Game of Drones:An Analysis of the 2015 Session Assembly Bill 3597

by

Brian D. MazurowskiSession Intern – Assemblymember Todd D. Kaminski

Utica College

1

April 2015

1 Ed Morba, Our Town News, 4 Mar 2015

Table of Contents

I. Introduction and Background

A. Assembly Bill 3597

B. The Catalyst of the Bill

C. The Addressed Issues and Concerns

II. Analysis: Hobby Lobbyists and the Controversy

A. The Groups in Support

B. The Groups in Opposition

C. Upstate vs. Downstate

D. The Winding Streams and Policy Window of the Bill

E. Implications on the 96th District and State

F. Leadership and the Lack of Movement

III. Conclusion

A. The Legislation Prospects and Future

B. Democracy in the Legislative Process

Works Cited

Appendix A (Status and Summary)

Appendix B (Bill Text)

Appendix C (Memo in Support)

Appendix D (Drone Diagram)

Appendix E (Memorandum Requesting Sponsorship)

Appendix F (Federal Aviation Administration Report)

Appendix G (President Obama Report)

1

I. Introduction and Background

A. Assembly Bill 3597

Recently, Assemblymember Zebrowski has introduced Assembly Bill 3597 (from now

referred as A.3597), which regulates the personal use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).

Moreover, the term “unmanned aircraft” may be misleading as there are no systems currently

available that can conduct fully autonomous operations; therefore all systems need an operator

for part of the process. More commonly in the public, UAV is referred to as a “drone.” There are

distinct differences with drones and their uses. However, A.3597 refers to recreational drones, as

drones that private-civilians operate for leisure. Further, the introduction of A.3597 was a result

of an increase in ownership and the use of recreational drones. Therefore with an increase of

recreational operations, this has caused an increasingly greater risk of dangerous accidents from

recreational drones.

A growing concern for law enforcement, Assemblyman Zebrowski worked closely with

Rockland County Sheriff Louis Falco in drafting this legislation that would protect police,

specifically, security at the county jail.2 The partnership between the assemblymember and the

Rockland County Sheriff’s Department has been used to minimize risk and increase flexibility in

the language of the bill. Although lobbyists are not as influential as someone might think

regarding drafting legislation3, they remain essential for reporting background ideas to

policymakers and for lending support for particular legislation.4 Further Falco claims, “The

reckless use of drones has become an increasingly challenge for law enforcement.” He followed

2 “Assemblyman Zebrowski Introduces Legislation to Regulate Recreational Drone Use,” 15 Feb. 2015,http://assembly.state.ny.us/mem/Kenneth-Zebrowski/story/61700/ (accessed 28 Mar. 2015)3 Edward Schneier, John Murtaugh and Antoinette Pole, “one in five bills originating from lobbyists shows that lobbyist more so have a defensive role,” New York Politics: A Tale of Two States, 2nd Edition, Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 2010, pp.3-373. 4 Ibid

2

with, “ This law will be particularly helpful to the security at our county correctional facility and

I applaud Assemblyman Zebrowski for working with us to craft this bill … by making it

unlawful operate a drone within 1,000 feet of the facility, it will help protect our officers, the

facility and the inmates.”5 Assemblymember Zebrowski said, “These accessible and easy to

operate devices are becoming increasingly popular with little, to no direction … it’s time that

New York steps up and takes the initiative in creating fundamental guidelines that ensure public

safety.”6 By introducing this bill, Assemblymember Zebrowski is addressing the large public

safety issue within his district as well as New York State. As stated in Dennis Smith and Martin

Horn’s entry, in The Oxford Handbook of New York State Governments and Politics, “public

safety is regarded by many as the primary responsibility of government.”7 This public safety

includes a sporadic scope, as the chapter explains. A further example would be the prominence

of the prevention and response to criminal activity.8 To insure public safety, the emphasis on

crime prevention makes recreational droning a topic of interest for all branches of government.

Hence, the legislature has a prerogative to properly respond to criminal activity and is obligated

to listen to the concerns of the criminal justice system. Thus, the relationship with the legislature

and other two branches allows for New York State to uniformly and appropriately deal with the

pressures of public safety.

5 Ibid6 “Assemblyman Zebrowski Introduces Legislation to Regulate Recreational Drone Use,” 15 Feb. 2015,http://assembly.state.ny.us/mem/Kenneth-Zebrowski/story/61700/ (accessed 28 Mar. 2015) 7 Dennis Smith and Martin Horn, “Public safety policy in New York state,” The Oxford Handbook of New York State Government and Politics, Oxford University Press, 2012, pp. 635.8 Ibid

3

B. The Catalyst of the Bill

Several events from 2009 to the present have jeopardized public safety. Between 2009

and 2014 alone, there have been a myriad of recreational drone crashes in the United States (as

seen in Figure 1). In addition, there have been 15 close encounters involving airplanes and

recreational drones near airports in 2013 and 2014.9 Moreover in January, a recreational drone

crashed on the White House lawn by an operator whom was suspected of being intoxicated, and

nearly caused a national security emergency.10 Also in January, a drone crashed just below the

border of Mexico which was a failed attempt to smuggle drugs into the United States.11

Previously in 2013, a teenager was killed from a near-decapitation, by a recreational drone he

had been operating in Brooklyn, New York.12 Exacerbating the issues in Brooklyn, on September

