areas for illegal vegetation”). This proposed legislation was vetoed by the governor in September 2014.

Hanni Fakhoury, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and a former federal public defender said that this policy and its limitations "make sense."

"They basically arise to exigent circumstances where time is of the essence," he told Ars by e-mail. "And most importantly, it’s great the city actually requires an internal policy before allowing the department to move forward with obtaining and using a drone. But I still worry that, as has happened with other technologies, as police begin to use the drone they’ll look for ways to expand the situations where the drone will be used. It’ll be up to city leaders to continue to serve as a check on law enforcement and ensure police don’t expand its use of drones without public oversight or approval."