Oregon Senate Bill 238 Advances: Police Drones Set for Expanded Role in 911 Responses

On April 7, 2025, Oregon‘s Senate Judiciary Committee voted 5-1 to advance Senate Bill 238, a proposal to broaden drone da polícia use for 911 calls, suspect pursuits, and search operations, according to OregonLive. The bill, now headed to the Senate floor, aims to align Oregon with states like California and Nova York, where law enforcement routinely deploys unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to enhance operational efficiency. However, privacy advocates warn of unchecked surveillance risks, sparking a heated debate over public safety versus civil liberties.

A Step Toward Modern Policing

Senate Bill 238 seeks to loosen Oregon’s restrictive drone laws, which currently limit Polícia use to “exigent circumstances”—situations involving immediate harm or fleeing suspects—unless a warrant is obtained. Supporters argue these constraints hinder effective policing. “I’ve located suspects hiding in places like rooftops and thick brush—locations that would have put officers at risk during traditional searches,” wrote Albany police officer Michael Norlander in testimony to the committee, highlighting drones’ ability to reduce danger during operations.

The bill would permit UAVs to respond to 911 calls, survey crash scenes before officers arrive, chase suspects, and search for missing persons, such as children or elderly adults. Eugene Police Sgt. Kyle Williams, testifying last week, cited a case where a drone provided tactical data about a suspect brandishing a gun downtown, leading to a peaceful arrest. “We’ve used drones for numerous captures, from bank robberies to shoplifting,” Williams told the committee, underscoring their versatility.

Nationwide, drone adoption by law enforcement is growing. A 2023 ACLU report noted that at least 1,400 police departments use UAVs, equipped with features like high-resolution cameras, thermal imagers for nighttime detection, and loudspeakers for communication, according to Axon, a leading law enforcement technology provider. Oregon’s proposed changes would bring its agencies in line with this trend, potentially improving response times and officer safety.

Privacy Concerns Take Center Stage

Opponents, led by the ACLU of Oregon, argue the bill risks eroding civil liberties. Michael Abrams, policy counsel for the ACLU, warned the committee that Senate Bill 238 “would provide a legislative blank check for law enforcement agencies to begin deploying seemingly unlimited quantities of drones.” He cautioned that widespread UAV use could lead to “an era of mass aerial surveillance that has a severe chilling effect on our public speech, assembly, and movement rights.”

Critics fear drones could be used to monitor protests, potentially stifling free expression. To address these concerns, Sen. Floyd Prozanski, a Eugene Democrat and committee chair, introduced an amendment prohibiting police from using drones to collect data on individuals not suspected of crimes. The bill also bans UAVs for traffic enforcement, aiming to limit overreach. However, skepticism persists about enforcement and oversight, given the lack of clarity on how many agencies nationwide operate under strict warrant requirements.

Sen. Kim Thatcher, a Keizer Republican, raised a practical question during hearings, asking if Drones policiais are clearly marked to identify their operators. Williams responded that some feature red and blue lights or noisemakers to signal their presence, as “we want to get people’s attention, so they know they’re being watched and it will influence their behavior.” This transparency measure may reassure some, but privacy advocates argue it doesn’t address the broader surveillance threat.

Technical and Regulatory Context

Modern police drones, like those from Axon, offer advanced capabilities: 4K cameras, thermal imaging for low-visibility conditions, and flight ranges up to 7 miles (11.3 kilometers). Battery life typically spans 30-45 minutes, sufficient for most tactical operations. Costs range from $10,000 to $50,000 per unit (USD), depending on features, a significant investment for departments but often offset by federal grants, as proposed in the bipartisan DRONE Act of 2025.

Oregon’s current regulations, rooted in 2013 and 2016 legislation, require public agencies to register drones with the Oregon Department of Aviation and report usage annually. Senate Bill 238 doesn’t alter these requirements but expands operational scope, raising questions about scalability. Will departments invest in training pilots under FAA Part 107 rules or seek federal Certificates of Authorization for broader flexibility? The bill’s silence on funding and oversight leaves these issues unresolved, potentially complicating implementation.

Nationally, drone programs like Chula Vista, California’s Drone as First Responder initiative demonstrate success, with UAVs resolving 4,100 calls annually while reducing officer-involved confrontations. Yet, without clear safeguards, Oregon risks replicating controversies like those in Baltimore, where aerial surveillance programs faced backlash for lack of transparency.

Market and Industry Implications

The bill could spur demand for law enforcement UAVs in Oregon, benefiting manufacturers like Axon and DJI, though the latter faces scrutiny over Data Security. Local suppliers may see opportunities to outfit departments with accessories like thermal cameras or ruggedized frames. Training providers certified by the FAA could also gain traction, as agencies scale up operations to meet Part 107 standards.

However, privacy concerns may temper adoption. Public pushback could lead to stricter municipal regulations, as seen with past drone bans in Oregon parks. Departments must balance technological ambition with community CONFIANÇA, ensuring UAVs are perceived as tools for safety, not surveillance.

DroneXL’s Take

The Oregon legislation represents a critical juncture in the ongoing balance between technological advancement in policing and civil liberties protections. While the operational benefits of expanded drone usage are compelling – including officer safety, resource efficiency, and enhanced capabilities – the potential for overreach remains a legitimate concern.

Opponents’ worries that drones with cameras recording protesters could be used as a tactic to squelch speech highlight the tension between security benefits and potential civil liberties implications. Sen. Thatcher’s question about drone markings and identifiability also raises important considerations about transparency in police drone operations.

The bill’s explicit prohibitions against surveilling non-suspects and traffic enforcement show lawmakers’ awareness of privacy concerns, but implementation and oversight will be crucial if the legislation passes. As police departments nationwide increasingly adopt Tecnologia de drones, Oregon’s approach could serve as either a model for responsible expansion or a cautionary tale about rushing into aerial surveillance without sufficient guardrails.

For professional and recreational pilotos de drones, this legislation also highlights the growing distinction between consumer and law enforcement UAV operations, potentially setting precedents that could impact regulations across the entire drone ecosystem.