2014, a police helicopter which was on a search for a missing person, narrowly avoided a

collision with a recreational drone.13 Due to media coverage and a high percentage of the public

concerned about drones, it comes to no surprise that Assemblymember Zebrowski has made

proper steps to respond to the issue. He included on the record that “Recent events, especially

what happened at the White House, have shown how reckless use of recreational drones can be a

cause for concern, potentially putting citizens in danger.” Continuing with, “Drones are

relatively inexpensive and are easy to assemble and operate ... we must take preventative action

9 Craig Whitlock, “Close encounters on rise as small drones gain in popularity,” The Washington Post, 23 June 2014, http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/06/23/close-encounters-with-small-drones-on-rise/ (accessed 28 Mar. 2015)10Josh Lederman and Calvin Woodward, “After wayward drone crash, Obama says US needs laws to make drone use safer, beneficial,” Star Tribune, 27 January 2015, http://www.startribune.com/289756021.html (accessed 28 Mar. 2015)11 Nick Valencia and Michael Martinez, “Drone carrying drugs crashes south of U.S. border,” CNN, 23 Jan. 2015, http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/22/world/drug-drone-crashes-us-mexico-border/ (accessed 28 Mar. 2015)12 “Man Killed By Toy Helicopter In Brooklyn After Being Scalped,” Huffington Post, 5 Sept. 2013 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/05/man-killed-by-toy-helicopter_n_3875895.html (accessed 28 Mar. 2015)13 “NYPD: Police helicopter has near miss with drone over Brooklyn,” CBS News, 18 Sept. 2014, http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nypd-helicopter-has-near-miss-with-drone-over-brooklyn/

4

to establish some reasonable guidelines before someone (else) gets hurt.”14 Therefore, New York

State should consider the use of drones to be an abnormally dangerous activity. Thus, meaning

that people should be held liable for the harm their drones cause, even with precautions.

Figure 1.15

C. The Addressed Issues and Concerns

A.3597 will create the necessary and appropriate crime of unlawful operations regarding

drones and will prohibit a person from operating them under certain conditions. As the federal

government delays concrete rules of drone use, it becomes imperative that New York State takes

the initiative to ensure recreational use is restricted in a manner that protects the public.16 In

accordance to public concern, a recent study by the Chubb Group of Insurance Cos. found three-

fourths of respondents were concerned with drones causing property damage and 55 percent are

14 “Assemblyman Zebrowski Introduces Legislation to Regulate Recreational Drone Use,” 15 Feb. 2015,http://assembly.state.ny.us/mem/Kenneth-Zebrowski/story/61700/ (accessed 28 Mar. 2015)15 Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/06/22/crashes-mount-as-military-flies-more-drones-in-u-s/16 Office of Assemblymember Kenneth P. Zebrowski, Sponsor’s Memorandum In Support Of Legislation, “Legislation Regulating Recreational Drone Use (A.3597), 9 Feb. 2015

5

worried the injuries they could cause.17 The survey also found that 78 percent believe drones

could turn America into a surveillance state, and 60 percent worried about them taking photos of

themselves and their families.18 Further relating to the cases stated previously, it becomes

obvious that the legislature needs to act to protect the public from the grossly unregulated use of

recreational drones. Although in 2012, Congress passed the Federal Aviation Administration

(FAA) Modernization and Reform Act which dictated the FAA to establish rules regarding the

use of drones by December 15, 2015.19 As of yet the FAA has only taken preliminary with a

proposal outlining its plan for commercial drone-use. Moreover, it is anticipated that the FAA

may not meet this deadline. However, the FAA has placed a moratorium on certain commercial

usage, but not on any recreational uses.20 Beforehand, the FAA received an estimated 25 reports

per month last year of drones flying too close to manned aircraft and airports.21 In addition, New

York State has the ability to enact more restrictive rules than those guidelines generated by the

FAA. Therefore, Assemblyman Zebrowski’s purposed bill, establishes a “restricted airspace” of

1,000 feet near certain sensitive areas; including a five mile area surrounding all airports.22

Further, it also prohibits drone flight over 400 feet above ground level, flying out of visual line

of sight, reckless use, use that is intended to harass, and flying above private property without

consent. Consequently, any person found operating a drone in violation of the introduced bill

would be subject to a class A misdemeanor.23 Until proper oversight and state-of-the-art

17 Phillip Vanno, “With little regulation of drones, concerns arise over safety, privacy,” Observer Dispatch, 17 Jan 2015, 1A continued to 4A18 Ibid19 “Assemblyman Zebrowski Introduces Legislation to Regulate Recreational Drone Use,” 15 Feb. 2015,http://assembly.state.ny.us/mem/Kenneth-Zebrowski/story/61700/ (accessed 28 Mar. 2015)20 Ibid21 Phillip Vanno, “With little regulation of drones, concerns arise over safety, privacy,” Observer Dispatch, 17 Jan 2015, 1A continued to 4A22 Office of Assemblymember Kenneth P. Zebrowski, Sponsor’s Memorandum In Support Of Legislation, “Legislation Regulating Recreational Drone Use (A.3597), 9 Feb. 201523 Ibid

6

regulations are drafted and accepted by the FAA, A.3597 needs to be chaptered and signed into

law to remedy New York State’s contemporary issues.

