The West Hollywood City Council voted 4-1 to authorize temporary drone use under the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department’s (LASD) restrictive policy while postponing its full Drone as First Responder (DFR) pilot program, stalled by LASD’s ban on recordings. The compromise, opposed by Mayor Chelsea Lee Byers, balances immediate safety needs with a delay in the city’s transparency-focused vision, following a “colossal miscommunication” with LASD.
Approved in July 2024 with a $750,000 budget, the DFR program aimed to enhance safety for events like WeHo Pride by deploying drones with recordings retained for 30 days. LASD’s 2024 policy, however, limits drones to emergencies, prohibits recordings, and requires visual line-of-sight and Special Enforcement Bureau approval, clashing with West Hollywood’s plan. Assistant Sheriff Myron Johnson admitted, “We take full responsibility for the lack of clarity and the breakdown in internal communications. The misunderstanding was rooted in unclear messaging and assumptions, not in misconduct.”
Councilmember Danny Hang voiced frustration, saying, “I feel bamboozled, and so do our constituents who were expecting this program to be running.” Vice Mayor John Heilman questioned, “No one at the sheriff’s department said, ‘You’re not in compliance with our policy’?” Councilmember Lauren Meister supported interim use, saying, “It would only be deployed for really high-risk situations… it would be useful to have it here.” Byers dissented, saying, “I’m very much appreciate of… our first responders, and how this technology improves response, it’s also about the communication, understanding, and buy-in from the public, which, for over a year, we’ve worked very hard to get. And we’re effectively change that policy, in the middle of a meeting, without very much notice.”
Resident Victor Omelczenko urged action, writing, “Delaying further doesn’t show caution—it shows paralysis. Let’s start small.” He emphasized drones’ value for events like Halloween Carnaval. LASD offered a donated drone and AirData transparency tool for interim use, as Commander Jennifer Seetoo cited Malibu’s success in locating a dementia patient.
The council directed staff to notify the public via the Communications team and inform the Public Safety Commission. LASD’s ad hoc committee aims to revise policies within months to allow recordings, aligning with West Hollywood’s vision. The decision reflects tensions between innovation and oversight, with the city navigating safety demands and surveillance concerns.
They should have held firm until they got what they wanted.
Apparently, we got through Pride safely without a drone program.
West Hollywood should emulate the proven Beverly Hills Police Drone “Hawkeye” which provides overwatch for patrol personnel and is part of the Real Time Watch Center that desperately needs to be created instead of investing in Homeless Hotels.
The drone unit currently flies for 10 hours per day, seven days a week. And, when Hawkeye is not responding to specific incidents, it can also be used to patrol strategic areas.
Our City Council must get their priorities straight and help keep our streets safe.
Totally agree. Beverly Hills does so much better than West Hollywood. I moved my prescriptions to a BH pharmacy as I am so sick of the stench of urine and being accosted by homeless. Some just begging but others violent
What a mess this whole situation has become. Ugh.
West Hollywood has enough eyes in the sky,with the increased air traffic of Surveillance helicopters and Cessna airplanes..!
I’m trying to find the logic in this.
A drone should have eyes and ears just like any law enforcement officer does.
If you’re in public, anyone can be recorded. It’s ridiculous that the LASD policy restricts recording. There is no expected right to privacy when you’re in public. Not fully implementing this program, only benefits the bad people of this world and falls short of the promise to help law-enforcement further protect law abiding citizens.
This is technically incorrect. There are California privacy laws that prevent the recording, sharing, and storage of specific identifiable information about people without their consent, and they must be given a mechanism to opt out. There are exceptions for public safety, but they are fairly stringent and generally pertain to a quantifiable active or potential threat to the community. It’s complicated, and the courts are still sorting out the interpretations of the laws. It’s not as cut and dry as it was in the past with regard to the expectation of privacy in a public setting. I know this because… Read more »