The Constituent Assembly, seized by deputies and senators, on Thursday voted in December on legislation relating to criminal liability and internal security, confirming the essential measures to oversee the use of drones by the police. Nevertheless, the elders censored the provision allowing police and genders to use drones in emergencies without prior permission from the politician. They also protested that the metropolitan police had been given the opportunity to use them. The text, adopted on December 16, reintroduced a number of controversial provisions of the Global Security Act, which were erased in May 2021 by judges of rue de Montpensier.
Use of drones for preventive purposes
The new law provides additional security and “precludes attacks on the security of individuals and property”, “the protection of gatherings on public roads”, “the prevention of terrorist acts”, the authorization of the use of drones by security forces, the regulation of traffic flow, and the monitoring of border irregularities. Fighting “and” rescuing people “.
“The legislature has precisely curtailed the intentions of justifying the use of these devices,” the Constitutional Council considers in its conclusion. The elderly in particular insist that the “purpose” of the use of drones must be “specified” and “the need to justify (…) the prior approval of the prefect”. On the other hand, in the event of a “specific and unpredictable exposure to the risk of serious harm to persons or objects”, the opportunity to text the security forces for four hours and to use the drones immediately without prior permission from the Government. , According to the censored sages, is unconstitutional.
The Metropolitan Police have no drones
The definition of these emergencies, too broad, does not allow the use of drones to be assigned to “specific events and specific gravity”. The elderly have finally challenged the use of drones by the municipal police in all circumstances. The text is specifically designed to authorize the use of drones for “sporting, entertainment or cultural events.” .
These rules “do not guarantee a harmonious harmony” between the right to respect private life and the prevention of violations of public order, as the adults who censored them consider.