Use of unmanned aerial vehicles authorized for risk of fleeing suspect or actual fleeing suspect.
Summary
HF1275 amends Minnesota’s law governing when law enforcement agencies may use unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), or drones. The bill adds an explicit authorization for UAV use “in risk of, or for purposes of, the lawful pursuit of a fleeing suspect,” expanding the list of situations in which police may deploy drones. The existing statute already allows UAV use in emergencies, public events with heightened safety risks, disaster response, threat assessments, public-area criminal investigations based on reasonable suspicion, crash reconstruction, training/public relations, and certain non-law-enforcement uses requested in writing by another government entity.
In practical terms, the bill broadens police operational authority by making drone use available during pursuits of suspects who are fleeing or at risk of fleeing. The change is made by amending Minnesota Statutes 2024, section 626.19, subdivision 3, which is the state law that limits and defines authorized UAV use by law enforcement. The bill does not create a new drone program or change the rules for private drone use; it specifically adjusts the statutory list of permitted law-enforcement uses.
Impact
The bill would directly amend Minnesota’s public-safety and law-enforcement UAV statute, section 626.19, subdivision 3, by inserting a new authorized use tied to fleeing suspects. This would give agencies clearer legal authority to deploy drones during suspect pursuits, potentially affecting policing tactics, pursuit policy, and training. It may also influence how agencies document and justify drone use in active incidents, since the authorization is tied to lawful pursuit and risk of flight.
Sentiment
The available record shows no committee transcript or recorded votes, so there is no documented debate or formal vote history to gauge support or opposition. Based on the bill text and caption, the measure appears to be framed as a public-safety tool intended to help law enforcement manage suspect pursuits more safely and effectively. The overall tone of the bill is operational and permissive rather than restrictive.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is the expansion of drone surveillance and police authority during suspect pursuits. Supporters would likely view the change as improving officer and public safety, while critics may raise concerns about privacy, surveillance, and the possibility of broader drone use in ordinary policing. Because the bill text uses the phrase “risk of, or for purposes of, the lawful pursuit of a fleeing suspect,” questions could also arise about how broadly agencies may interpret that authority and what safeguards apply.