Prohibits the use of weaponized robots, non-weaponized robots which may potentially cause injury, or robots being used for surveillance purposes by police agencies.
This bill would add a new section to the New York Executive Law prohibiting police agencies from authorizing the use, attempted use, or threatened use of robots in three circumstances. First, it bars robots armed with any weapon. Second, it bars robots that could potentially cause injury, even if they are not armed. Third, it bars robots used for surveillance purposes. The bill defines “robot” broadly to include an artificial object or system that senses, processes, and acts to some degree, whether operated autonomously or remotely.
The measure is aimed at limiting police use of robotic technology in law enforcement operations, including armed devices, remotely operated machines, and surveillance tools. It would take effect immediately upon enactment and would create a categorical prohibition rather than a regulatory framework or permitting system.
If enacted, the bill would amend the Executive Law by adding section 837-y and would directly restrict police agencies in New York from deploying robots for weaponized, potentially injurious, or surveillance-related uses. It would affect state and local police departments, limiting procurement, deployment, and operational use of robotic systems in policing, including technologies used for tactical response, crowd control, reconnaissance, and monitoring civilians.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee discussion or votes, the available record suggests a precautionary, civil-liberties-oriented approach to police technology. The bill’s framing indicates concern about the risks of weaponized robotics, injury, and surveillance, but there is no documented legislative debate in the provided materials showing support or opposition from specific members.
The main points of contention are likely to center on public safety, police operational flexibility, and privacy/civil rights. Supporters would likely emphasize preventing militarization of police, reducing the risk of harm from autonomous or remotely operated systems, and limiting surveillance of civilians. Opponents would likely argue that the bill is overly broad because it prohibits even non-weaponized robots that could potentially cause injury and also bans surveillance uses outright, which could limit legitimate law-enforcement tools such as bomb disposal, hostage response, or reconnaissance. No specific stakeholders or recorded objections are included in the provided history.