Minneapolis residents push back on proposed police drone program

Minneapolis police are proposing a 75-day pilot program that would use Skydio drones to respond to certain high-priority 911 calls in the city's Fourth Precinct in North Minneapolis. The drones would launch from Fire Station 14 and stream live video to dispatchers and first responders before officers arrive on scene. Photo: Skydio.com

Minneapolis residents packed City Hall on July 8 to urge city council to reject a proposal that would send police drones to emergency calls on the Northside before officers arrive, arguing the technology would expand surveillance in communities that have spent years demanding greater police accountability.

More than 40 people signed up to speak during a public hearing before the Minneapolis City Council's Public Health, Safety and Equity Committee. None spoke in favor of the proposed Drones as First Responders pilot program. Ultimately, the committee voted to forward the proposal to the full City Council without recommendation ahead of a July 16 vote. If approved, MPD said it will start the pilot program July 20.

Much of the opposition centered on Skydio, the California-based drone manufacturer offering MPD the pilot program. Several speakers urged the city not to contract with a company they said has supplied drones used by the Israeli military, arguing that Minneapolis should not spend taxpayer dollars with a company connected to the ongoing genocide in Gaza, Palestine.

"We do not support a contract with Skydio because they profit from the use of drones as weapons of war in Palestine," Meredith Aby, director of Women Against Military Madness, told council members. "The people of Minneapolis do not want Skydio's blood on their hands."

Aby also argued the city should not expand MPD's surveillance capabilities while many residents continue to question the department's accountability.

"We cannot give this police department access to drones," she said. "Without community control of the police, we have no reason to believe that they wouldn't use them to police Black and Brown communities."

Another common testimony was MPD cannot be entrusted with another surveillance tool while still under a state consent decree aimed at reforming its policing practices.

"They want drones first, and they'll figure out what they're going to do with them later," North Minneapolis resident Sarah Heller told council members. "And that concerns me deeply as someone who has lived in a part of town that has suffered a lot of police abuse."

Councilmember LaTrisha Vetaw, Ward 4, who supports the pilot program, told her constituents drones could be the solution to illegal dumping and chop shops in North Minneapolis. Heller disagreed.

"I have been personally fined thousands of dollars for mostly house flippers and their subcontractors who dump their construction waste in my yard," she said. "A drone will do nothing to solve this problem. Nothing at all. That's a 311 call, not a 911 call."

Heller said her own experiences with Minneapolis police have left her skeptical of expanding the department's technological capabilities.

"Every interaction I have ever had with a member of the MPD in North Minneapolis has been one in which they degrade me as a person," Heller said. "The relationship between the police in Minnetonka or Rochester or Duluth is very different than the relationship that we have in North with the police."

Several speakers said their opposition was shaped by more recent events as well, pointing to Operation Metro Surge earlier this year, which relied heavily on surveillance technology and left many immigrant communities fearful of increased police monitoring.

Ward 4 resident Dan Edmonds said the proposal comes at the wrong time.

"I would assume that given what has happened in the city during our occupation – when we were terrorized, kidnapped and gunned down in the streets by the federal government – that the use of drones as first responders would not be the best path forward," Edmonds said.

He questioned why the city would continue investing in police technology instead of rebuilding public trust.

"A police department that still has not publicly apologized or taken accountability for the murder of George Floyd ... cannot explain why it has gone $20 million over budget and then constantly asks for more," Edmonds said. "No more money to the police. No drones."

Other speakers warned that expanding aerial surveillance would disproportionately affect Black, Brown and immigrant communities that already experience heavier policing.

Bob Newman, a North Minneapolis resident, said he was "deeply disturbed" that the city was considering adding more drones just months after residents witnessed drones being used during the federal occupation immigration.

"(This is) the same police that the Department of Justice found had engaged in unlawful discrimination against Black and Native American residents and in unconstitutional surveillance practices that infringed upon First Amendment freedoms," Newman said. "The same police that used drones to surveil the racial justice protests following the murder of George Floyd."

Newman said he recently canvassed his neighborhood with a petition opposing the proposal.

"Several people, upon hearing that it would mean drones in the skies above them, asked, 'Where do I sign?'" he said. "One couple expressed their opposition, but declined to sign because of fear of how the data might be used. Drones will only worsen the fear of surveillance that many now share."

While many residents objected to the concept of police drones altogether, others focused on what they described as unanswered questions about privacy, data retention and constitutional protections. Brandy Bennett, a Minneapolis privacy and data security attorney, argued state law has not kept pace with rapidly evolving surveillance technology.

"We are guaranteed under the United States and Minnesota Constitutions a right of privacy from the government," Bennett said. "The statute that was proposed that we operate under here was passed in 2025. It is untested in the Minnesota courts, and it is untested in the federal courts as to whether that statute is even remotely constitutional."

She said the city's presentation failed to answer key questions about how residents' data would be protected.

"The protocols that were put in place ... are not sufficient from a privacy perspective," Bennett said. "The Data Practices Act also requires that we do privacy impact assessments for government activities. Where are those?"

City officials, however, described the proposal as a limited pilot intended to evaluate whether drones could improve emergency response while operating under existing state privacy laws. Andy Skoogman, chief of staff for the Office of Community Safety, said drones would not replace police officers, firefighters or emergency medical personnel but would provide dispatchers and first responders with real-time information before arriving at a scene.

"When certain 911 calls are received, a drone can launch immediately, arrive ahead of first responders and provide live video so 911 dispatchers, officers, firefighters, EMS personnel have a better understanding of what's happening before they arrive — or if they should go at all," Skoogman said.

Deputy Chief Thomas Campbell said the proposed 75-day pilot would operate from the Fourth Precinct using two drone docks located at Fire Station 14. He said officers would still respond to emergency calls during the pilot and the department would evaluate whether the technology reduces response times, improves officer safety and help determine when police are unnecessary. Campbell also said non-evidentiary video would be deleted within seven days.

But that information did little to persuade opponents.

Elizabeth Oppenheimer, a Ward 4 resident, said Minneapolis should focus on implementing reforms already required under the consent decree instead of expanding police technology.

"The work to implement the consent decree fully should not be leap-frogged over just because other cities are using drones," she said. "Other cities don't have the harmful history of police killings of Black people that Minneapolis has. We need respect for our individual and shared humanity. More relational work on the ground, not remote drones in the air."

Deputy Chief Campbell said Skydio is the largest drone manufacturer in the United States and currently work with five agencies in Minnesota: St. Paul, Duluth, Rochester, Minnetonka and Brooklyn Park.