The Constitutional Implications of Drones, Facial Recognition Technology and CCTV

  • Weaver Russell
doi: 10.53116/pgaflr.2021.2.5


Over the centuries, new forms of surveillance technology have emerged. At the founding of the U.S., the government did not have sophisticated spying and surveillance technologies at its disposal. In the eighteenth century, the police might have tried to eavesdrop on their fellow citizens in taverns or other public settings, or they might have listened outside a suspect’s window. However, without the advanced technologies that exist today, the opportunities for successful eavesdropping were very limited. Today, surveillance technologies have gone high tech, creating Orwellian possibilities for snooping. As one commentator observed as far back as 1974, “rapid technological advances and the consequent recognition of the ‘frightening paraphernalia which the vaunted marvels of an electronic age may visit upon human society’ have underlined the possibility of worse horrors yet to come”. This article examines how the U.S. courts are dealing with three different types of technology: CCTV, facial recognition and drones.


search and seizure technology surveillance police investigations

How to Cite

Weaver, R. (2022). The Constitutional Implications of Drones, Facial Recognition Technology and CCTV. Public Governance, Administration and Finances Law Review, 6(2), 53–65.


American Civil Liberties Union (2021). 2019 Proved We Can Stop Face Recognition Surveillance. Online:

Amsterdam, A. G. (1974). Perspectives on the Fourth Amendment. Minnesota Law Review, 58, 349–477.

Basha, R. M. (2003). Kyllo v. United States: The Fourth Amendment triumphs over technology. Brandeis L. J., 41, 939.

BBC (2010, October 13). 7 July bombers spotted on CCTV after exhaustive hunt. Online:

Bennett, W. C. (2014). Civilian drones, privacy, and the federal-state balance. The Brookings Institution. Online:

Blakley, A. F., Garrie, D. B., & Armstrong, M. J. (2005). Coddling spies: Why the law doesn’t adequately address computer spyware. Duke Law & Technology Review, 25 (1).

Broberg, J. (2001). From CALEA to Carnivore: How Uncle Sam Conscripted Private Industry in Order to Wiretape Digital Telecommunications. North Dakota Law Review, 77 (4), 795–825.

CB Insights (2020, January 9). 38 ways drones will impact society: From fighting war to forecasting weather, UAVs change everything. Online:

CNN (2020, June 18). 7 July 2005 London Bombings Fast Facts. Online:

Collins, T. (2019, December 23). Facial recognition: Do you really control how your face is being used? USA Today.

Electronic Privacy Information Center (s. a.). Next Generation Identification – FBI. Online:

Foley, J. (2007). Are Google searches private? An originalist interpretation of the Fourth Amendment in online communication cases. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 22 (1), 447–475.

Greenberg, A. (2010, September 9). Scanner vans allow drive-by snooping. Forbes. Online:

Harwell, D., & Timberg, C. (2021, April 2). How America’s surveillance networks helped the FBI catch the Capitol mob. The Washington Post. Online:

Higgins, H. (2020, January 20). Search and rescue teams use drone to help injured hiker in Southern Utah. Fox 13. Online:

Human Rights Watch (s. a.). Mass Surveillance in China. Online:

IFSEC Global (2021). Role of CCTV Cameras: Public, Privacy and Protection. Online:

Kelly, H. (2013, April 26). After Boston: The pros and cons of surveillance cameras. CNN Business. Online:

Laperruque, J., & Janovsky, D. (2018, September 25). These police drones are watching you. Project on Government Oversight. Online:

O’Brien, S. (2020, March 9). Time to face up to Big Brother. New Haven Independent. Online:

Orwell, G. (1949). Nineteen Eighty-Four. Secker & Warburg.

Peters, J. (2020, June 8). IBM will no longer offer, develop, or research facial recognition technology. The Verge. Online:

Plautz, J. (2019, September 23). Six US cities top list of world’s most surveilled. Smart Cities Dive. Online:

Romero, D. (2018, December 4). NYPD to deploy drone fleet, stoking fears of Big Brother. U.S. News. Online:

Slobogin, Ch. (2002). Public Privacy: Camera Surveillance of Public Places and the Right to Anonymity. Mississippi Law Journal, 72, 213–299. Online:

Sullivan, G. P. (2013, July 9). Big Brother’s tracking shines light on emerging facial recognition technology. Forbes. Online:

Temple-Raston, D., & Smith, R. (2007, July 8). U.S. Eyes U.K.’s Surveillance Cameras. National Public Radio. Online:

Weaver, R. L. (2019). From Gutenberg to the Internet: Free Speech, Advancing Technology and the Implications for Democracy. 2nd ed. Carolina Academic Press.

Weaver, R. L. (2011). The James Otis Lecture: The Fourth Amendment, Privacy and Advancing Technology. Mississippi Law Journal, 80, 1131–1227.


Download data is not yet available.