HB682 would create a new restriction in Maryland law on “persistent aerial surveillance” by state units, agencies, and political subdivisions when used to gather evidence or information in a criminal investigation. The bill defines persistent aerial surveillance as the use of aircraft to record video or a series of images that, taken together, show a person’s actions over time. In general, the bill prohibits this practice unless one of several exceptions applies.
The exceptions allow persistent aerial surveillance when conducted under a valid search warrant, while executing an arrest warrant, during fresh pursuit of a suspect, in an active search and rescue operation, to locate an escaped prisoner, when an officer reasonably believes aircraft use is necessary to prevent imminent serious bodily harm, or when the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security determines there is credible intelligence of a high-risk terrorist threat and aerial surveillance is needed to counter it. The bill would take effect October 1, 2025.
Impact
If enacted, HB682 would add a new section to the Public Safety Article and limit law enforcement and other government entities in Maryland from using aircraft for ongoing aerial monitoring in criminal investigations without judicial authorization or a listed emergency/security justification. It would not change the definition of aircraft in the Transportation Article, but it would create a new statutory framework governing surveillance practices by state and local government entities, affecting police departments, sheriffs, and other public agencies that use drones, helicopters, or other aircraft for investigative purposes.
Sentiment
The bill’s text suggests a strong privacy- and civil-liberties-oriented approach, aiming to curb broad aerial monitoring while preserving exceptions for warrants, emergencies, rescue operations, and terrorism-related threats. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of debate or formal support/opposition in the available materials. Based on the bill’s sponsors and structure, the measure appears designed to appeal to lawmakers concerned about surveillance limits and constitutional protections.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely to be the balance between privacy and law-enforcement flexibility. Supporters would likely favor the warrant requirement and the ban on routine persistent surveillance as protections against intrusive monitoring, while opponents may argue that the restrictions could hinder investigations, rapid response, and public safety operations. The exceptions for exigent circumstances and terrorism show an attempt to address those concerns, but the scope of what counts as “persistent” surveillance and when aircraft use is “necessary” could still be debated by police, privacy advocates, and civil liberties groups.