Anne Arundel County – Alcoholic Beverages – Golf Course License and Sports Activity Venue Licenses
House Bill 682 would create a new restriction on government use of persistent aerial surveillance in criminal investigations. The bill defines persistent aerial surveillance as the use of aircraft to record video or a series of images that, when viewed together, show a person’s actions over time. Under the bill, a state unit, state agency, or local political subdivision could not use that kind of surveillance to gather evidence or other information in a criminal investigation unless one of several exceptions applies.
The bill allows persistent aerial surveillance in limited circumstances, including when authorized by a valid search warrant, when used to execute an arrest warrant, during fresh pursuit, in active search-and-rescue operations, to locate an escaped prisoner, when necessary to prevent imminent serious bodily harm, or when the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security determines there is a credible, high-risk terrorist threat requiring such surveillance. The bill would take effect October 1, 2025, and it adds a new section to the Public Safety Article while referencing the Transportation Article’s definition of aircraft.
HB0682 would add a new statewide privacy and criminal procedure limitation on law enforcement and other government entities by prohibiting persistent aerial surveillance for criminal investigations except in specified emergency or judicially authorized situations. It would affect state agencies, local police departments, and political subdivisions that use aircraft, drones, or other airborne devices for investigative monitoring, and it would create a new statutory rule in the Public Safety Article governing when such surveillance may be used.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the bill appears to be framed as a civil-liberties and privacy measure aimed at limiting government surveillance. The overall tone of the legislation is precautionary and restrictive, but the available context does not show any documented support or opposition from committee discussion or roll-call voting. The bill’s exceptions suggest an effort to balance privacy concerns with public safety and emergency-response needs.
The main point of contention is likely to be the balance between privacy rights and law-enforcement/public-safety tools. Supporters would likely favor the bill for limiting warrantless or prolonged aerial monitoring of people’s movements, while opponents may argue it could hinder investigations, surveillance of suspects, and operational flexibility for police and emergency responders. The exceptions for warrants, exigent circumstances, search and rescue, and terrorism-related threats indicate the bill tries to address those concerns, but the scope of what counts as “persistent” surveillance and when it is “necessary” could still be debated.