II. Analysis: Hobby Lobbyists and the Controversy

A. The Groups in Support

Notably, drone-use recreational or not, seems to infringe on many people’s right to

privacy. This infringement sparks contention within privacy advocates such as the American

Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which have been quite vocal in supporting drone regulation, such

as A.3597. Recently, the organization released a report that sets out its concerns over the

prospect of intrusive serial surveillance without proper safeguards. Moreover, as previously

discussed, the Modernization and Reform Act mandates the FAA to draft, standards, and rules to

ensure that drone integration proceeds in a safe and legal matter. Therefore it is probable that this

is a public process where civil liberties and privacy groups will have a voice in crafting rules,

and that voice will be at least, as effective as the industry voice. This process involving the

privacy advocates has already been seen as effective in other states.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), since 2012, privacy

advocates; especially those most suspicious of unlawful government surveillance, have mounted

a lobbying campaign that has succeeded in convincing 15 states to enact laws regulating the use

of drones by law enforcement.24 So far, 14 of the 15 states have passed laws to curb government

agencies from using drones to monitor its citizens, such as in traffic or at a public rally.25 11 of

those 15 states require a warrant before the government may use a drone. Further, seven of the

24 Kaja Whitehouse, “Crackdown on drones goes local,” USA Today, 23 Feb 2015, http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/02/23/crackdown-drones-technology-faa-nyc-councilman/23696377/ (accessed on 29 Mar 2015) 25 Ibid

7

15 states also regulate recreational drone-use, according to the NCSL data.26 For example, in

Louisiana, it is illegal to use a drone to monitor a person or property without consent; offenders

face a fine up to $500 and six months in jail.27 Given the data, it becomes obvious that campaigns

mounted by privacy advocates often make for compelling cases about the threat of pervasive

surveillance. Privacy advocates contend that with drones, the government will be able to engage

in widespread pervasive surveillance because drones are less expensive to operate than their

manned counterparts. In light of these facts, the legislation being pushed by privacy advocates

has been explicitly directed at drone technology, not because the technology represents an actual

threat to civil liberties, but because someday in the future, the technology may be intrusive.

Support from a wide-array of interest groups is imperative for bill legislation. Even so

more than the support from interest groups, is the support from legislators. In the Assembly,

support for bill A.3597 comes from co-sponsor Assemblymembers Gottfried, Jaffee, Titone,

Markey, Simotas, Steck, Stirpe, Dinowitz, Mosley, Brook-Krasny, Montesano, Mcdonough,

Gunther, Crouch, Colton, Peoples-Stokes, Galef, and Linares. In addition to the cosponsors, are

the multi-sponsors which include Assemblymembers Abbate, Braunstein, Cook, DenDekker,

Duprey, Glick, Hikind, Lopez, McLaughlin, Robinson, Saladino, and Simon. However, a

majority vote in each House is required to have a bill placed on the Governor’s desk; where it

can be signed into law or vetoed.28

B. The Groups in Opposition

Disturbingly, drone accidents are common in both military and recreational purposes.

Therefore, drones struggle with an “image” problem in the public eye. Further, critics say

A.3597 essentially turns law-abiding citizens into criminals and at the same time does little to

26 Ibid27 Ibid28 Ibid

8

nothing to deter potential criminals from doing what criminals do; break the law. In addition to

these critics, generally Republicans favor decreased government regulations since they believe

that the negatives of government regulation outweigh the positives and are therefore in

opposition to A.3597. One of these negatives would be the effects that A.3597 would have on

business. Additionally, pro-business groups have strong interests in this issue for transparent

reasons. Hence, the backlash and the negative response to A.3597 are not just from ordinary

citizens and politicians. Businesses such as Amazon, who have offices located sporadically

throughout New York State, will be affected by drone regulation. Therefore, Amazon has taken

public stances on it as well. It makes sense that this group would oppose drone regulation, and I

suspect that many other pro-business groups and many businesses themselves would oppose

A.3597. Although there is not a big financial burden attached to the bill, businesses such as

Amazon, view the bill as creating more regulations that lead to costly business implications. In

addition, businesses are upset about the FAA implications that drones must be flown by

observers who can see the vehicle. “This means we really are not talking about unmanned aerial

vehicles … we are talking about something that has to have a person,” said Michael E. Drobac of

the Small UAV Coalition, of which Amazon, Google and GoPro are members.29

Further drone regulating bills, such as A.3597, would anticipate facing substantial and

powerful opposition not only from outside groups, but also from the inner workings of the

Assembly. Specifically the Codes Committee, which A.3597 must make passage before it may

be presented on the Assembly floor. Moreover, the Codes Committee takes bills that affect the

penal law. Consequently, the Codes Committee is by far the strongest and most noticeable

hindrance to the bill’s speedy enactment. This is made apparent as A.3597 has not moved from

29 Bart Jansen, “Drone Rule Dismay Amazon,” USA Today: a Gannet Company, 16 Feb 2015, 1A

9

the committee since January 27.30 Additionally, the Codes Committee is one of the most

powerful and legislatively significant committees in the New York State Assembly.31 Assembly

committees, such as Codes, are the “traffic cops” of the House and decide which bills will be

moved onto the floor.32 In this regard, the Committee Chair Joseph Lentol, who sets the

committee’s agenda, has the power with accordance of the leadership and dual reference33 and

therefore controls the committee with ease.34 In relevance to A.3597, it is assumed that the Codes

Committee is concerned that regulation is, at this time inappropriate. Further, recreational drones

are recognized as a problem, however in the committee’s view, A.3597 might be an excessive

solution. Therefore, in order for A.3597 to pass, Assemblymember Zebrowski will need to find

common-ground with the Codes Committee.

