LANSING – With the anticipation that unmanned aerial drones will soon move from foreign battlefields to domestic police work as well as engineering and scientific applications, legislation to regulate the use of drones in Michigan drew both praise and concern before the Michigan House Criminal Justice Committee on Wednesday.

Rep. Kurt Heise (R-Plymouth Township), the committee chair, said HB 4455 and HB 4456 would not be voted on at the start of the meeting, as committee members raised numerous questions with bill sponsor Rep. Tom McMillin (R-Rochester Hills) and other witnesses on the potential impact of the bills.

Several committee members suggested a workgroup should review the subject to try to resolve different concerns supporters and opponents have raised.

While McMillin and others were comfortable with the idea of a workgroup (McMillin said his bills were to create a framework on the subject, and that they could be amended), others wanted swift action on the bills.

Wendy Day, with the group Commonsense in Government, said a work group sounded too much like a committee to her liking. And she was afraid of any group of legislators droning on for “five years and nothing is done and we’ve got drones in the air.”

The committee and Legislature should “act now,” and pass the bills, she said.

Just as fervently, law enforcement officials said the legislation was far too limiting and prohibited activities using drones that are now perfectly lawful using other technology.

Robert Stevenson, executive director of the Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police, said that at a University of Michigan home football game, a police helicopter will hover overhead, cameras will be posted on poles and snipers will be watching from the press box roof and no warrant will be needed.

But if a drone were to be used for any of those functions, then warrants would be required under the bills, and no drone would be able to have a weapon.

The legislation “needs extensive revision,” he said.

The hearing drew special significance coming as it did just two days after the bombing at the Boston Marathon that killed three people and left nearly 200 injured. Several witnesses raised the question about what the availability of drones during the race and the grandstand areas could have meant in terms of detecting and possibly stopping the attack.

Michigan is not alone in looking at the issue of regulating the use of drones. Shelli Weisberg of the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan said 37 states are looking at the issue, and four have passed legislation. Two of those states have passed bills that even the ACLU feels are too restrictive, she said.

So far only one incident of police in Michigan using a drone is known, in Oakland County during an incident involving a standoff with a shooter.

The bills would require local government legislative bodies and the Legislature to approve the purchase of any drones and for police agencies to get warrants to use drones unless there was a situation of imminent danger (such as responding to a situation where a person’s life and safety is threatened). They also would require information obtained using a drone to be released while also ensuring that information inadvertently gathered not related to the intended use of the drone be excised, and that no drone carry weapons. The legislation also carries heavy penalties, with imprisonment for as long as 10 years for using a weaponized drone.

Rep. Stacey Erwin Oakes (D-Saginaw) questioned that provision, saying using a gun during a felony subjects a person to two years in prison.

McMillin said the legislation was an attempt at “drawing the lines, and those lines are important.”

It was also important to begin the discussion and action on the issue since “we are on the precipice of dealing with these in Michigan.”

But he recognized that changes would likely be needed to ensure other applications for drones could be permitted. For example the Department of Transportation has discussed using drones to conduct bridge inspections. Officials in the Department of Natural Resources have discussed using drones in fighting forest fires and wildlife management controls.

Both he and Ms. Weisberg said the legislation is aimed at both protecting individual rights to privacy and Fourth Amendment protections. And Rep. Rose Mary Robinson (D-Detroit) applauded Mr. McMillin for “reminding us that law enforcement is subject to the Fourth Amendment.”

Speakers and committee members recognized that the legislation would enact stricter controls than those for helicopter surveillance and other methods. But they also said drones offer more unique abilities to spy on people. A helicopter cannot hover outside a living room window, but a drone could, they said.

But law enforcement officials said protections already in law should be adequate to protect people from the unlawful use of drones.

“I feel like I’m speaking for the evil empire,” said Terry Jungel, executive director of the Michigan Sheriffs Association. “Every good has the potential for evil,” he said, and “Every windmill is not a dragon.”

This story was provided by Gongwer News Service. To subscribe, click on Gongwer.Com