ACLU of Ohio Statement on Governor DeWine Signing Problematic Drone Bill into Law, Citing Numerous First Amendment and Privacy Concerns

Columbus, OH – Prior to his signing the bill into law, the ACLU of Ohio Ohio sent a letter to Governor DeWine urging him to veto House Bill 251, a drone regulation bill that provides police with a blank check to conduct non-stop surveillance on Ohioans’ travels, activities, and destinations without a warrant. Furthermore, this bill makes it illegal for one person to use a drone to view another person without that person’s “express, informed” consent, presenting numerous practical problems and various First Amendment concerns.

Per the letter, HB 251:

• Includes no exemptions for news media/journalists, or anyone else, in the section requiring “express, informed” consent;

• Does not specify if the private operator or the relevant law enforcement entity is responsible for acquiring the consent;

• Ignores how an operator is to comply with consent requirements for one person, a crowd of people, or a long list of other scenarios.

The ACLU of Ohio further cited concerns about drone data and Ohio Public Records Laws by explicitly making all footage taken by law enforcement public record, available to all whom ask, including those with ill intent.

The following statement can be attributed to ACLU of Ohio Legislative Director Gary Daniels:

“House Bill 251 will impact Ohioans’ privacy rights by giving state and local government and law enforcement the authority to engage in never-ending surveillance as long as we are outside our homes. Concerns with mass surveillance, government spying, and data sharing are top of mind for many citizens, and this law will further impact the ability of every day Ohioans to be free of warrantless surveillance by their government. The ACLU of Ohio has been on the record citing legitimate concerns about HB 251 since its introduction, and we are very disappointed that Governor DeWine did not heed the cautions we outlined in our letter addressing the many inconsistencies, loopholes, and free speech blind spots.”