In addition, the drone anti-regulation advocates are admittedly not focused on more sensible

legislation that addresses harms irrespective of the technology used. Therefore, they argue that

the FAA dealing with privacy issues is contemporary and was unanticipated for the agency.35

Evidently, the agency’s roadmap to airspace integration states that “The FAA’s mission does not

include developing or enforcing policies pertaining to privacy or civil liberties.”36 Many agree

that the FAA should not be involved with privacy liberties, such as drone anti-regulation

advocate Larry Binker who said, “Safety is what the FAA does … there are sufficient federal

30 Source: http://leginfo.nysa.us/asmsen/navigate.cgi?NVDTO:31 Eric Lane and Joshua Wolf, “The New York State Legislature,” The Oxford Handbook of New York State Government and Politics, Oxford University Press, 2012, pp. 225-261.32 Edward Schneier, John Murtaugh and Antoinette Pole, “one in five bills originating from lobbyists shows that lobbyist more so have a defensive role,” New York Politics: A Tale of Two States, 2nd Edition, Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 2010, pp.3-373. 33 The Codes Committee has the ability of “dual reference,” meaning they have a wider range of jurisdiction over bills and can pull bills out from other committees and place them on their calendar; Codes has jurisdiction over anything that effects the criminal codes (See: Schneier, Murtaugh & Pole, 2010).34 Ibid35 Frank Matt, “Drones over upstate New York: A look at an FAA test site,” 21 Jan 2014, http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/the-stream/multimedia/2014/1/drones-over-upstatenewyorkalookatanfaatestsite.html (accessed on 29 Mar 2015)36 Ibid

10

agencies to deal with privacy concerns.”37 Advocates of drone anti-regulation say the rising

plethora of restrictions threaten to leave the U.S. behind at a time when the drone industry is

growing. Drone spending is on track to hit $91 billion worldwide in the next 10 years, according

to aerospace and defense industry research group Teal Group.38

C. Upstate vs. Downstate

Recently the FAA announced, in late December that Griffiss International Airport, a

former military base in Rome, N.Y., would be one of six sites nationwide with authorization to

test commercial drones.39 The Northeast Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Airspace

Integration Research Alliance, otherwise known as NUAIR, the coalition that was awarded with

the FAA’s selection, overcame 24 other states competing. NUAIR will now play a pivotal role in

helping the FAA meet the 2015 goal for integration of UAS and US airspace. Mary Carol

Chruscicki, the Executive Director of Cyber NY Alliance, a company in part of the NUAIR, said

“We will always be enhancing our technologies and they will need to be tested in a methodical

way before they’re introduced into the airspace.”40 The biggest challenge will be the “sense-and-

avoid” systems for preventing collisions and crashes.41 Larry Brinker, Executive Director and

General Counsel for NUAIR added that Griffiss’ location is in “one of the busiest aviation

corridors in the world,” and will give the site a particular imperative in the new sense-and-avoid

technology.42 Further, Chruscicki predicts that the presence of UAS testing will be attracting

37 Ibid38 Kaja Whitehouse, “Crackdown on drones goes local,” USA Today, 23 Feb 2015, http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/02/23/crackdown-drones-technology-faa-nyc-councilman/23696377/ (accessed on 29 Mar 2015)39 Frank Matt, “Drones over upstate New York: A look at an FAA test site,” 21 Jan 2014, http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/the-stream/multimedia/2014/1/drones-over-upstatenewyorkalookatanfaatestsite.html (accessed on 29 Mar 2015)40 Ibid41 Ibid42 Ibid

11

companies to the area, which will be looking to make components and technology drones; such

as cameras and sensor technology. This could lead to a boost to central New York, helping to

create about 470 jobs with statewide economic impacts of $180 million, according to NUAIR.43

“I’m getting calls from companies looking for opportunities to test and sell their products,”

Chruscicki furthered. An example would be, FlyTerra, a company currently developing drones

for the use of aerial imaging and terrain data gathering in agricultural and other purposes.44 New

York U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer also has is eyes to the sky, in hopes that upstate New York

will become the “Silicon Valley of drones.”45

However, upstate New York also has recent history of drone opposition. Hancock Field

Air National Guard Base in Syracuse is home to the 147th Attack Wing of the New York Air

National Guard, a unit that flies armed drone missions over Afghanistan.46 This unit’s presence,

which is only 40 miles away from Griffiss, has made upstate New York a center of anti-drone

activism. In regards to anti-drone protests, the Hancock National Guard Base has had nearly 100

arrests since 2011.47 The contrast in public perception in upstate New York demonstrates how

polarized the national conversation is on drones, and how perceptions can be easily tied to a

locality’s encounters with the technology.48 Further, drone supporters in the region

acknowledged that creating a distinction in the public’s perception between military and non-

military uses of drones is central to their goals.49 In this regard, to the extent Cyber NY Alliance

even had to rebrand itself before pushing for the FAA test site. In addition, Chruscicki claims

