Before the Gavel: Drone Policy Debate Raises Broader Concerns Over Surveillance

As the Community Police Oversight Commission prepares to take up recommendations on Pasadena Police Department drone policies, written public comments submitted ahead of the meeting signal deep concern about privacy, oversight and the broader expansion of surveillance technology.

In a detailed submission, a Pasadena resident urged commissioners to look beyond the proposed rules governing drone use and instead examine the larger framework in which the technology would operate — particularly its connection to a potential Real Time Crime Center.

The comments argue that the draft recommendations assume the city will move forward with acquiring drones, rather than first asking whether such technology should be adopted at all.

“I appreciate the Ad Hoc Committee’s efforts to develop these recommendations,” said Humaira Afzal, a Pasadena resident in District 7. “They are a good start and it is refreshing to finally see policies addressed before equipment acquisition rather than after. However, the Committee’s recommendations start with the assumption that Pasadena Police Department is going to acquire drones.

“Indeed, PPD has historically gotten whatever technology they’ve “expressed interest” in without transparency, accountability or meaningful oversight. PPD wants drones to build a Drone as First Responder (DFR) program, and PPD wants a DFR program because fleets of drones equipped with cameras (and more) are an integral part of a Real Time Crime Centers (or an “Active Intelligence Center,” as Chief Harris calls them). Drone policy must be developed in the context of their role in a Real Time Crime Center (RTCC), not as a standalone piece of equipment that is not integrated into a larger system. Of particular concern is the failure to address artificial intelligence in the policy recommendations despite the extensive use of AI in drones and the myriad issues that raises for privacy, security, and physical safety.”

The recommendations would limit drone deployments to clearly defined public safety purposes, barring their use for generalized surveillance, routine patrol or roving monitoring of neighborhoods.

The department does not currently use drones and has not adopted a formal policy, but officials have expressed interest in acquiring the technology.

The commission’s proposal is intended to shape that policy in advance, emphasizing transparency, oversight and community trust.

The framework places heavy emphasis on privacy protections, including minimizing the collection of data unrelated to an authorized deployment and restricting the monitoring of constitutionally protected activities such as protests, assemblies or other forms of free expression.

Among the concerns raised are gaps in proposed safety guidelines, including the lack of explicit bans on drones equipped with non-lethal weapons such as tasers or tear gas, and the absence of clear prohibitions on autonomous or AI-driven drone deployment without human control.

Privacy and civil liberties issues also feature prominently. The comments call for stronger restrictions on surveillance of constitutionally protected activities, such as protests or public gatherings, and warn that current language allowing exceptions could open the door to misuse. The resident also flagged the omission of limits on technologies like thermal imaging and audio surveillance, which could further expand the reach of drone monitoring.

Additional concerns focus on where drones could be deployed, with a recommendation to explicitly prohibit use near sensitive locations such as religious institutions, citing a history of law enforcement surveillance targeting such communities.

The correspondence also questions whether the city has demonstrated a clear public safety benefit for drone use prior to acquisition, arguing that community engagement should occur before decisions are made rather than after policies are drafted.