Public Safety - Persistent Aerial Surveillance
HB 398 would create a new section of the Public Safety Article prohibiting state units, agencies, and political subdivisions from using “persistent aerial surveillance” to gather evidence or other information in a criminal investigation, unless one of several listed exceptions applies. The bill defines persistent aerial surveillance as the use of aircraft to record video or a series of images that, viewed together, depict a person’s actions over time.
The bill allows this type of surveillance when conducted under a valid search warrant, while executing an arrest warrant, during fresh pursuit of a suspect, in active search-and-rescue operations, 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 terrorist threat involving a specific individual or organization. The bill would take effect October 1, 2026, and it also cross-references the Transportation Article definition of “aircraft” without changing that definition.
HB 398 would add a new restriction on law enforcement and other government entities in Maryland by limiting warrantless or otherwise unauthorized aerial monitoring in criminal investigations. It would not broadly ban drone or aircraft use, but it would require agencies to fit within enumerated exceptions before using persistent aerial surveillance for investigative purposes. The bill would therefore affect police departments, state agencies, and local governments that use aircraft or drones for monitoring, while also reinforcing judicial oversight through the warrant exception.
Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears framed as a civil-liberties and privacy protection bill aimed at limiting surveillance powers. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of formal support or opposition in the available materials. The bill’s structure suggests an effort to balance privacy concerns with public safety needs by preserving exceptions for emergencies, warrants, and counterterrorism.
The main point of contention is likely the scope of the prohibition on persistent aerial surveillance and whether it unduly restricts law enforcement tools in criminal investigations. Supporters would likely emphasize privacy, Fourth Amendment-style concerns, and limits on long-term aerial monitoring, while opponents may argue that the exceptions are too narrow or could hinder investigations, rapid response, and public safety operations. The bill’s exceptions for warrants, emergencies, search and rescue, and terrorism indicate an attempt to address those concerns, but the balance between surveillance limits and operational flexibility is the central issue.