Despite a contentious public meeting, the San Francisco police commission voted Wednesday night 5-1 to advance the first departmental policy on police drone use since 2024.
The policy still requires approval from the Board of Supervisors. If passed, it will bar San Francisco police from using drones for a slew of reasons, including personal use and “general surveillance.”
At the same time, it allows officers to use drones for “public safety,” assistance in an “active criminal investigation” and during training.
The policy’s most significant change is that it will require officers to get a warrant if they are using a drone to explicitly look into the interior of a home or an enclosed private yard.
Other changes, said police department policy director Asja Steeves, officially approve several SFPD practices that are already routine, like using drones to investigate calls for service, then having that drone’s operator determine if a human officer is needed.
The new policy also authorizes using drones for “community outreach,” like launching drones to show young students or members of the media how they work, as long as they are approved by someone at the rank of Captain or higher.
The commission meeting was unusually crowded; instead of the usual handful of attendees, around 50 people showed up. Many of them spoke out against the policy.
“We really missed the opportunity to have a working group here,” deputy public defender Brian Cox said during public comment.
Another speaker, who said they worked in tech, told the commission to reject the measure because formally allowing police to use drones for “public safety” purposes was too vague. A better policy, they said, would have specific drone “use cases” explaining when and how they should be used.
Opposition to SFPD’s new policy, “Departmental General Order 10.12,” has been brewing since an initial version was heard by the police commission on Sept. 2, 2026.
At the time, a coalition of groups led by the San Francisco public defender’s office submitted a letter in opposition to the early policy, saying that it still enabled poor data security and warrantless searches.
In July, WIRED reported that San Francisco police department’s Skydio drone footage was available online, on an unguarded link. In August, Mission Local reported that a case based on drone footage was thrown out of court because officers misinterpreted drone footage.
Police commissioner Kevin Benedicto, who made the lone vote against the policy, also said that he wished there had been more public input.
“In San Francisco and across the country the public has expressed serious concerns about surveillance,” Benedicto wrote. “I share those concerns and as policymakers we have a responsibility to listen to the public and take them seriously.”
In response to community concerns, Steeves told the commission that the language of the drone policy is designed for police officers to easily understand it, and that the use cases allowed under “public safety” will not differ from what police officers currently do.
Steeves also promised that new data protection policies are underway, which will be designed to address concerns around many police technologies, including drones and automated license plate readers. That policy will appear before the commission in several months, Steeves said.
When the drone policy was passed by commissioners, the vast majority of remaining audience members stood up, chanting “The S.F. people say no! Skydio has got to go!” in reference to the drone maker. They then exited the room.
These policies come less than a month after Mayor Daniel Lurie’s office announced changes to the city’s policies around Flock Safety license plate cameras; and they are the first police directive surrounding use of drones since the Board of Supervisors approved the city’s first policies in 2024.
Since then, drone use in the city has exponentially increased.
The San Francisco police department operates 98 drones, 14 of which are launched remotely from the Real Time Investigation Center, according to police spokesperson Evan Sernoffsky.
Can I click “opt out” and stop being spied on?
To anyone out there who thinks… “well why are drones a problem? They only catch people committing crimes – if you’re not committing crimes than what do you care? Only criminals care,” I say this:
what our society chooses to call crime tends to overlap with race, religion, poverty and politics. It’s a crime to have an abortion in Texas. In some places, they want being trans to be a crime, or drag shows. Jaywalking used to be a crime. It’s a crime to be a sex worker but not a stripper. It’s not a crime to be a sex worker in Amsterdam. Marijuana possession used to be a crime. It’s not anymore–in California–but it is in many other states.
If this sounds arbitrary, it’s because it is.
If the police want a reason to arrest you, they will always have one. But if you think the above, you’re probably not that person getting arrested. Because you’re probably white and upper or middle class.
If a man sells a bag of cocaine on the corner, he is far more likely to go to jail and suffer serious consequences than say, the Sackler family, who sold tons and tons of opioids. If someone steals a cell phone they are going to jail but Walgreens and DoorDash steal millions from workers and no one goes to jail.
If you think that only criminals need to worry about being surveilled, you really need to read George Orwell’s 1984. Totalitarianism cannot exist without surveillance. Knowledge is power. In 1984, however, “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.” Someday in the not too distant future, things you care about might be illegal too.
Do you want the government watching you pick your nose?
How about watching porn and jerking off?
How about watching how you choose to discipline your kids?
How about watching what kind of sex you have? Cause sodomy was illegal too not very long ago.
Point being: you don’t have to be a “criminal” to give a shit about the government spying on you. Personally, I would like to be able to go in my backyard, wearing any damn clothes I please, or no clothes at all, smoke a joint and live my best life without being spied on by a drone.
And that is why San Franciscans who are not “criminals” should give a shit about surveillance.
The deployment of drones have largely eliminated the need for high speed police chases and are the reason that the City is no longer plague by a runaway “bipping” problem (i.e., smash-and-grab auto theft.)
what about the non-police drones? how about stopping those too.
Sad to note applause for one more step toward draconian Nerd Reich. Ignorance is not bliss and what seems effective crime fighting tool may soon be cruising toward a darker place.
Normal people are happy to have less crime.