In 2021, Art Castañares, the publisher of La Prensa and a longtime Chula Vista resident, filed a public records request to review video footage captured by police department drones. His goal was to assess how the police utilize these new drones and whether their use might infringe upon citizens' privacy rights as they fly over thousands of homes throughout the city. However, Chula Vista officials resisted, leading to a protracted legal battle that has far-reaching implications for the use of drones by law enforcement agencies across California.
The legal dispute between Castañares and the City of Chula Vista escalated, eventually reaching the California Supreme Court. In a significant decision, the court refused to hear the case, effectively upholding an appellate court ruling that deemed the city's blanket refusal to allow public access to drone video footage as overly broad. This ruling overturned an initial decision by a San Diego Superior Court judge who had sided with Chula Vista. The outcome of this lawsuit could have a profound impact on more than a dozen California cities that currently employ or are considering the use of drones as first responders.
Castañares emphasized the importance of the lawsuit, stating, "Our lawsuit created a statewide legal precedent that improves the public's access to police records that agencies have tried to shield from disclosure." His concerns are shared by others in the community, such as Verónica Marquez, a high-school teacher and long-time Chula Vista resident. Marquez reported that drones have passed over her home or within two blocks at least 15 times in the last six months for various reasons, ranging from "unknown" problems and reports of suspicious vehicles to more serious matters like "assault with a deadly weapon." She expressed her belief that the public should have access to video footage, adding that the police's resistance to providing access fosters distrust.
The First Amendment Coalition, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press submitted a joint friend of the court letter, cautioning that the trial court's interpretation "would blunt public understanding and oversight of law enforcement's use of new technologies beyond the drone program at issue in this (records) request." David Loy, the legal director of the First Amendment Coalition, emphasized that drone footage is subject to the same public disclosure rules as other records, with no exceptions for drones.
Chula Vista, the second-largest city in San Diego County, has been at the forefront of drone usage by law enforcement. It became the first U.S. city to receive Federal Aviation Administration approval to operate drones at low altitudes and beyond visual line-of-sight in the national airspace. Each month, Chula Vista police deploy drones to respond to hundreds of 911 calls from at least five launch sites, including a community college and two hospitals. The city has contracted with Flying Lion, a private company specializing in developing programs for first-responder drones, as have numerous other California cities, such as Redondo Beach, Irvine, Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, and others.
The use of drones by law enforcement agencies raises concerns about privacy and civil rights, especially when private industry plays a significant role in driving the expansion of these programs. In Beverly Hills, for example, the police department already deploys drones for hours of surveillance as part of their "ubiquitous coverage" of city limits. The Los Angeles County Police Chiefs Association has advocated for the expanded use of surveillance technologies and the integration of data collection with drones, including the use of facial recognition software and other artificial intelligence tools.
Chula Vista residents have previously expressed concerns about the police department's handling of sensitive data. In 2019, the San Diego Union-Tribune revealed that the department had recklessly shared license plate data with immigration authorities, leading to public outcry. Marquez questioned the rationale for expanding data sharing between law enforcement agencies, particularly those that enforce immigration laws, stating, "I understand that each entity has its own tasks to fulfill, so the fact that they share information with each other seems deceptive to me. And doesn't it violate people's privacy, regardless of their immigration status?"
As the proliferation of drone response programs continues, driven in part by the significant business opportunities they present, it is crucial to ensure that the expansion of surveillance capabilities is accompanied by robust policies to protect privacy and civil rights. The California Supreme Court's decision in the Chula Vista case underscores the need for a more nuanced approach to the disclosure of drone footage, one that allows for greater transparency and accountability. As Pedro Rios, the director of the American Friends Service Committee's U.S./Mexico Border program, noted, "At least in this case, the state Supreme Court correctly determined the law of the land must be more nuanced, with greater room for transparency and accountability so that police departments using drone technology in California don't hastily circumvent privacy rights in their zeal to expand surveillance."
