Unmanned Aerial Systems in Law Enforcement

The potential uses of unmanned systems stretch across a wide range of missions and tasks – anything from farming to national border security.  However, there is one area of unmanned aerial systems usage that is particularly interesting to me.  My brother is a law enforcement officer in the State of Utah.  Utah Highway Patrol owns and uses a helicopter for various law enforcement uses. The uses of helicopters and airplanes in law enforcement include, vehicle pursuit, firefighting, counterterrorism, traffic control, surveillance and even prisoner transport.  The problem with using aircraft in law enforcement is the cost. 

My brother, who has a family of four, makes a very modest $40,000 per year to perform the essential job of keeping his community safe. Yet, a Bell 206 JetRanger costs around $1 million, the equivalent of the yearly salaries of 25 police officers like my brother.  Needless to say, the costs of obtaining and maintaining aircraft significantly cut into the budgets of law enforcement around the country. The U.S. Department of Justice reported that the average yearly cost of maintaining and flying helicopters in law enforcement approaches $300,000, with only 1,100 hours of operation (2009).  That doesn’t include the original purchase price of the aircraft, or the salaries, certification, and training of the pilots and maintenance personnel.

            The three systems that I would like to highlight that could easily fulfill these tasks are the Puma AE, the UAVS Phoenix 60, and the AeroEnvironment Qube UAS. The Puma AE is a fixed wing aircraft that is large enough to accommodate most of the equipment needed to fulfill the majority of law enforcement operations. It has a range of 10 miles, a speed of 60 miles per hour, and a loiter time of 3.5 hours. With a price tag of roughly $30,000, it is 3% of the cost of a Bell 206, and has a minute fraction of the hourly cost to operate – all the while being capable of performing 96% of the law enforcement mission currently provided by manned systems (U.S. Department of Justice, 2009).

            The UAVS Phoenix 60 is a far cheaper option, however it eliminates some capabilities compared to the Puma. This UAS is a 15 pound quadrotor capable of 40 minutes of flight and VTOL and hover operations. This drone would be used within line-of sight operations only utilizing the many visual and observational technologies it provides. The range and endurance could limit operations, for example it wouldn’t be very feasible for vehicle or personnel pursuits in most cases. However, those missions only account for 2.5% of law enforcement aviation operations (U.S. Department of Justice, 2009). The estimated cost of this system is $10,000. The cost savings may very well be worth the limitations.

The AeroEnvironment Qube is similar in capability to the Phoenix 60, but is even smaller which provides more flexibility in operations. For example, if a foot pursuit begins, the Qube could be tethered to a police vehicle – thus increasing its endurance and enhancing its range to that of the vehicle. With the bird’s eye view, law enforcement could satisfy most of the mission requirements. However, being so small it may have difficulty performing another significant mission of UAS in law enforcement: traffic citations. Traffic citations account for 20% of the law enforcement mission for aviation (U.S. Department of Justice, 2009). In order to give citations, the UAS must have certain equipment aboard to detect the citation.  With a payload of only 3 pounds, it’s uncertain if this UAS could manage the equipment properly.

            Using unmanned systems do not come without negatives, however. The public perception of drones flying around observing people is less than positive – even though manned law enforcement aircraft are already doing that. In many states, legislation has been enacted requiring probable cause warrants before drones may be used in an investigation (Harris, 2014). Additionally, safety would be a concern. Without the robust and hardened capabilities of a helicopter, these UAS are more susceptible to weather and adversary conditions.  The public concern for safety in the event of a crash must be considered.

            In summary, the cost benefits and savings of using UAS would substantially boost the capabilities of law enforcement around the country. Perhaps the savings could even be applied to the salaries of the officers on the ground, or in boosting their equipment and safety gear. Ultimately, it’s the people of this country that we want to benefit, and UAS in law enforcement would greatly help in that effort.

Reference

U.S. Department of Justice. (2009). Aviation units in large law enforcement agencies,        2007(NCJ 226672). Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/aullea07.pdf

Harris, S. (2014, October). Unmanned aerial vehicles: more than a surveillance tool. The Police     Chief, (81), 66-67.