43 Mark Weiner, “FAA selects Central New York as national test site for drone research,” Syracuse.com, 30 Dec 2013, http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2013/12/faa_selects_central_new_york_as_national_test_site_for_drone_research.html (accessed on 29 Mar 2015)44 Ibid45 Ibid46 Ibid47 Ibid48 Ibid49 Ibid

12

that Amazon’s push for drones has actually helped perception efforts. According to Chruscicki,

much of the altering of public perception has been done by Amazon.50 She included that the “60

minutes piece is the biggest conversation I’m hearing about drones … any suspicion is being

dwarfed by exciting new business.”51

However Ed Kinane, an upstate New York pro-privacy and anti-drone activist, said he

does not want to see the association of drones with their military application be broken. Kinane

said, “I’m quite worried that hype around domestic drones will normalize the use of drones in

our skies … the way ‘Atoms for Peace’ played a role in normalizing nuclear weapons.”52 Kinane

followed with a sentiment that anti-drone activists face a big challenge, as he said “Goliath just

got bigger.”53 On the other hand, Kade Crockford, Director of the ACLU of Massachusetts

Technology for the Liberty Project says, “ I really think that drone lobby is doing itself a

disservice by flatly refusing to engage in a conversation about privacy regulations and statues.”

Further she predicted that the drone industry will “lose out in huge markets” if the FAA does not

change their approach to privacy, as more localities would pass drone restrictions, moratoriums,

and outright bans.”54 Such moratoriums have already been seen in Syracuse and New York City.

The New York City Council alongside members Paul Vallone and Dan Garodnick has

been pushing a moratorium on drones; except for police operations.55 Vallone stated, “New York

City can regulate drones now without waiting for the FAA to update federal regulations or for a

tragedy to happen.” Garodnick proclaims he is worried about the ability of law enforcement to

hold drone operators responsible for illegal or bad acts, especially in a crowded city like New 50 Ibid51 Ibid52 Ibid53 Ibid54 Ibid55 Kaja Whitehouse, “Crackdown on drones goes local,” USA Today, 23 Feb 2015, http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/02/23/crackdown-drones-technology-faa-nyc-councilman/23696377/ (accessed on 29 Mar 2015)

13

York.56 Garodnick argues, “There are a lot of very important uses for drones that exist, but until

we have the ability to enforce the rules, we are not at a point to grant permission.”57 Currently,

anyone who violates the ban could be subject to a $1,000 fine and a year in jail. Further if New

York City, the economic central of New York State, bans the use of drones, it could be a

vexation to drone advocates and coercing a policy window.

D. The Winding Streams and Policy Window of the Bill

In the blockbuster movie Ghostbusters, Egon Spengler said, “don’t cross the streams …

its very bad.”58 Luckily, in politics, according to John W. Kingdon’s analysis regarding public

policymaking, the crossing of streams is completely appropriate and common.59 Kingdon’s

analysis incorporates three streams; problems, policies, and politics.60 Firstly, there is

intertwining with policy and its ability to define the problem and relating causes. Further,

becomes the policymaker’s prerogative to decide whether they should address the causes or the

effects.61 Therefore another imperative part of policymaking is to critically examine the

alternatives because in light of contemporary issues, innovation must be introduced to prevent

conventional ineffective methods from continuing.62 On the other hand, the repercussions of

these new ideas must be evaluated among a wide array of paths to discretionally take.63

Therefore in analyzing A.3597, this bill does not attempt to solve the root cause of drone misuse;

56 Ibid57 Ibid58 Harold Ramis. 1984. Ghostbusters. Burbank, CA: RCA/Columbia Pictures Home Video.59 John Kingdon. Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. 2nd. Boston: Little, Brown, 1984, pp. 179-194.60 Ibid61 Michael Kraft and Scott Furlong, Public Policy, Politics, Analysis and Alternatives, Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2007 pp. 97-183.62 Ibid63 Ibid

14

it simply attempts to treat the immediate cause. The root cause of drone misuse is the act of an

action not being defined as criminal in its self.

Furthermore, public policy issues are rarely one-sided. Thus, policymakers might realize

that various definitions of the public problem may be used for drafting future legislation to solve

the problem, but one particular definition might increase the likelihood of acceptance among

dissenting factions better than the others. To decrease uncertainty and remain consistent in

legislative purpose and interpretation, policymakers may bring to the forefront a definition of the

problem that garners the most support and is least controversial. Therefore, the privacy and

public safety issues have been framed delicately, with consideration given to the controversial

viewpoints on either side of the drone debate. This problem reflects the internalized culture

within the United States, whereby citizens place a high regard on autonomy, and disclosure. By

framing the issue accordingly, those vocally opposed have been accused of purposefully keeping

the public in the dark by withholding information; which is a solid accusation in a vehemently

individualistic society.

More interesting is the intersection of politics and policy, and how the policy issues

always involve the distribution of something. As Deborah Stone concludes, there wouldn’t be a

policy conflict if there were not some advantage to protect or some loss to prevent.”64 Therefore,

each policy will face resistance from the opposition. As seen in the drone debate, this opposition

could be a member of the opposite party or a member of simply a group that doesn’t agree with

the policy. It may be overly-rudimentary in principle, but every issue seems to be contentious.

