About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


1 1 (February 27, 2026)

handle is hein.crs/govetqy0001 and id is 1 raw text is: Law Enforcement and the Evolving Counter- Unmanned Aircraft Systems (C-UAS) Landscape February 27, 2026 As the use of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS)-commonly referred to as drones-for both commercial and recreational purposes has increased, so too has law enforcement agencies' use of this technology. Simultaneously, law enforcement has been concerned about the malicious use of drones and the ability to counter it. UAS may pose unique public safety or security risks. Some have warned, for instance, that drones can be used as reconnaissance tools for criminals because they can fly past bollards, checkpoints, and other security mechanisms. For example, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has noted that transnational criminal organizations use drones to surveil and evade border officials. Drones have also been used to drop illicit drugs and other contraband into jails or prisons. The Federal Bureau of Prisons, for example, notes that criminal networks deliver illicit drugs, weapons, cell phones, and other contraband to inmates via drones and that these drone incursions are increasing. Yet another concern involves potential use of drones to drop a bomb, shoot firearms, or spray a poison gas over large crowds of people at a public event. Consequently, policynakers have questioned whether or how law enforcement may be able to engage in counter-unmanned aircraft system (C-UAS) activities-including detecting, identifying, monitoring, tracking, communicating with, and disrupting or disabling suspicious or malicious drones. Law Enforcement C-UAS Landscape Law enforcement C-UAS activities generally fall into two broad categories: detection (including monitoring and tracking) and mitigation (including both kinetic and non-kinetic solutions). However, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and other federal agencies have advised that various federal criminal laws have generally limited law enforcement C-UAS options. For instance, criminal surveillance laws, like the Wiretap Act and Pen/Trap Statute, may be implicated when law enforcement attempts to intercept signals or communications in order to detect, identify, monitor, track, or communicate with a drone and its operator. Certain mitigation techniques, such as jamming (e.g., blocking or interfering with signals and communications), spoofing (e.g., modifying signals), and hacking (e.g., accessing a drone's communications), may involve navigating laws that surround communication lines, stations, or systems; Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov IN12661 CRS INSIGHT Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress