Unmanned aerial systems: Consideration of the use of force for law enforcement applications

Technology in Society

Volumn 39, Issue , 2014, Pages 100-109

  Straub, Jeremy ^a  

^a University of North Dakota   (United States)

Author keywords

Domestic drone use; Law enforcement; Unmanned aerial system (UAS); Unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV); Use of force

Indexed keywords

AIRCRAFT DETECTION; LAW ENFORCEMENT; TARGET DRONES; UNMANNED VEHICLES;

CIVILIAN AUTHORITIES; DOMESTIC DRONE USE; GENERAL GOVERNMENTS; PERSISTENT SURVEILLANCE; TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES; UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEMS; USE OF FORCE; WAR FIGHTING;

UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES (UAV);

AIRCRAFT; GOVERNMENT; LAW ENFORCEMENT; SPACE TECHNOLOGY; UNMANNED VEHICLE;

UNITED STATES;

EID: 84914153805     PISSN: 0160791X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2013.12.004     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Awad A.I. An analysis of the risk from UAS missions in the national airspace 2013.
2. Weibel R.E., Hansman R.J. An integrated approach to evaluating risk mitigation measures for UAV operational concepts in the NAS. Proceedings of InfoTech at aerospace: advancing contemporary aerospace technologies and their integration 2005, vol. 1:509-519.
3. Villasenor J. Privacy, security, and human dignity in the digital age: observations from above: unmanned aircraft systems and privacy. Harv JL & Pub Pol'y 2013, 36:457-915.
4. Roberts T. On the radar: government unmanned aerial vehicles and their effect on public privacy interests from fourth amendment jurisprudence and legislative policy perspectives. Jurimetrics 2008, 49:491.
5. Schlag C. The new privacy battle: how the expanding use of drones continues to Erode our concept of privacy and privacy rights. Pittsburgh J Technol Law Policy 2013, 13.
6. Vacek J.J. Big brother will soon be watching-or will be-constitutional, regulatory, and operational issues surrounding the use of unmanned aerial vehicles in law enforcement. NDL Rev 2009, 85:673.
7. Davis J. The (Common) law of man over (Civilian) vehicles unmanned. J Law Inform Sci 2011, 21:1-15.
8. Anand S. Domestic use of unmanned aircraft systems: an evaluation of policy constraints and the role of industry consensus standards. ASTM Stand News 2007, 35:30.
9. Henderson I., Cavanagh B. Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs): do they pose legal challenges? New technologies and the law of armed conflict 2013, TMC Asser, Forthcoming, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2283528.
10. Rapp G.C. Unmanned aerial exposure: civil liability concerns arising from domestic law enforcement employment of unmanned aerial systems. NDL Rev 2009, 85:623.
11. Anderson K. The case for drones 2013.
12. Reilly R.J. Eric holder: drone strike to kill U.S. Citizen on American soil legal, hypothetically 2013, Huffington Post.
13. Wilson J. UAV roundup 2013 2013, vol. 51. Aerospace America.
14. McNeal G. DOJ report reveals details of domestic drone usage 2013, Forbes.
15. Grossman L. Drone home. Time Mag 2013.
16. National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers DDIC Bill Map. [accessed October, 2013].
17. National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers NACDL Draft Legislation. 2013.
18. American Civil Liberties Union Domestic Drones. 2013.
19. Aerospace States Association UAS Privacy Considerations, [accessed 20.10.13].
20. International Association of Chiefs of Police Aviation Committee Recommended Guidelines for the use of Unmanned Aircraft, [accessed October 20.10.13].
21. Jenks C. Law from above: unmanned aerial systems, use of force, and the law of armed conflict. North Dakota Law Rev 2010, 85:649.
22. McNab M., Matthews M. Clarifying the law relating to unmanned drones and the use of force: the relationships between human rights, self-defense, armed conflict, and international humanitarian law. Denv J Int'l L & Pol'y 2010, 39:661.
23. Printer N.G. Use of force against non-state actors under international law: an analysis of the US predator strike in Yemen. UCLA J Int'l L & Foreign Aff 2003, 8:331.
24. Anonymous Prosecutor v. Tadic, case No. IT-94-1-I, decision on the Defense Motion for Interlocatory Appeal on Juristiction 1995, 70.
25. Wittie MC. Police use of force.
26. Alpert G.P., Smith W.C. How reasonable is the reasonable man?: Police and excessive force. J Crim Law Criminol (1973) 1994, 85:481-501.
27. DiMatteo L.A. Counterpoise of contracts: the reasonable person standard and the subjectivity of judgment. The SCL Rev 1996, 48:293.
28. Garner J., Buchanan J., Schade T., Hepburn J. Understanding the use of force by and against the police 1996, US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.
29. White M.D. Controlling police decisions to use deadly force: reexamining the importance of administrative policy. Crime Delinquency 2001, 47:131-151.
30. Williams G.T. Reluctance to use deadly force. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin 1999, 68:1-9.
31. Terrill W., Alpert G.P., Dunham R.G., Smith M.R. A management tool for evaluating police use of force: an application of the force factor. Police Quart 2003, 6:150-171.
32. Terrill W., Paoline E.A. Examining less lethal force policy and the force continuum results from a national use-of-force study. Police Quart 2013, 16:38-65.
33. Terrill W., Leinfelt F.H., Kwak D. Examining police use of force: a smaller agency perspective. Policing 2008, 31:57-76.
34. Davis N., Pittaluga F., Panetta K. Facial recognition using human visual system algorithms for robotic and UAV platforms; Technologies for Practical Robot Applications (TePRA), 2013 IEEE International Conference on; IEEE 2013, 1-5.
35. Harguess J., Larson J. Vegetation versus man-made object detection from imagery for unmanned vehicles in off-road environments; SPIE Defense, Security, and Sensing 2013, International Society for Optics and Photonics, p. 874104-874104-8.
36. White M.D., Ready J. The TASER as a less lethal force alternative findings on use and effectiveness in a large metropolitan police agency. Police Quart 2007, 10:170-191.
37. Thomas K.J., Collins P.A., Lovrich N.P. Conducted energy device use in municipal policing: results of a national survey on policy and effectiveness assessments. Police Quart 2010, 13:290-315.
38. Garner J.H., Maxwell C.D. Measuring the amount of force used by and against the police in six jurisdictions. Use of force by police: overview of national and local data 1999, US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DC.
39. Weisburd D., Greenspan R., Hamilton E.E., Williams H., Bryant K.A. Police attitudes toward abuse of authority: findings from a national study 2000, US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.
40. Paoline E.A., Terrill W. Police education, experience, and the use of force. Crim. Justice Behav 2007, 34:179-196.
41. Bazley T.D., Lersch K.M., Mieczkowski T. Police use of force detectives in an urban police department. Crim Justice Rev 2006, 31:213-229.
42. Desell T., Bergman R., Goehner K., Marsh R., VanderClute R., Ellis-Felege S. Wildlife@Home: combining crowd sourcing and volunteer computing to analyze avian nesting video, IEEE 9th International Conference on eScience 2003, October 22-25 (Beijing, China), pp 107-115.
43. Anderson S.L. Asimov's "three laws of robotics" and machine metaethics. AI Soc 2008, 22:477-493.
44. Murphy R.R., Woods D.D. Beyond Asimov: the three laws of responsible robotics. Intell Syst 2009, 24:14-20.