Hence, every policy to a given idea seems to have several detractors, even for unusual reasons.

For example, the peculiar instances where politicians might disagree with a policy, but cannot

64 Deborah Stone, Policy Paradox, NY: Norton, 1997, pp.1-14.

15

publicly oppose it due to political ramifications. Therefore, supporting a bill that regulates

recreational drone use, in the name of public safety, would be normally seen as a political axiom,

however, it is transparent that the lack of movement on the bill, that there is fewer support as one

might expect. Further, this lack of support might be that this bill creates a conflict between New

York and the federal government, and the bill may be seen as transgressing of the state’s

authority. Ergo, the passage of A.3597 would directly affect procedures that are carried out by

the FAA. Moreover, it might be taken by the federal government as an attempt to influence

foreign policy practices, which are wholly within the jurisdiction of the federal government. At

the same time, avoiding these conflicts has proven to be daunting, as shown by its lack of

movement and support.

Additionally, another imperative issue for passing legislation is a policy window. Policy

windows are unpredictable openings in the policy process that create the possibility for influence

over the direction and outcome of that process.65 Specifically, this drone regulation has a policy

window that at the moment seems to be open but unpredictably could rapidly close. The policy

window opened shortly after the recreational drone crash at the White House, when the matter

was in vogue with the media; which led to the topic being discussed among politicians, scholars,

and citizens around the country. Furthermore, a policy entrepreneur is somebody who creates

and advances their policy agenda, and takes advantage of these predictable or unpredictable

windows of opportunity.66 Although, Assemblymember Zebrowski is not strong-arming, he has

taken on the role of policy entrepreneur by being a part of the vanguard of drone regulation. As

noted by Robert D. Behn, “The purpose of any interest group is to secure large and direct

65 Alexander Leslie, Beyond Policy Analysis: Public Issue Management in Turbulent Times, 3rd Ed. Toronto, CAN: Nelson Education, 2006

66 John Kingdon. Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. 2nd. Boston: Little, Brown, 1984, pp. 179-194.

16

benefits for its members.”67 Policymakers can use such group outcomes as substantial evidence

for their own agendas.68 Assemblyman Zebrowski has done exactly that as he has championed

drone regulation, which is sound to the vox populi, and has used his staff resources to closely

liaise with advocacy groups.

E. Implications on the 96th District and State

A.3597 has implications in the 96th District as well as the entire New York State.

Moreover, in the 96th district, with its already congested airspace due to the multiple airports is a

great concern. Although, Assemblymember Zebrowski’s district may not know much about

A.3597 because there have been few public statements and press releases about the legislation.

However, the constituents that know about A.3597, probably have seen the recent articles in USA

Today and on CNN.com. Further the implications of the legislation have more direct impact on

the large group of drone owners. Other citizens are less concerned as long as it can be done

safely and without negative consequences. However, still others want to ban its practice entirely.

Either way, the implications of this issue will affect all New Yorkers. Also, since the New York

State legislature is an example for many other states and the federal government, this bill could

impact many other states and even help create a federal change. Additionally drone regulations,

in general, would affect many businesses. Specifically, businesses would have to be familiarized

with regulations and be in compliance. With this said, it can be assumed that some republican

constituents and business owners in the district would be vexed with the bill, just as they would

in any other part of New York State.

67 Robert Behn. Policy analysis and policy politics. Policy Analysis, 1981, pp. 199-226.68 Ibid

17

F. Leadership and the Lack of Movement

It seems that there is no opposition in the Assembly or Senate, so why has A.3597 not

been successful thus far? The rudimentary answer is distress. Although the leadership in the

legislature, as well as the Governor’s office, has yet to take an official position, nor specifically

commented on A.3597 and the bill’s ability to make it on the floor for a vote, is ambiguous.

Further, because the issue is so closely tied to the War on Terror, and with the FAA, it is

facilitated for a debate to shift into a subject that is unwarranted for New York politics.

Moreover, not only is it a media nightmare but also sparks unsolicited controversial debates

regarding foreign and privacy policies. Consequently, the leadership of the Assembly and Senate

refuses to allow A.3597 to be debated and voted on. In addition, the roles of the leadership in the

legislature should not be modest when at the end of the legislative process; it is the leadership

which ultimately decides what bills should be passed.69 Although more symbolic, the views of

Governor Cuomo and his gubernatorial agenda can be of some consequence in what legislation

or issues gain traction in the legislature.70 Until recently, the Governor had sky high approval

ratings and legitimate presidential aspirations; however the Governor has lost power due to the

public backlash of his education agenda and disbanding of the Moorland Commission.

Therefore, the Governor will try and regain some of his power by distancing himself away from

more controversial issues, such as drone regulation.

However, before the recent negative controversy, Governor Cuomo made mention of

drones in his delayed 2015 State of the State Address. The Governor announced that the second-

69 Eric Lane and Joshua Wolf, “The New York State Legislature,” The Oxford Handbook of New York State Government and Politics, Oxford University Press, 2012, pp. 225-261.70 Edward Schneier, John Murtaugh and Antoinette Pole, “one in five bills originating from lobbyists shows that lobbyist more so have a defensive role,” New York Politics: A Tale of Two States, 2nd Edition, Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 2010, pp.3-373.

