Why do Fullerton police need drones roaming high above the city? What are the potential abuses?

These questions are at the marrow of an increasing trend toward high-tech tools and military weapons used by police departments in Orange County.

Fullerton conducted a “Drone as First Responder concept” over the summer. A drone with impressive range patrolled the sky, poised for action. The plan is to “provide the ability to immediately deploy them to reported emergency incidents, calls for service, or first responder requests,” according to a police department press release. “In many cases, drones can arrive at any incident before first responders on the ground.”

Drones stream live video to officers before they reach the scene, resulting in heightened situational awareness. They probably make ground-bound cops safer, too. And they assess when officers aren’t needed, saving taxpayers money.

“During the four-week trial, which cost about $15,000, the drone responded to over 340 calls for service and was on the scene before patrol officers 194 times,” said Lt. Tony Rios in an email. “The drone was able to clear 85 calls without patrol officer response. Most of these calls for service… require a two-officer response. Essentially, during 85 drone deployments, 170 officers were not needed to respond, thus freeing the officers from other critical calls for service in the city. The drone responded to 57 priority one calls. Of those 57 priority one call, the average response time was 2:19, and the average response time for patrol was 3:52.”

“It was a really good tryout,” Police Chief Jon Radus told me.

According to Police1 (police1.com), a reputable pro-police website, there are 11 reasons that police deploy drones. All 11 center on reconnaissance and response, the best I can tell.

The site has touted the potency of drones by posting a story headlined, “YOU CAN’T HIDE!” It’s about Grover Beach, California, police using an infrared drone to pinpoint and arrest a man suspected of car theft. The man hid in thick brush and trees but to no avail. Woods and forests are no match for thermal imaging.

In Fullerton’s trial run, the benefits of an eye in the sky were inarguable. 

Lt. Rios reported more than a dozen incidents where the drone — call sign Hornet — helped officers detain suspects. In one, Hornet responded to a domestic violence situation at Fullerton Junior College and was able to “locate the suspect and direct officers on the ground to his location and take him into custody without incident.” In another, “Hornet located a stolen vehicle from an LPR hit, observed the driver get into the vehicle, and guided officers to safely approach the vehicle and take the driver into custody without incident.”

Chief Radus confirmed that 85 calls for response were canceled after the drone data showed there was no need for officers. This saved officers’ valuable time and taxpayers plenty of money, he said.

Police are expected to deliver more information to the City Council. The council will then decide whether to move on with the program. If it’s green-lighted, there will be multiple drones on high, with drone pilots headquartered at Fullerton PD. The physical drones themselves will be an outsourced job. 

It’s not news that police departments are using high-tech devices that, at their best, enhance first responders’ efficiency and, at worst, threaten our civil rights, particularly with regard to privacy. Nor is it news that police are militarizing to the extreme. In Fullerton, that means armored personnel vehicles, assault weapons, specialized shotguns, flash bangs, tear gas, pepper balls, battering rams, a long-range acoustic device, projectile launch platforms for munition weapons, and more. 

In Orange County, that’s the norm. And drones are ubiquitous, like hawks circling the skies over the county’s 30-plus cities, only hawks aren’t much interested in us.  

But what about concerns that drones will spy on citizens? Compile data on innocent individuals? Or one particular segment of society? Invade our air space and home in on the details of our properties and private lives. 

“That was one of my questions, too,” said Fullerton City Councilman Ahmad Zahra in an email. “However, there are strict guidelines on privacy and other due process matters that PD adheres to, and that would apply to any drone program, too.” 

City Councilwoman Shana Charles emailed: “Thanks for reaching out, but unfortunately, I’m not able to answer any of these questions as I’m not very involved in that program. Those decisions are made at the police department level, and they would have the information you need.”

Not involved? Can’t answer any questions? 

The misuse of drones by law enforcement is well documented by the ACLU, among others. The ACLU of Northern California has shown California Highway Patrol employing aerial surveillance, including footage that zooms in on individual faces and records personal conversations. Other footage focuses on protests for racial justice. 

There’s no evidence that Irvine, to use one OC city as an example, has done anything that extreme with its drones. But folks are being recorded. Irvine Lt. Christopher Bees told KABC that taxpayers ought not to worry.

“With the exception of training and demonstration purposes, if we do record something, at the end of the operation, we review it for evidentiary value. If there’s nothing of evidence, we delete any video that we retain.”

I asked Chief Radus to provide more details on concerns regarding accountability.

He said department policy — outlined at https://www.cityoffullerton.com/government/departments/police?locale=en — restricts what drones are allowed to do, similar to police helicopters. 

“A drone can only go where flying normally takes place,” he said, meaning when not on call, a drone can’t wander to your bedroom window and play Peeping Tom. 

If a complaint were filed, “we would launch an internal affairs investigation,” Chief Radus said. “It’s the same as when an officer allegedly does something wrong.” And, he stressed, “We’ve got all the flight data.”

“Will citizens have access to that data?” 

“No,” he said. 

How do we exact accountability without material evidence of what’s going on? It’s a neat trick that the government’s played on people for centuries. We see you; good luck seeing us…

Do we trust that, if abuses of our rights occur, given that police are investigating themselves, quick and sure redress will be probable? If the costs to citizens outweigh the benefits to law enforcement, will something significant be done? That the power imbalance — they have the technology to know what I’m doing, down to the cigar stub on my patio, and I can only guess what they’re up to — will be brought into balance? 

Do we, as citizens, hold our breath or do the opposite? 

Brady Rhoades is a journalist and author who lives in Fullerton.