California Call To Action


California Tell Your Elected Officials You Support Drones



California bill AB1327 would allow law enforcement and public agencies to use drones. This means technology and service jobs for Californians as well as savings for the taxpayer. Drone end-users can support this bill while still supporting the 4th amendment.


AB1327 will let State, and local agencies use drones to better manage the public’s resources. Drones will also be used to help save lives and property of all Californians. AB1327 will allow drones to be used in the same manner as manned assets are currently being employed now. Drones are more efficient and cost less to operate than manned aircraft.


Read: AB1327.


The bill has already passed the CA Assembly, so call the following representatives and tell them that you support this technology and industry.


Tell them to vote yes on AB1327. Tell them you support the benefits drones can bring in the California skies.


Loni Hancock, Chair: (916) 651-4009

Joel Anderson, Vice Chair: (916) 651-4036


Also call the members of the public safety committee. Tell them to vote yes on AB1327. Tell them you are for the lawful and positive uses of drones in California skies.



Steve Knight: (916) 651-4021

Kevin de León: (916) 651-4022

Carol Liu: (916) 651-4028

Holly Mitchell: (916) 651-4026

Darrell Steinberg: (916) 651-1529



This is your opportunity to share the good drones can do.

E-mail me when people leave their comments –

You need to be a member of diydrones to add comments!

Join diydrones


  • Patrick, the bill contains the requirement that data be destroyed after 6 months. How can we set up environmental monitoring programs if we can't keep a record? Am I misreading this or does the bill pretty much preclude UAV use for research? Also, has it passed and is it enforceable? If it is enforceable, by who? 

  • Come on Jack, this is serious. We don't want cops confiscating our equipment, but they have a right to fly too. They're just jealous that they can't do it yet and we can, within reason.

  • Speed traps made possible by arduplane.

  • Well, I hear you, but I don't think we should hide. We need to be part of the solution that says we support the Constitution and drones. Many people are surprised to hear that pro drone people support the Constitution and privacy.  :-)

  • These days we generally have 2 people to vote for.

    Unfortunately these days all political officials are viewed as suspect.

    The one we vote for is very often the one whom we view as the lesser of two evils and often a decision we come later to regret.

    In the federal government our two parties are divided against each other very much to the detriment of the people.

    And most decisions are made to favor government itself or large (contributing - lobbying) corporations again to the detriment of the people of the United States.

    It has to some degree always been like this, but resources are dwindling, our environment itself is failing from our exploitation of it and our officials are watching out for themselves rather than us.

    No I really don't want them getting more power over me.

    I love technology - people worry me.

  • I would agree that the police and government overstep their authority. Yet, folks still vote for these people. I would really like to see the "other" agencies get to use these systems. I believe that the police are still going to have a hard sell within their jurisdictions.

    Do we want to be a no Drone State? 

  • It's a contentious issue, even among us "drone" lovers.

    I do not beleive that police generally show good faith in this issue and as the earlier issue regarding the drone guy getting suspended from his job  by police intimidation tactics illustrates.

    Or much more commonly police intimidating citizens recording police activities with the video cameras built into their cell phones.

    The implication is that the police seem to want to be free to execute their job without paying attention to those same laws they are employed to enforce.

    What we see is that communication and the withholding of communication by authorities is used as a means to be able to abuse power as much as to reasonably execute it.

    This singularly gives this power to those authorities without having a similar power available to those who are confronted by said authorities.

    Power, these days, unfortunately seems to be not merely routinely abused, but the expectancy is that it will almost certainly be abused.

  • This is what I am really for.  

    (d) (1) A public agency other than a law enforcement agency may use an unmanned aircraft system, or contract for the use of an unmanned aircraft system, to achieve the core mission of the agency provided that the purpose is unrelated to the gathering of criminal intelligence.

    I agree that the police have put their foot in it and it isn't really something that benefits us. However, they will get to go a year or two before the commercial guys. If we can work with first responders (fire first) and the public we might be able to change public opinion. It is coming either way.

  • I'm actually against this. I don't want to see law enforcement using sUAS before we've added more paradigms of public benefit via drones than currently exist. Amazon Prime Air, vehicles doing scientific research, power line and pipeline inspection, aid delivery and even motion picture production all help bring drones into the spotlight in a good way and create new schemas of 'good drones'. 

    Police drones don't help that. At all. It'll just scare people. Big events with public safety surveillance UAS? Even if that never happens each step of their process will be covered by the media. It will shape public opinion long before people get their first burrito is delivered via quadcopter or irreparable environmental damage is prevented by having existing oil pipelines regularly and autonomously patrolled. There's so much good to be done before we start with law enforcement drones.

This reply was deleted.