18

highest award for technology developments, of $4 million, was given to NUAIR.71 Further, even

President Obama in his State of the Union Address states, “As Americans, we respect human

dignity, even when we’re threatened, (which is why I’ve) … worked to make sure our use of new

technology like drones is properly constrained.”72 However, the leadership in the New York State

Assembly is prolonging A.3597. As Majority Leader Joseph Morelle, discussed in the Intern

Forum on February 10th, he feels that drone regulation “isn’t soup yet.”73 Hence, that the bill does

not pertain to matters that are ripe, however this does not reflect the public opinion as expressed.

III. Conclusion

A. The Legislation Prospects and Future

The likelihood of A.3597 being stagnant this year is as certain as “death and taxes.”74

Several factors are affecting its passage including the limited support of the leadership as

previously discussed, and the ambiguous jurisdiction. Perhaps if a cataclysmic catalyst that

precipitates a future likewise bill as A.3597, there might be more traction and leverage that will

allow the bill to see passage in the legislature. The controversial subject of the bill has not been

overcome by any striking need presently. Unfortunately, it seems as though politics play a bigger

role in the legislative process. Although Assembly Democrats currently have a supermajority 71 Source: http://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-7092-million-economic-development-resources-awarded-fourth-round (accessed on 29 Mar 2015)72 Source: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/01/20/remarks-president-state-union-address-january-20-2015 (accessed on 29 Mar 2015)73 Joseph Morelle, “Interview by Intern Committee,” Issue Forum with Assembly Majority Leader Morelle, 10 Feb 201574 Source: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/b/benjaminfr129817.html?src=t_death_and_taxes (accessed on 29 Mar 2015)

19

with 103 members, its leadership has not persuaded current public opinion to legislate law to

regulate drones usage, the final say lands solely in the hands of the Codes Committee. As noted

in New York State: A Tale of Two States, “most bills referred to committees die there and a bill

that cannot command a majority in the committee is highly unlikely to be seen again.”75

However, many bills that fail in one session are reintroduced in following years.76 Upon

inspection, one may hastily conclude that the complicated history of A.3597 reflects what the

New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice called a dysfunctional New York State

Legislature.77

Additionally, it should be noted that public opinion does change and unpopular ideas can

become favorable and therefore this is true in regards to legislation as well. Further, the Codes

Committee may have sealed the fate of A.3597, but as long as the bill remains active and with

revision, time and persistence, there is a better chance that in the future it will be signed into law.

However, with the plethora of existing statutory stare decisis, it would be permissible for New

York State to follow suite. In conclusion, William Shakespeare once said, “All the world's a

stage, and all the men and women merely players: they have their exits and their entrances; and

one man in his time plays many parts.”78 The stage is New York, the audience is its citizens, the

players … the elected politicians. Unfortunately for A.3597, the play is a tragedy. Perhaps, the

missing thrust for passage of A.3597 is the lack of a cataclysmic catastrophic event which

historically turns the “after-burners” on. Only then will it result in the speedy passage of the bill

75 Edward Schneier, John Murtaugh and Antoinette Pole, “one in five bills originating from lobbyists shows that lobbyist more so have a defensive role,” New York Politics: A Tale of Two States, 2nd Edition, Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 2010, pp.3-373. 76 Ibid77 Andrew Stengel, Lawrence Norden and Laura Seago, “Still Broken: New York State legislative reform 2008 update, Summary of Findings, NYU Brennan Center for Justice, 2008, pp. 1-6.78 http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/w/williamsha166828.html#SKPp57ql69jD7Rkt.99 (accessed on 29 Mar 2015)

20

necessary to protect life and limb. Unfortunately for the public, the need for the A.3597 is

apparent now, but it may likely remain “grounded.”

B. Democracy in the Legislative Process

Through the response of public outcry and the introducing of A.3597 which concerns

public safety, has led to a fair process of democracy. This is because the Constitutional Framers,

through the First Amendment, allowed for the people to be heard by the politicians from a

multitude of communication mediums. But unfortunately, the legislation that can be easily

passed and foreseeable as appropriate is often impeded. The legislature is too often catastrophe

driven. This is transparent in A.3597, which could mitigate the detrimental contingency in the

near-future, but lacks the movement by leadership. Further, Assemblyman Zebrowski should

receive accolades for championing drone regulation before such devastation occurs and results in

human life loss.

In regards to A.3597, the intent is transparent that the public problem concerning drone-

use is privacy and safety. Further, another issue is if regulation limits the citizens, then it expands

the police power. An example would be the backlash of the SAFE Act, which was also

catastrophe driven. Such events, call for the expediency of legislation which can leave opaque

grammar to be interpreted. The only caveat to my argument is if the FAA establishes concrete

regulations regarding drones, beforehand.

C. Wright Mills Power Elite Model reflects that the dominant institutions; politicians,

military and corporate, will always have the advantage of policymaking over the common man.79

At first look, this is opaque because the principles and economic practices, that the dominant

institutions protect, argue with accusations filled with red herrings, such as limiting industry

79C. Wright Mills. The Power Elite. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.

21

innovation. However, even if you apply this theory to other models, ultimately the power elite

will always exist amidst the policymaking domain. In addition, Charles Lindblom theorized that

there exist concealed forces at play in the policymaking environment. This holds true when

applicable to Dr. Dennis Smith’s bull’s eye, as a variable within the environment scope.80

Therefore, it is safe to assume that beneath the New York State Legislature lie the multifaceted

mechanics of an arcane policymaking environment. It comes to no surprise, that the democratic

process can be slow and opaque and sometimes venal. Nevertheless, the antiquated notions of

public policy reflecting public concern, as does A.3597, should be passed by its merits and

ramifications is a democratic vestige worth vivifying. A.3597 promotes the common good

because it is a policy that benefits the people, which includes those most concerned with safety

and infringements of privacy. As reviewed in the quantitative data, much of the public strongly

argue that if these essentials are not to be protected than it is a violation of their civil rights.

Hence, civil liberties are essential to protect for the public. Thus it is imperative to regulate

contemporary technology because it could be detrimental to public safety. Regulation of

contemporary issues such as drones is a must. This is in reflection to Albert Einstein’s statement,

“Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal.”81

80 Dennis Smith and Martin Horn, “Public safety policy in New York state,” The Oxford Handbook of New York State Government and Politics, Oxford University Press, 2012, pp. 635.81 Source: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alberteins164554.html

22

Works Cited

“Assemblyman Zebrowski Introduces Legislation to Regulate Recreational Drone Use,” 15 Feb.

2015,http://assembly.state.ny.us/mem/Kenneth-Zebrowski/story/61700/ (accessed 28

Mar. 2015)

“Man Killed By Toy Helicopter In Brooklyn After Being Scalped,” Huffington Post, 5 Sept.

2013 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/05/man-killed-by-toy-

helicopter_n_3875895.html (accessed 28 Mar. 2015)

“NYPD: Police helicopter has near miss with drone over Brooklyn,” CBS News, 18 Sept. 2014,

23

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nypd-helicopter-has-near-miss-with-drone-over-

brooklyn/

Behn, R. Policy analysis and policy politics. Policy Analysis, 1981, pp. 199-226.

Jansen, B. “Drone Rule Dismay Amazon,” USA Today: a Gannet Company, 16 Feb

2015, 1A

Kingdon, J. Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. 2nd. Boston: Little, Brown, 1984, pp.

179-194.

Kraft, M. and Furlong, S. Public Policy, Politics, Analysis and Alternatives, Washington, D.C.:

CQ Press, 2007 pp. 97-183.

Lane, E. and Wolf, J. “The New York State Legislature,” The Oxford Handbook of New York

State Government and Politics, Oxford University Press, 2012, pp. 225-261.

Lederman, J. and Woodward, C. “After wayward drone crash, Obama says US needs laws to

make drone use safer, beneficial,” Star Tribune, 27 January 2015,

Leslie, A. Beyond Policy Analysis: Public Issue Management in Turbulent Times, 3rd Ed.

Toronto, CAN: Nelson Education, 2006

Matt, F. “Drones over upstate New York: A look at an FAA test site,” 21 Jan 2014,

24

http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/the-stream/multimedia/2014/1/drones-over-

upstatenewyorkalookatanfaatestsite.html (accessed on 29 Mar 2015)

Mills, C. Wright. The Power Elite. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.

Morelle, J. “Interview by Intern Committee,” Issue Forum with Assembly Majority Leader

Morelle, 10 Feb 2015

Office of Assemblymember Kenneth P. Zebrowski, Sponsor’s Memorandum In Support Of

Legislation, “Legislation Regulating Recreational Drone Use (A.3597), 9 Feb. 2015

Ramis, H. 1984. Ghostbusters. Burbank, CA: RCA/Columbia Pictures Home Video.

Schneier, E. Murtaugh, J. and Pole, A. “one in five bills originating from lobbyists shows that

lobbyist more so have a defensive role,” New York Politics: A Tale of Two States, 2nd

Edition, Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 2010, pp.3-373.

Smith, D. and Horn M. “Public safety policy in New York state,” The Oxford Handbook of New

York State Government and Politics, Oxford University Press, 2012, pp. 635.

Stengel, A. Norden, L. and Seago, L. “Still Broken: New York State legislative reform 2008

update, Summary of Findings, NYU Brennan Center for Justice, 2008, pp. 1-6.

25

Stone, D. Policy Paradox, NY: Norton, 1997, pp.1-14.

Valencia, N. and Martinez, M. “Drone carrying drugs crashes south of U.S. border,” CNN, 23

Jan. 2015, http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/22/world/drug-drone-crashes-us-mexico-border/

(accessed 28 Mar. 2015)

Vanno, P. “With little regulation of drones, concerns arise over safety, privacy,” Observer

Dispatch, 17 Jan 2015, 1A continued to 4A

Weiner, M. “FAA selects Central New York as national test site for drone research,”

Syracuse.com, 30 Dec 2013,

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2013/12/faa_selects_central_new_york_as_nati

onal_test_site_for_drone_research.html (accessed on 29 Mar 2015)

Whitehouse, K. “Crackdown on drones goes local,” USA Today, 23 Feb 2015,

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/02/23/crackdown-drones-technology-faa-nyc-

councilman/23696377/ (accessed on 29 Mar 2015)

Whitlock, C. “Close encounters on rise as small drones gain in popularity,” The Washington

26

Post, 23 June 2014, http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/06/23/close-

encounters-with-small-drones-on-rise/ (accessed 28 Mar. 2015)