Police in southeast Ohio are touting the benefits of using drones while the ACLU calls for laws to govern their use
By: Abigail Semple
Posted on:
ATHENS, Ohio (WOUB) – Law enforcement agencies across southeast Ohio are increasingly turning to drones—not just for search and rescue, but to deter crime, pursue suspects and gather aerial intelligence in high-risk areas. But the ACLU of Ohio warns that without appropriate legislation, these tools could overstep constitutional boundaries.
Lt. John Morris of the Athens County Sheriff’s Office said technological improvements allowed them to begin using drones in more advanced ways.
“If we’re going to do a high-risk search warrant, we will put the drone up and get over the target before units arrive,” he said.
The drones also patrol high-crime neighborhoods at night, detecting heat signatures of people who might be committing crimes.
Jeff Wilson, Perry County Sheriff’s Office drone program coordinator, said the department has flown more than 140 missions since 2020, using drones in mental health crises, criminal pursuits and to assist in firefighting.
“They may be only looking in one area 100 yards wide and we can provide them a much better view of the entire fire scene,” he noted.
But the growing use of drones for surveillance raises privacy concerns—especially when flights are conducted over private property or in residential areas.
Both Wilson and Morris said that law enforcement drone operators follow FAA guidelines and attempt to limit data collection until reaching their target. Flights are generally not recorded unless there is evidentiary or training value.
Both officers acknowledged that drones can legally fly over private property without permission or a warrant, so long as they remain within regulated airspace.
“Anything basically above the tallest blade of grass is governed by the Federal Aviation Administration,” Wilson said. “The type of airspace we fly in is uncontrolled, what is termed uncontrolled airspace, as long as that drone is not acting in a manner, say, hovering outside a window to a residence.”
This is what worries the ACLU.
Gary Daniels, a policy analyst with ACLU Ohio, said the organization is pushing for laws at the local and state levels to regulate drone use.
“We think it’s a no-brainer,” Daniels said. “If law enforcement is intent on saying and claiming that, ‘we’re only going to use it for these specific purposes, emergency purposes, exigent circumstances, you know, lay those out. Let’s get a law passed at the local or the state level so that law enforcement can go ahead and use these technologies for those types.”
Daniels noted that although some agencies, like Perry County, have internal drone policies —such as retaining footage for no more than 60 days unless needed for evidence— these policies are not legally binding and don’t offer adequate protection.
He argues that without legislation, there’s nothing stopping law enforcement from expanding drone use in ways that infringe on civil liberties.
Ohio lawmakers are considering House Bill 251, which would require warrants for most forms of drone surveillance, ban weaponized drones and mandate public transparency and data retention policies. It would still allow warrantless use in specific scenarios, such as emergencies, natural disasters or monitoring traffic.
Until such law is passed, Daniels says the risk of unchecked surveillance remains.
The ACLU is also calling for more community engagement and public transparency.
Daniels supports a nationwide initiative known as Community Control over Police Surveillance, or CCOPS. It advocates for public hearings, civilian input and formal laws before surveillance technologies are adopted.
Morris and Wilson, despite the concerns, expressed confidence in the benefits of drone technology. They say sometimes, just knowing someone in law enforcement is watching is enough to deter a crime.
“They know that somebody’s watching,” Morris said “They know that we were out there, we’re working, we see something, we make contact. We determine if they’re just out for a walk in the middle of the night, or maybe they’re up to no good. But once we get done speaking to them, whatever they were going to do, they probably changed their mind about doing it.”
Daniels agrees that the use of drones by law enforcement to fight crime can be valuable —but only with safeguards. According to him, it isn’t about preventing law enforcement from utilizing useful tools but it’s about ensuring those tools aren’t used to violate citizens’ fundamental rights to privacy.
“We think the burden should always be on the government,” Daniels said. “Rather than … on the people explaining why they want their rights preserved.”