Get the latest Syracuse news delivered right to your inbox.
Subscribe to our newsletter here.

As the Syracuse City Common Council prepares to consider the Syracuse Police Department’s “Drone as a First Responder” program during its Monday regular meeting, the plan has sparked concerns and discussion within the Syracuse community about unwanted surveillance and impeding privacy.

Plans have not been finalized on whether drones will be deployed for high-priority emergencies, minor incidents, or all calls, raising fears of creeping police militarization and Fourth Amendment violations.

At a Sept. 15 Common Council hearing, Syracuse University graduate student Aren Burnside criticized the effort and expressed concerns about safety on campus and in the greater Syracuse area.

“This is, in essence, an immense invasion of privacy and has no real end, no real oversight,” Burnside said.

The drones may be used in response to a wide variety of calls, such as low-priority traffic and neighborhood disputes, or high-priority calls like shootings, to give officers better situational awareness.

The program has been in discussion since last November, when the Common Council approved $250,000 for the program. It was initially created to cut response times and determine whether officers needed to be dispatched at all. After a January announcement asking for public feedback, Syracuse residents were able to weigh in.

About two-thirds of residents voiced disapproval in submissions from the city’s public comment period, Central Current reported, a sentiment that some residents argue represents a divide between the department’s plan and public expectation.

“This program would use military-grade drones to police and surveil our communities … (using) technologies designed for actual battlefields and war zones,” Burnside said.

Police militarization — the adoption of military equipment and tactics by law enforcement agencies — is becoming more common in local police departments around the country, according to the Legal Defense and Educational Fund. The nonprofit cites an April executive order from President Donald Trump’s administration that increases militarized force and weaponry in protests and warrant executions.

Other advocacy groups, including Project On Government Oversight, credit this shift to a political mindset, as seen in the increase of military-grade gear and advanced surveillance technologies over the last three decades.

Several other residents warned that these shifts are policing away from neighborhood engagement and public trust, toward a model better suited for “battlefields” than city streets.

“True safety must encompass not just SPD’s immediate crime response, but also the enduring trust and privacy of all of our residents, especially in an era where we see the erosion of constitutional rights and protections nationwide,” resident Davis Goldstein said.

Many residents’ concerns of privacy and public trust hinge on more than just the presence of drones themselves. The greater worry is what happens after the drones leave the scene, residents argued.

SPD is considering an agreement with Axon Enterprise, a weapons and technology company, as the drone manufacturer. Axon produces law enforcement technology and currently contracts with the federal government.

Goldstein said Axon’s master services and purchasing agreement identifies the company as an independent data collector that will disclose data to government authorities as required by law or regulation.

Even if SPD intends to protect residents’ privacy, she said the language used in the agreement could “open the door” for unintended data sharing.

She cited SPD’s Flock Safety license plate readers, which “inadvertently” exposed Syracuse driver data to police around the nation. This data was available to United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and over 2,000 searches on the Flock database were labeled “immigration-related.”

Goldstein argued this incident shows SPD’s “incompetence” in effectively safeguarding the community’s data, especially with a more sensitive program such as the drones.

“While SPD naively states it doesn’t intend to share data with immigration enforcement, Axon’s contract and their language makes it clear that they are within their right to do so,” Goldstein said.

Concerns about the city’s attempt to skip its own procedures months prior were also discussed. The Central Current reported that Syracuse’s surveillance technology oversight group reversed its original decision not to review the drone technology SPD plans to buy.

There is no single, comprehensive U.S. federal law for how law enforcement agencies may store large amounts of surveillance data.

Syracuse residents also expressed concerns about how long drone footage would be retained, fearing that years-old recordings could eventually be used against community members. SPD has not released a formal policy on data retention.

SPD media inquiries also declined to comment when asked for clarifying questions about the program and its application.

David Siffert, legal director for the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, stressed the importance of knowing exactly how long the data is stored for to prevent it from being used in criminal cases or investigations.

The nonprofit organization actively advocates for the Protect Our Privacy Act, a New York State bill that would outlaw law enforcement’s use of drones.

“If data exists, whether in-state or out-of-state, it can be obtained by the federal government with a warrant,” Siffert said.

In a closed hearing last Tuesday, council members and SPD leadership responded to resident concerns, Central Current reported. SPD Deputy Chief Richard Shoff called the city’s public comment session an “unscientific poll.”

Shoff insisted the community would change its mind about the program. He said the program’s four pillars are to improve police response to college service, enhance the efficient use of police and city resources, provide real-time situational awareness and support and de-escalate incidents.

Chairman of the council’s public safety committee, Chol Majok, however, is asking for an explicit written SPD policy that addresses specific safeguards to maintain privacy and public trust.

According to the Surveillance Technology Working Group, a group picked by Mayor Ben Walsh that reviews technology that could raise privacy concerns, the policy must clarify which type of calls the drones will respond to, along with strict codes prohibiting their use for routine patrols or any political activities protected under the First Amendment, such as protests or demonstrations.

Common Councilors said after SPD revises its policy, it would consider the program during its next voting session on Monday.

Published on September 29, 2025 at 12:01 am