Criminal Law Library Blog
Ohio has enacted a new law governing the use of drones by law enforcement, reflecting the growing effort by legislatures to adapt Fourth Amendment principles to rapidly evolving surveillance technologies. Signed by Governor Mike DeWine, House Bill 251 establishes that, in most situations, police officers must obtain a search warrant before using a drone to conduct a search when a warrant would also have been required had officers entered the location in person.
The legislation recognizes that unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have become increasingly valuable investigative tools while also raising significant privacy concerns. Until now, Ohio law addressed some warrant requirements for surveillance conducted from manned aircraft but did not specifically regulate drones. House Bill 251 fills that gap by extending traditional constitutional search principles to unmanned aerial surveillance.
Principal Provisions
Among the law’s principal features are:
- Search warrant requirement. Law enforcement generally must obtain a search warrant before using a drone to enter or observe the interior of a residence, business, or other location whenever an in-person search would require judicial authorization.
- Recognized exceptions. The law authorizes warrantless drone use in several circumstances, including:
- emergency situations (exigent circumstances),
- environmental or weather disasters,
- traffic crash investigations,
- crime scene documentation,
- security assessments before major public events, and
- patrol activities within 50 miles of an international border.
- Observation from navigable airspace. One of the most discussed provisions allows officers to operate drones without a warrant while flying in lawful navigable airspace to observe what is already visible to the naked eye. Civil liberties advocates argue that this language could permit broad aerial surveillance without judicial oversight. The Ohio ACLU characterized this provision as potentially allowing extensive warrantless monitoring limited primarily by available resources.
- Restrictions on weaponized drones. The statute prohibits Ohio law enforcement agencies from operating drones equipped with lethal weapons.
- Transparency requirements. Drone surveillance records and flight data generally become public records unless exempt under Ohio’s public-records laws. Agencies are also required to document drone operations.
- Foreign-manufactured drones. The legislation also limits future acquisition of drone systems manufactured or assembled by designated foreign adversaries. Recognizing that many agencies currently rely on such equipment, the law provides a four-year transition period before these procurement restrictions become effective.
Broader Significance
The Ohio statute illustrates an important trend in American law: legislatures are beginning to modernize search and seizure rules to address technologies that did not exist when many surveillance statutes were enacted.
Drones offer substantial public safety benefits. They can reduce risks to officers, improve search-and-rescue operations, document accident scenes efficiently, assist disaster response, and provide rapid situational awareness during emergencies. At the same time, they possess surveillance capabilities that can exceed those of traditional observation methods, raising difficult constitutional questions about privacy, reasonable expectations of privacy, and governmental oversight.
By generally requiring warrants while recognizing defined emergency exceptions, Ohio attempts to balance effective policing with constitutional protections. Whether that balance ultimately withstands judicial scrutiny may depend upon how courts interpret the statute’s broad exceptions, particularly those involving observations from navigable airspace and the “plain view” doctrine.
This signed legislation could perhaps serve as a model for other states considering similar legislation.
Why Librarians, Researchers, and Legal Professionals Should Care
This legislation represents more than a change in police procedure. It demonstrates how legislatures are adapting long established Fourth Amendment principles to emerging technologies.
For legal researchers, the statute will likely become part of the growing body of law examining aerial surveillance, digital evidence, privacy rights, and constitutional limitations on government use of advanced technologies.
For librarians and information professionals, it provides an excellent example of how legal research increasingly requires tracking the interaction among statutes, constitutional doctrine, technological innovation, and evolving judicial interpretation. Similar legislation is likely to emerge in other states, making comparative legal research increasingly important
Key Takeaways
- Ohio now generally requires search warrants for police drone searches when an in-person search would require one.
- Numerous statutory exceptions permit warrantless drone operations during emergencies and certain public safety activities.
- The law prohibits weaponized police drones.
- Most drone flight records will be subject to Ohio’s public-records laws.
- Restrictions on purchasing drones from foreign adversaries will be phased in over four years.
- The legislation reflects the continuing evolution of Fourth Amendment law as governments adapt traditional constitutional principles to emerging surveillance technologies.