Kingston Police’s use of a drone to catch distracted drivers stirs backlash

Drivers at three busy intersections in Kingston, Ont., had no way of knowing they were being watched earlier this month, but high above them police hovered, zooming in to catch those using their phones while behind the wheel. By the end of the day on May 7, officers had handed out 20 tickets for distracted driving — each alleged violation captured on video by a drone flying overhead.

It was the first time Kingston Police had used this tactic, and as word spread about their innovative approach, debate began to swell on social media between those who believed it had crossed a line and others who felt a novel strategy was needed to combat distracted driving.

Chief Scott Fraser defended the use of drones, stating that the police service was simply utilizing new technology to gather the same photos investigators have always used as evidence of texting and driving. However, legal experts argue that this method is an invasion of privacy that amounts to an unreasonable search and violates Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

One local lawyer, Dominic Naimool, expressed his concerns about this new surveillance technique, emphasizing that any invasion of privacy must be necessary and as minimal as possible. He reached out to the Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) to address his worries, leading the organization to send a letter to Chief Fraser demanding an immediate halt to the use of drones to record drivers inside their vehicles.

The CCF argued that this practice violates Canadians’ freedom from unreasonable search and seizure under Section 8 of the Charter and threatened legal action if Kingston Police did not cease using drones for this purpose. Constitutional lawyer Josh Dehaas emphasized that many Kingston residents find the use of drones to be invasive and contrary to their rights.

Former Ontario privacy commissioner Ann Cavoukian also criticized the use of drones, stating that while other surveillance methods have been employed in the past, drones are far more intrusive and violate individuals’ right to privacy, especially when used to film people inside their vehicles.

Chief Fraser defended the use of drones, pointing out that the images captured by drones are essentially the same as evidence gathered through other methods used to catch distracted drivers. He highlighted that the intention was not to invade a person’s privacy but to enforce the law and deter distracted driving.

Despite the threat of legal action, Fraser stated that the police service would assess the arguments presented by the CCF and comply with any court ruling that prohibits the use of drones to catch distracted drivers. Naimool emphasized the importance of considering the impact of surveillance technology on residents and urged Kingston Police to reconsider their approach in light of privacy concerns.

In conclusion, the use of drones to catch distracted drivers in Kingston has sparked a contentious debate between privacy advocates and law enforcement. While police defend their actions as necessary for public safety, critics argue that this approach infringes on individuals’ privacy rights and sets a concerning precedent for surveillance tactics. The outcome of this debate remains uncertain, but it underscores the importance of balancing law enforcement efforts with respect for privacy rights.