This screenshot from June 12 shows part of the map of where Bend police used drones in the previous 30 days. A bill in the Legislature would expand the permitted uses of drones by law enforcement. (City of Bend)

Let’s start with a Bend police drone.

On May 30, Bend police went to investigate a report that a man planned to carry out a mass shooting. Officers could see his white truck in the driveway. One officer deployed a drone to better understand what was going on.

Police saw Nathaniel Benjamin Wright, the suspect, leave his house. He went to the truck. He was carrying a rifle and a duffel bag and was wearing a ballistic vest. He got in the truck. Police moved in and took him into custody without any issues, before he could leave his driveway.

As much as that use of a drone by law enforcement may be unimpeachable, the Predator drones over Los Angeles in the past several days have brewed fear. U.S. Customs and Border Protection confirmed Predator drones “are providing officer safety surveillance when requested by officers.” The spokesman insisted that the drones are “not engaged in the surveillance of First Amendment activities.”

The Predator drones may not be being used for anything untoward. People fear they will be used for surveillance against peaceful demonstrators just the same.

Into the drone mix of virtue and suspicion, arrives Oregon Senate Bill 238. It would allow drone use in Oregon by law enforcement in more situations. It passed the Senate and is now in the House.

Law enforcement representatives want the bill to pass. Drones have proven their value to police. In the future, there are visions that drones may be used more and more, perhaps as first responders to incidents. They could be positioned around a town and launched remotely to speed up response times.

Civil rights advocates point out law enforcement agencies in Oregon already have broad authority to use drones without a warrant. The requirements are probable cause and exigent circumstances. Opponents of the bill say it poses as a bill buttressing public safety. Instead, it will erode constitutional rights.

What does the bill, with its proposed amendment, say?

Here’s some of it: If the public calls 911, a drone could be used in response. There is a  requirement that there must be reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is imminent and use of a drone is necessary to protect public safety or to gather evidence of a crime. The bill authorizes travel operation of a drone to and from a location of police activity.

The bill has some specific prohibitions, such as prohibiting drone use to surveil a lawful assembly or other surveillance not authorized by the measure. The bill limits law enforcement from sharing data collected by a drone with anyone other than Oregon law enforcement and the Oregon Department of Justice, unless there is a warrant or judicial order.

State Rep. Jason Kropf, D-Bend, stressed before a legislative committee on Wednesday that the bill does not authorize any violation or infringement of anyone’s constitutional rights.

Still, people will worry about any tool used in the ostensible pursuit of justice. They can be misused. They have been misused. Tools of surveillance have been used by the government to spy on people when they were only guilty of exercising their First Amendment rights by attending an event or harboring a certain opinion. More drones and more use of drones create an opportunity and temptation for more misuse.

We are disturbed by the expansion of surveillance, police and private. Government, employers and friends now have the means that they never had before to dive deeply into your digital life or peek over the backyard fence. The honorable would not do so. Honor does not prevail at all times.

Does this bill go too far? We don’t think so. Tell your legislator what you think.