WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HF 1396

Permitted uses of unmanned aerial vehicles by law enforcement expanded.

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Bidal Duran and 7 co-sponsors

Expands Minnesota law enforcement's use of drones to include more searches, rescues, incident surveillance, and scene documentation, with privacy safeguards and oversight.

Second reading
#airportsandaircraft #publicsafetydepartment
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HF 1396

HF 1396 — Permitted uses of unmanned aerial vehicles by law enforcement expanded

Status: Second reading
Introduced: February 24, 2025
Author(s): (authorship updated — Sexton added 2025-03-20)
Subjects: Airports and aircraft; public safety department
Related/companion bill: SF 1524

Note: The full engrossed bill text was not included with your request. This summary is based on the bill title, available legislative actions, and the typical scope of legislation that expands law‑enforcement use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). For exact statutory language and precise provisions, consult the bill text on the Minnesota Legislature website (search HF 1396).

Purpose / Intent

According to its title, HF 1396 would broaden the circumstances in which Minnesota law‑enforcement agencies may operate unmanned aerial vehicles (drones). The bill appears intended to update state law to allow additional public‑safety uses of UAVs, likely reflecting technological changes and law‑enforcement operational needs.

Key areas likely addressed (based on title)

Because the bill text is not provided here, these are the types of provisions commonly included in legislation that expands UAV use by police. The bill may:

  • Define terms (e.g., “unmanned aerial vehicle,” “operator,” “law enforcement agency”).
  • Enumerate additional permitted uses of UAVs by law enforcement — for example:
    • Search and rescue and missing persons operations;
    • Emergency response and disaster assessment;
    • Scene documentation and evidence collection (traffic crashes, major crime scenes);
    • Tactical surveillance/overwatch during active incidents, pursuits, or SWAT operations;
    • Crowd monitoring for public‑safety management.
  • Specify constitutional or statutory limits on surveillance (warrant requirements, exigent‑circumstance exceptions).
  • Establish data handling rules: storage, retention periods, access controls, and restrictions on sharing with third parties.
  • Create reporting, transparency, and oversight requirements (annual reports, public notice, or registry of UAV deployments).
  • Require operator training, certification, and compliance with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) rules.
  • Address prohibitions (e.g., arming drones, use of biometric/face recognition technology) or set conditions for such capabilities.

Who would be affected

  • Minnesota state and local law‑enforcement agencies (expanded operational authority and possible training/equipment costs).
  • Individuals whose activities could be monitored by UAVs (privacy and civil liberties implications).
  • Minnesota Department of Public Safety (policy implementation, oversight).
  • Airports/aviation stakeholders and the FAA — coordination required for airspace safety and compliance.
  • Courts and defense attorneys (evidence and warrant issues).

Procedural history / next steps

  • Introduced and first read: 2025-02-24; referred to Public Safety Finance and Policy.
  • Committee activity: Reported to adopt as amended and re‑referred to Judiciary Finance and Civil Law (03-27-2025).
  • Committee report to adopt as amended and second reading on 04-10-2025.
  • Current status (as provided): Second reading. If advanced, the bill would proceed to further floor consideration and votes; if passed, it would go to the governor.

Potential impacts and considerations

  • Operational benefits: improved situational awareness, faster search/rescue, less risk to officers.
  • Privacy and civil‑liberties concerns: broader UAV use can increase surveillance; protections (warrants, retention limits, prohibitions on certain technologies) are often central to public debate.
  • Fiscal effects: agencies may need funding for drones, training, data storage, and policy compliance.
  • Legal interplay: state rules must align with constitutional protections and FAA requirements for airspace and UAV operations.

For an authoritative summary of exact changes, read the engrossed bill text and committee reports at the Minnesota Legislature website (search HF 1396) or review companion bill SF 1524 for parallel language.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.