ANALYSIS

Rand Paul Launches a Preemptive Strike Against Domestic Drones

Updated: June 13, 2012 | 11:29 a.m.
June 13, 2012 | 11:20 a.m.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., announced on Wednesday that he has introduced legislation aimed at protecting Americans' from misuse of drones by law enforcement.

"Like other tools used to collect information in law enforcement, in order to use drones a warrant needs to be issued. Americans going about their everyday lives should not be treated like criminals or terrorists and have their rights infringed upon by military tactics," Paul said in a press release posted to his website.

Of course, legislation shouldn't be needed to force police to comply with the Fourth Amendment when using drones. But even local law enforcement is starting to use the unmanned planes, so it's better for Congress to preemptively rein them in than to wait for abuses and lawsuits.

The legislation, dubbed the Preserving Freedom From Unwarranted Surveillance Act of 2011, "prohibits the use of drones by the government except when a warrant is issued for its use in accordance with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment." It allows anyone "to sue the government for violating this act," it specifies that evidence obtained from drones without a warrant cannot be used as evidence, and it includes the following exceptions when warrants for drones aren't required:

1) patrol of national borders; 2) when law enforcement possesses reasonable suspicion that under particular circumstances, swift drone action is necessary to prevent "imminent danger to life;" 3) high risk of a terrorist attack.

A similar proposal exists in the House of Representatives, as Paul explains in this CNN interview:

Paul: Well, you know, I got the idea from Representative Austin Scott. So I have to give him some credit from Georgia. He told me about the bill recently. We picked it up and are introducing it as the Senate version. Yeah, I'm a big fan of the Fourth Amendment. Not only do I like the Second Amendment, I like the Fourth Amendment. I think you should have to have a warrant to invade people's privacy and to spy on them. And so I think it's very important. And this just basically restates the Constitution. But sometimes you have to restate the Constitution because many up here seem so ignore it. And Representative Scott when he told me about the bill he said, 'Look, when I'm out hunting on my property, I don't want them spying on me.' And I'm not a hunter. But when I'm separating out my recyclables, I don't want them having a drone to make sure I'm putting my newspaper in the proper bin.

Carol Costello:
Well, we've already got drone launch sites in more than 20 states. Police are pretty excited about this new crime-fighting tool. So would your bill make these launch sites go away?

Paul:
What it would do is there's a balancing act. I mean police do have power and I want police to catch rapists and murderers. But they ask a judge and we separate the police from the people who finally make the decision on someone coming in your house. So even if a rapist is loose in D.C. tonight, the police will call a judge in the middle of the night, wake him or her up and say, we think there's a rapist in the neighborhood. Can we go in x address? And so those are things that are very, very important to protecting innocent individuals. And a drone is a very, very powerful way of snooping on behavior. And I don't want them monitoring every bit of my behavior. And I'm not joking about the recyclables. I mean, we've had different states and cities trying to punish people criminally for not separating out the recyclables. We don't want a nanny state that watches every minute of our day. It's not that there will be no drones it's just that drones will only be used when a judge says that it's proper.

There are very few people in Congress who are anticipating threats to civil liberties and trying to preempt them with legislation. It'll be interesting to see who signs on to Paul's measure and who tries to block this effort. It's easy to imagine the tea party as a whole turning against domestic drones, though it's also plausible that they'll side with police and folks who want maximum latitude for law enforcement.

Get the latest news and analysis delivered to your inbox. Sign up for National Journal's morning alert, Wake-Up Call, and afternoon newsletter, The Edge. Subscribe here.


Leave A Comment
The National Journal Group has the right (but not the obligation) to monitor the comments and to remove any materials it deems inappropriate.
Comments powered by Disqus
Follow National Journal
Related Content
Expert Opinions
Energy Experts

What's at Stake with Natural-Gas Exports?

4:49 p.m.

Latest Response by Dave McCurdy: Natural Gas Market Will Find Balance

Transportation Experts

Do We Suddenly Hate Driving?

4:24 p.m.

Latest Response by Keith Laughlin: We Need a New Policy for a New Day

Energy Experts

What's at Stake with Natural-Gas Exports?

3:21 p.m.

Latest Response by Tim Peckinpaugh: LNG Exports: Let the Market Decide

More Expert Opinions »
Columns
Charlie Cook: Off to the Races

Republicans’ Hatred of Obama Blinds Them to Public Disinterest in Scandals

May 20, 2013
Republicans are so focused on their bitter battles against Obama, they can’t see how little impact the “scandals” have had on public opinion.
Charlie Cook: The Cook Report

Republicans Should Go Easy on Obama, At Least in Public

May 16, 2013
As a tactical matter, a subterranean campaign will score more direct hits on the president.
Ronald Brownstein: Political Connections

How the White House Scandals Could Hurt Republicans, Too

May 16, 2013
By enraging the base and strengthening the faction least willing to compromise with Obama, the IRS and Benghazi affairs could hurt a GOP shot at the presidency.
More Columns »