Law enforcement use of unmanned aerial vehicles to find missing persons, persons fleeing arrest and incarcerated persons authorization
SF 625 expands the circumstances under which Minnesota law enforcement agencies may use unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs, or drones). The bill amends Minnesota Statutes section 626.19, subdivision 3, to add explicit authorization for drone use to search for missing persons, including missing children and vulnerable adults, to locate people fleeing arrest while officers remain in pursuit, and to locate incarcerated persons who escape from adult correctional facilities. It also reorganizes and renumbers the existing list of permitted uses.
The bill preserves current authorized uses and adds or clarifies drone deployment for emergency response, disaster recovery, public events with heightened safety risks, terrorist-threat countermeasures, threat assessments, public-area investigations based on reasonable suspicion, crash reconstruction after serious or deadly collisions, officer training or public relations, and non-law-enforcement requests from other government entities made in writing. In practical terms, it broadens the statutory framework for drone use while keeping the activity tied to specified public-safety and governmental purposes.
The bill would amend Minnesota’s drone-use statute for law enforcement by adding new express authorities and updating the numbering of existing authorized uses. It would affect law enforcement agencies, correctional authorities, and other government entities that request UAV assistance, while also expanding the legal basis for drone deployment in missing-person searches, active pursuits, and escape situations. Because the bill is an amendment to section 626.19, it would directly change the scope of permissible UAV surveillance and operational use under state law.
Based on the bill text and available history, the measure appears to be framed positively as a public-safety tool, with sponsors from both parties suggesting some bipartisan interest in expanding practical law-enforcement capabilities. There is no recorded committee testimony or vote history in the provided materials, so no formal opposition or support is documented here. The overall tone of the bill is utilitarian and safety-focused, emphasizing rescue, pursuit, and emergency response rather than broader surveillance.
The main potential points of contention are privacy and civil-liberties concerns versus public-safety benefits. Expanding drone use to locate people fleeing arrest, conduct public-area investigations on reasonable suspicion, and support training or public relations could raise questions about surveillance scope and oversight. Supporters are likely to emphasize faster searches for missing persons, improved officer safety, and better emergency response, while critics may focus on whether the added categories are sufficiently narrow and whether the statute provides enough limits on drone deployment.