Prepared Statement of Ranking Member Chuck Grassley of Iowa
U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Hearing on “The Future of Drones in America: Law Enforcement
and Privacy Considerations”
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding today’s hearing on unmanned aerial vehicles, more commonly known as drones.
As we examine drone technology, we continue our effort to properly balance innovation, privacy, and public safety.
One can imagine tremendous benefits to society as a result of drone technology. For example, drone technology can help first responders quickly identify the nature and scope of a forest fire or a natural disaster. It may help Police respond more quickly in cases involving hostage rescue, missing children, child abduction, or violent fugitives. With drones carrying advanced technology that provides facial recognition, license plate recognition, and biometric recognition, important investigative leads can be pursued more rapidly and efficiently.
An area where drones may be of particular use is in helping to secure our vast borders. It is clear that we aren’t doing enough to secure our borders. I understand that drone technology is now becoming part of our larger border security strategy. If drone technology can help increase our security on the border, while reducing the cost to American taxpayers, it is something we need to examine. The federal government has a heightened interest in protecting the border and the constitution provides greater use of surveillance at points of entry.
So, I plan to continue discussions with the Department of Homeland Security about their use of this technology to make sure we are maximizing it.
On the civilian side, many questions about drone technology remain. Drones can go almost anywhere and can maintain surveillance for days. They may carry sophisticated technology that greatly enhances surveillance.
The potential benefit for drone technology is limited only by the imagination. And development in new technology often leads to the creation of new jobs.
But, we must always remember that the power of new technology creates a greater responsibility to respect the privacy rights of our citizens.
While drones can expand the reach of a criminal investigation, they can also create an increased risk of invading the privacy of Americans.
We need to make sure that we have sufficient legal safeguards in place to promote innovation while balancing public safety and the privacy of law abiding citizens. We should carefully consider what the government can lawfully do under the Constitution.
But, as a matter of policy, we should go further and examine what limitations are appropriate as a society to protect our privacy. Just because the government may comply with the Constitution does not mean that they should be allowed to constantly surveil us like Big Brother.
The thought of government drones buzzing overhead and constantly monitoring the activities of law abiding citizens runs contrary to the notion of what it means to live in a free society.
The Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures has a consistent meaning. But the tests for determining whether Fourth Amendment rights have been violated have changed as technology has changed.
For more than 40 years, a physical trespass was necessary. For more than 40 years after that, the inquiry has been whether an individual’s reasonable expectations of privacy have been violated.
The recent Supreme Court decision in U.S. v. Jones, which examined whether advanced technology is so intrusive that it becomes a trespass in violation for the Fourth Amendment, is a good starting point for a discussion on drones.
For example, innovations in communications technology such as mobile devices and applications have exposed formerly private information to public scrutiny. Information once closely guarded is now easily accessible via the internet on a handheld mobile device.
These developments, and the ability of drones to provide unprecedented surveillance, may lead to new standards establishing Fourth Amendment violations.
The use of drones for domestic law enforcement also raises new challenges for prosecutors. Both the Chairman and I have at times referred to a famous speech that Robert Jackson delivered when he was Attorney General. In that speech, Jackson pointed out that it is possible to find at least a technical violation of criminal law on the part of almost anyone.
Good prosecutors will use these powerful new surveillance tools wisely. But as we know, not all prosecutors are as responsible as we expect them to be.
And our oversight responsibilities will be even more important as technology evolves. I’ve already started asking questions. For example, last June, when the Attorney General appeared before the Committee, I asked him whether the Department was using or planning on using drones for law enforcement purposes.
To date, I haven’t received an answer. This is even after another appearance before us earlier this month.
It is very important that the American people know whether or how the Justice Department is using drones. And failing to provide answers about the use of this technology is concerning. It may well be a necessary subject for future legislation.
That is why today’s hearing is important. There are many questions that I hope our witnesses can help address.
Specifically, where do we draw the limits regarding the use of drones by government agencies?
Under what circumstances should we require a search warrant or a court order?
Should police use drones only for surveillance?
Should local governments be allowed to use drones to search for traffic violations and building code violations?
Should the federal government use drones to follow around disability claimants in an effort to determine whether there is fraud?
What reasonable limitations are appropriate for where and when to use drones?
Additionally, in examining the use of drones by the government, Congress also needs to examine the reasonable uses and limits of drones by private citizens and the private sector.
Where do we draw the line in balancing the media’s rights under the First Amendment with a citizen’s right to be protected from an invasion of privacy?
Another area to examine is innovative use of drones.
In the world of agriculture, drones can be used by farmers to provide a birds-eye view of a field and help a farmer survey crops more quickly for early signs of pests or disease.
Drones may be able to spray crops to maintain their vigor, check on livestock, and prevent theft of crops, livestock and equipment. These are all time saving and cost saving benefits to the farmer and to the American people.
But no farmer would appreciate government drones constantly flying overhead playing the role of Big Brother.
And no one wants drone technology to end up in the hands of a harassing neighbor, child predator, stalker, drug dealer, violent criminal, or terrorist.
These are the challenges we face in our effort to properly balance innovation, privacy, and public safety.
I thank all the witnesses for being here today and I look forward to hearing from the witnesses regarding these important questions.
Thank you.