AUVSI letter to California members

I am glad to publish the following letter that AUVSI sent to it’s California members inviting them to take action in regard to Assembly Bill 1327. You can take action too, even if you are not a member!



From: Mario Mairena
Date:08/12/2014 12:20 PM (GMT-08:00)
Subject: AB 1327, Adversely Affecting UAS

Dear California AUVSI Member:

As you know, Assembly Bill 1327 is moving expeditiously through the general assembly. AB 1327 was introduced by Reps. Jeff Gorell (R-44th), Steven Bradford (D-62nd) and Bill Quirk (D-20th). This bill regulates the use of unmanned aircraft systems by public agencies and the dissemination and use of any images, data and footage obtained by those systems. AB 1327 was passed by the House on January 29 by a 63-6 vote and on July 1 was read a second time and was ordered to a third reading in the Senate.

AUVSI’s position is that as it is currently written, AB1327 would fundamentally change current search warrant requirements used by law enforcement, which have been established by decades of U.S. Supreme Court case precedent, and they would treat manned and unmanned aircraft differently, although they are capable of gathering the same data.

To date, AB 1327 is supported by the Laborers’ International Union of North America Local 535 and the San Jose Mercury News Editorial Board. The bill is opposed by California Police Chiefs Association, California Sheriffs’ Association and the Los Angeles District Attorneys Association.

We are asking you to write to your elected officials and plead them to oppose AB1327. Attached is a template letter and messaging documents that will strengthen your case with state elected officials regarding AB1327. Additionally, below is information that will ensure your message will reach the appropriate state elected official:

1. You can click on this link to find your state Representative:

2. You can click on this link to find your state Senator:

3. Please send a copy of your letter to Rep. Jeff Gorell at the following address:

Rep. Jeff Gorell
Capitol Office
P.O. Box 942849, Room 6031
Sacramento, CA 94249-0044

4. Also, please send a copy of your letter to Governor Jerry Brown to the following address:

The Honorable Jerry Brown
Governor of California
c/o State Capitol, Suite 1173
Sacramento, CA 95814

Please notify me via email after you have submitted your letters to your elected officials and thank you for your active involvement in this grassroots effort.

Mario D. Mairena
Senior Government Relations Manager
Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI)
+1 571 255 7783 direct
+1 703 220 1536 mobile

Join AUVSI for these upcoming events:

AUVSI Workshop Series

12 August | Getting Airborne with UAS | Washington, D.C. | USA

13 August | Investing in Unmanned Systems in Uncertain Times | Washington, D.C. | USA

21 October | EAR and ITAR Compliance | Washington, D.C. | USA

4 December | Privacy, Ethics, Perception and Dealing with the “D” Word | Washington, D.C. | USA

AUVSI’s Unmanned Systems Program Review 2014

4-6 November | Ritz Carlton Tysons Corner | McLean, Va. | USA

AUVSI’s Unmanned Systems Europe 2015

3-4 March | Crowne Plaza Brussels – Le Palace | Brussels


One thought on “AUVSI letter to California members”

  1. You state you opposition based on the fact the bill would treat manned and unmanned aircraft differently, although they are capable of gathering the same data. What you fail to address, and I am assuming have not considered, is that there are very valid reasons to treat the two differently.

    Manned aircraft are quite expensive, require at least one person onboard the entire time from takeoff to landing, have a significant minimum size (larger than a person), have a significant noise signature, and are limited as to where they can take off an land. Remotes / drones have none of these restrictions. The limitations on manned aircraft assure that they are only used for situations that can justify the expense (cost & manpower) and attention (due to size / noise). Without those limitations, remotes / drones can be used far more often, for investigations that would not meet the requirements for a warrant.

    As an example, the police would not be able to justify a warrant on the basis that a person had a greenhouse. Thats legal, and there are many things that are legal to grow in one. The expense, and attention drawn, by sending a police helicopter to hover over it close enough to observe through the glass and visually verify if there were pot plants inside would be too high to justify without reasonable suspicion. On the other hand, a drone (such as the Parrot 2.0 or Bebop) could be flown by a bored cop to check ito out on a whim. Perhaps there is a pot plant inside, or pehaps a couple of teenagers or a married couple having sex. The cop has no reasonable suspicion anything illegal is going on, but the drone lets him look in (currently legally) and check it out anyway.

    Restricting their use to when there is enough suspicion for a warrant ensures they won’t be abused.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *