INTERIM REPORT ON THE DEPARTMENT 

OF JUSTICE’S USE AND SUPPORT OF 

UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS
 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Audit Division 

Report 13-37 

September 2013R
 

 

 

 

 

 


 

INTERIM REPORT ON THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE’S 

USE AND SUPPORT OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
 

The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) is 

conducting an audit of the domestic use of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) 

by the Department of Justice (DOJ), commonly referred to as unmanned 

aerial vehicles or “drones,” as well as its support and provision of UAS to 

other law enforcement agencies and non-profit organizations.1 This interim 

report presents an overview of DOJ’s UAS use and policies as of May 2013. 

As of May 2013, four DOJ law enforcement components had either 

tested for evaluation or used UAS to support their operations. Although the 

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is the only DOJ component to have 

used UAS to support its mission, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms 

and Explosives (ATF) reported to us that it plans to deploy UAS to support 

future operations. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the 

United States Marshals Service (USMS) have acquired UAS for testing, but 

told us that they have no plans to deploy them operationally. Specifically, 

the DEA stated that it plans to transfer its UAS to another federal agency, 

while the USMS stated that it plans to destroy its UAS because its UAS are 

obsolete and no longer operable. From 2004 to May 2013, DOJ law 

enforcement components reported spending in total approximately $3.7 

million on UAS, with the FBI accounting for over 80 percent of this amount.2 

In addition, the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) and Office of 

Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) have provided $1.2 million in 

funding to seven local law enforcement agencies and non-profit 

organizations to purchase UAS for testing or use. 

The UAS known to have been purchased or funded by DOJ have been 

what the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) defines as “small UAS,” 

1

 UAS are remotely piloted aerial vehicles and their associated ground control 

stations. 

2

 Total expenditures associated with UAS acquisition include costs for: (1) the 

vehicles, (2) mission payloads, (3) ground control station, (4) control and data links, and 

(5) manufacturer-provided training. As of May 2013, the FBI had spent over $3 million on 

UAS activities, the ATF almost $600,000, and the USMS $75,000. The DEA acquired 

research UAS from another federal agency at no cost. 
which weigh up to 55 pounds. DOJ officials told us that none of their UAS 

are armed or carry releasable projectiles. 

Need for UAS-Specific Policies 

While both the FBI and ATF have developed procedures guiding how to 

receive approval to operate UAS, officials with both components told us they 

did not believe that there was a need to develop specialized UAS privacy 

protocols. During our review, FBI and ATF officials stated that they did not 

believe there was any practical difference between how UAS collect evidence 

through aerial surveillance as compared to manned aircraft. Consequently, 

we found that the FBI has been applying its existing aerial surveillance 

policies to guide how agents should use UAS. ATF officials told us that, as of 

May 2013, the ATF was developing a standard operational checklist to guide 

how its agents should use UAS. 

However, we found that the technological capabilities of UAS and the 

current, uncoordinated approach of DOJ components to UAS use may merit 

the DOJ developing consistent, UAS-specific policies to guide the proper use 

of UAS. Unlike manned aircraft, UAS can be used in close proximity to a 

home and, with longer-lasting power systems, may be capable of flying for 

several hours or even days at a time, raising unique concerns about privacy 

and the collection of evidence with UAS. Considering that multiple DOJ 

components are using or have the potential to use UAS, we believe the 

Office of the Deputy Attorney General (ODAG), which has responsibility 

within DOJ for formulating cross-component law enforcement policies, 

should consider the need for a DOJ-wide policy regarding UAS uses that 

could have significant privacy or other legal implications. 

Need for Enhanced UAS Award Coordination and Oversight 

Both OJP and COPS need to enhance their efforts to monitor UAS 

awards and improve coordination between award recipients with DOJ-funded 

UAS and DOJ law enforcement components. Specifically, neither OJP nor 

COPS required that UAS award recipients demonstrate that they could 

receive FAA approval to operate UAS or that UAS use was legal in their 

jurisdiction. Their UAS awards also did not require recipients to report 

specific data necessary to measure the success of UAS testing, or to use or 

share the results of their programs with DOJ. Although UAS supported by 

DOJ award funds have the potential to be deployed in ways that may 

interfere with ongoing DOJ law enforcement surveillance efforts, we found 

no evidence that OJP or COPS coordinated with or notified DOJ law 

enforcement components about their UAS awards, either before or after the 

awards were made. 

ii 
 

Moreover, we note that OJP had difficulty confirming to us how many 

UAS-related awards it had made.3 OJP reported that in response to our 

preliminary inquiries it did not uniformly search its award tracking system, 

and as a result it reported to us its UAS research awards but not the awards 

it had made to local police departments for UAS acquisition. Only after the 

OIG identified two UAS awards to local police departments did OJP perform a 

more complete search of its grants system and confirm these two OIGidentified awards and a third UAS award. 

This interim report provides eight recommendations to DOJ to improve 

coordination among law enforcement and award-making components, and to 

facilitate the drafting of policies that protect individual privacy interests and 

ensure the admissibility of UAS-collected evidence in legal proceedings. 

3

 Because of this difficulty, we believe we cannot rule out the possibility that 

additional DOJ grant recipients could have used DOJ funds to purchase UAS. 

iii 
This page intentionally left blank 
 


 


 


 


 


 

INTERIM REPORT ON THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE’S
 

USE AND SUPPORT OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS 

TABLE OF CONTENTS
 

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................1 

REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT ............................................................2 

ISSUES REGARDING LAW ENFORCEMENT USE OF UAS ......................3
 

STATUS OF DOJ UAS LAW ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS .......................4 

Active UAS Programs ....................................................................... 5 

Inactive UAS .................................................................................. 6 

NEED FOR DOJ UAS-SPECIFIC POLICIES ...........................................6 

DOJ UAS GRANT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT AWARDS ............10 

Grants to Local Law Enforcement Agencies ....................................... 12 

Cooperative Agreements with Non-Profit Organizations ...................... 13 

NEED FOR ENHANCED COORDINATION AND OVERSIGHT OF
 

UAS AWARDS...................................................................................15 

RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................17 

APPENDIX I: THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL’S 

RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT REPORT ............................19 

APPENDIX II: THE OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS’ 

 RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT REPORT ...........................21
 

APPENDIX III: THE OFFICE OF COMMUNITY ORIENTED 

POLICING SERVICES’ RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT 

REPORT ...................................................................26 

APPENDIX IV: OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ANALYSIS 

AND SUMMARY OF ACTIONS NECESSARY TO CLOSE 

THE REPORT .............................................................30 
This page intentionally left blank 
 

INTERIM REPORT ON THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE’S
 

USE AND SUPPORT OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS 

The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) is 

conducting an audit of the domestic use of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) 

by the Department of Justice (DOJ), as well as its support and provision of 

UAS to other law enforcement agencies and non-profit organizations. UAS 

are also commonly referred to as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) or 

“drones.”4

 This interim report presents an overview of DOJ’s UAS use and 

policies as of May 2013. 

Introduction 

As of May 2013, six DOJ components have acquired UAS or awarded 

funds for UAS testing or use, but only the Federal Bureau of Investigation 

(FBI) has used UAS to support its mission. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 

Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) reported to us that it plans to deploy UAS to 

support future operations. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and 

the United States Marshals Service (USMS) have acquired UAS for testing 

but told us that they have no plans to deploy them operationally. In 

addition, the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) and Office of Community 

Oriented Policing Services (COPS) have provided funding to local law 

enforcement agencies and non-profit organizations to purchase UAS for 

testing or use. 

The UAS purchased or funded by the DOJ as of May 2013 have been 

what the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) defines as “small UAS,” 

which are UAS weighing up to 55 pounds. Many officials from DOJ, other 

federal agencies, and local law enforcement stated that they believed small 

UAS can be beneficial for reconnaissance, surveillance, and crime scene 

examinations, and that their use eliminates the need to risk the life of a 

pilot. 

To obtain information on the acquisition, use, and control of UAS, we 

reviewed relevant federal policies and procedures, and we interviewed 

officials across the DOJ as well as officials and UAS operators at local and 

non-profit organizations that received DOJ UAS awards. We also spoke to 

officials at other organizations that we believed have important UAS roles, 

responsibilities, or viewpoints regarding law enforcement’s use of UAS 

4

 UAS are remotely piloted aerial vehicles and their associated ground control 

stations. 

1 
 

 

technologies.5

 Generally, this review covers the period from when the DOJ 

began acquiring UAS in 2004 until May 2013. 

Regulatory Environment 

The FAA is responsible for establishing rules governing the safety of 

the national airspace. The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (Act) 

requires the FAA to expedite its review of applications from public agencies 

to operate UAS and to develop a comprehensive plan to integrate UAS into 

the national airspace system.6

 Under the Act, the FAA must allow 

government public safety agencies to use UAS weighing up to 4.4 pounds so 

long as they are deployed: (1) within line of sight of the operator; (2) less 

than 400 feet above the ground; (3) during daytime; (4) inside uncontrolled 

(Class G) airspace; and (5) more than five miles from any airport or other 

location with aviation activities, such as heliports.7 The FAA subsequently 

permitted public UAS with weights of up to 25 pounds to operate under the 

same conditions. 

Before any public agency can operate a UAS, the FAA requires it to 

apply for and receive a Certificate of Waiver or Authorization (COA) from the 

FAA. In its application, the public agency must demonstrate the measures it 

has taken to enable it to operate the UAS safely. Each COA lasts for up to 

2 years and defines the operational conditions, emergency landing 

procedures, airworthiness requirements, area of operations, and ground 

crew proficiency required to operate the UAS. According to the FAA, these 

elements are necessary to ensure that UAS operators will be able to “see 

and avoid” other air traffic and be aware of the operating environment while 

the UAS is in the air.8 A public agency requesting a COA generally has to 

demonstrate that it will have trained line-of-sight visual observers 

5

 Specifically, we spoke with officials from: (1) the FAA’s Unmanned Aircraft 

Systems Integration Office and its Office of General Counsel; (2) the Association for 

Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, a non-profit organization that seeks to promote 

and support unmanned systems and robotics; (3) the International Association of Chiefs of 

Police (IACP), a non-profit organization that seeks to improve law enforcement practices 

worldwide; and (4) the American Civil Liberties Union, a non-profit organization whose 

stated mission is to protect individual rights and liberties. 

6

 49 U.S.C. § 40101 (2012). 

7

 The FAA defines “Class G” airspace as uncontrolled airspace and generally extends 

up to 1,200 feet above ground level. 

8

 14 C.F.R. § 91.113 (2012). 

2 
 

 

overseeing the UAS or an “alternate method of compliance” to meet the seeand-avoid requirement.

9 

The FAA may issue an emergency COA to a law enforcement agency to 

operate a UAS outside of an approved area. The FAA only issues an 

emergency COA if: (1) there is a situation with an extreme possibility of the 

loss of life, (2) the proposed UAS already is operating under an approved 

COA, and (3) the agency is unable to use a manned aircraft to respond to 

the emergency.10 Additionally, although the FAA generally limits UAS use to 

less-densely populated areas and during daytime, the FAA may temporarily 

amend a COA to allow an agency to operate a UAS in populated areas or at 

night so long as the law enforcement agency proposes to mitigate 

sufficiently the risk of mid-air collision and injury or property damage on the 

ground. For example, an agency may mitigate these risks by restricting 

public access to the area of UAS operation while the UAS is in use. 

Issues Regarding Law Enforcement Use of UAS 

Small UAS provide an attractive alternative to law enforcement 

agencies seeking to establish or augment their aviation capabilities because 

small UAS have much lower operational and maintenance costs than the 

manned aircraft typically used by law enforcement. One local law 

enforcement agency has estimated the cost of using a UAS at just $25 per 

hour compared to $650 per hour for a manned aircraft. In addition, UAS 

capabilities and supporting technologies are improving. UAS power systems 

are providing longer flight times, and UAS are being equipped with smaller, 

more versatile cameras capable of taking both optical and infrared images. 

UAS technology improvements and their reduced costs have resulted 

in questions being raised regarding the potential for routine law enforcement 

use of UAS and the implications of such use on privacy rights. As of May 

2013, Congress has held several hearings and invited testimony from UAS 

developers, law enforcement users, privacy advocates, and academic 

experts regarding the proper use and oversight of UAS within the United 

9

 Such alternate methods may include some combinations of ground-based radar, 

on-board cameras, or collision-avoidance sensors instead of line-of-sight visual observers. 

The FAA evaluates alternate methods of compliance for risk on a case-by-case basis. See 

the Federal Aviation Administration Interim Operational Approval Guidance 08-01 

(March 2008). 

10 See U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Notice of 

National Policy, N 8900.207, Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Operational Approval, 

section 8.h, January 22, 2013. 

3 
 

 

 

 

States. Further, many state legislatures and local municipalities have 

considered or are considering, and some have passed, legislation limiting the 

use of UAS by law enforcement. For example, at least three states require 

law enforcement to obtain a search warrant before using a UAS for 

surveillance and one state has imposed a 2-year moratorium on UAS use 

except in the cases of imminent loss of life.11 

In September 2012, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 

found that federal agencies as a whole have not addressed important UAS 

privacy concerns, specifically how data captured by UAS will be used and 

protected by federal law enforcement agencies.12 The report stated that by 

not working proactively to address these issues, federal agencies, including 

DOJ, risk further delaying the integration of UAS into the national airspace 

system. GAO recommended that DOJ, along with the U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS), initiate discussions with the FAA to explore 

whether actions should be taken to guide the collection and use of UASacquired data. We found that, as of May 2013, DOJ had not taken steps to 

address this recommendation. 

Status of DOJ UAS Law Enforcement Programs 

From 2004 to May 2013, DOJ law enforcement components reported 

spending in total approximately $3.7 million on small UAS.13 Specifically, the 

FBI spent over $3 million on UAS (or over 80 percent of the total DOJ 

amount spent on UAS), while the ATF spent almost $600,000, the USMS 

spent $75,000, and the DEA acquired UAS from another federal agency for 

testing at no cost. As of May 2013, the FBI and ATF had active UAS 

11 The states of Florida, Idaho, and Tennessee require that law enforcement 

agencies obtain a search warrant before using UAS for surveillance. In April 2013, the 

Commonwealth of Virginia enacted a 2-year moratorium on UAS use except in cases of 

imminent loss of life. There are many other state legislatures and municipalities that are 

considering proposed bills, and therefore, state and local laws in this area change 

frequently. 

12 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Unmanned Aircraft Systems: Measuring 

Progress and Addressing Potential Privacy Concerns Would Facilitate Integration into the 

National Airspace System, GAO-12-981 (September 2012). 

13 Total expenditures associated with UAS acquisition include costs for: (1) the 

vehicle(s); (2) mission payloads; (3) ground control station; (4) control and data links; and 

(5) manufacturer-provided training. 

4 
 

 

 

programs, while the DEA and USMS stated that they have no plans to use 

UAS.14 

Active UAS Programs 

The FBI has been deploying UAS to support their operations since 

2006. ATF began researching and testing UAS in 2011 and told us that it is 

ready to deploy them if necessary through emergency COAs. According to 

officials in both components, UAS offer unique law enforcement capabilities 

required by their investigations. For example, UAS operators told us that 

UAS video and imagery equipment augment reconnaissance and surveillance 

assignments, tactical operations, and crime scene examinations. 

Furthermore, officials told us UAS can be a useful and time-saving tool for 

missing persons cases and in disaster situations. DOJ officials told us that 

none of their UAS are armed or carry releasable projectiles. 

As of May 2013, both the FBI and ATF had established program offices 

responsible for maintaining and securing UAS. The program offices also 

ensure that UAS are readily deployable for training or support missions. 

Both have implemented component-level procedures guiding how to approve 

and track internal requests for UAS support in the field. Specifically, both 

components require that special agents first obtain approval for surveillance 

from a supervisor and submit a written request to the component-level UAS 

program office. If the program office approves the request, it must then 

obtain an appropriate emergency COA or other FAA approval prior to 

deploying the UAS. 

The FBI reported that it had used UAS in very limited circumstances to 

support operations where there was a specific operational need. For 

example, the FBI used a UAS in January 2013 during a hostage crisis in 

Midland City, Alabama. We reviewed available records at the FBI and ATF 

pertaining to UAS training conducted by both components and the 

operational missions conducted by the FBI under these procedures. We 

found that, based on these records, the FBI and ATF appeared to operate 

UAS only after obtaining the required approvals, including FAA-approved 

COAs or emergency COAs. 

14 In addition to DOJ’s internal UAS use, DHS has reported that it has operated its 

UAS on two occasions to assist DOJ law enforcement components. 

5 
 

 

Inactive UAS 

Officials at DEA and USMS stated that they had obtained UAS for 

testing, but due to UAS regulatory limitations (such as the prohibition on 

flights near airports and in densely populated areas) as well as mechanical 

limitations (such as limited battery life and data link range), they did not 

believe UAS provided an additional benefit to their missions.15 As a result, 

these components have decided not to deploy UAS in support of operations. 

The DEA stated that it plans to transfer its unused UAS to the DHS while the 

USMS stated that it plans to excess the UAS by destruction because its UAS 

are obsolete and no longer operable. 

Need for DOJ UAS-Specific Policies 

The FBI and ATF have developed or are developing their own standard 

operating procedures governing UAS. We obtained copies of these 

procedures and found that they define specific roles and responsibilities for 

the UAS flight team.16 In addition, the procedures provide pre- and postflight instructions that outline what the flight team should do prior to and 

after flight. Both procedures require that the flight team receive approval 

from officials responsible for completing COAs and notify the FAA of the 

flight. 

With regard to potential privacy concerns stemming from UAS 

operations, officials at both the FBI and ATF stated that they did not believe 

there was any practical difference between how a UAS collects evidence as 

compared to a manned aircraft. The FBI stated that the aerial surveillance 

provisions of its Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide and other 

aviation policies govern how agents use UAS.17 These guidelines require that 

agents request supervisory approval before conducting any aerial 

surveillance and comply with aviation laws and policies. As of May 2013, the 

ATF stated that it was developing a standard operational checklist to guide 

how pilots should conduct UAS flights. As such, these officials did not 

15 Some UAS models require that operators be as close as a mile from the device 

during operation and that current FAA regulations generally exclude UAS operations in most 

urban areas. 

16 At a minimum, the FAA requires that UAS flight teams must be comprised of a 

certified pilot and an observer. 

17 According to the FBI, in early June 2013, it began developing and reviewing an 

Aviation Policy Implementation Guide. In addition, the FBI reported that its Office of the 

General Counsel is also conducting a privacy review of the use of UAS. 

6 
 

 

 

 

 


 

believe that there was a need to develop additional privacy protocols for 

UAS. 

Considering the low operational cost of UAS compared to manned 

aircraft, privacy advocates have expressed concern that non-emergency UAS 

use could quickly transform into routine or broader evidence-gathering 

activities. Moreover, the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) 

has encouraged law enforcement agencies to implement UAS-specific 

policies and procedures to address privacy concerns as a way to increase 

public support for UAS use. In August 2012, the IACP published a report 

entitled Recommended Guidelines for the Use of Unmanned Aircraft for law 

enforcement agencies that are contemplating using UAS. An IACP official 

told us that it developed the guidelines in part to balance the enhanced 

surveillance capabilities of UAS with privacy concerns. The IACP report 

included 10 key recommendations for law enforcement agencies to consider 

as a basis for enhancing their own UAS operational internal controls and 

image retention policies. These IACP recommendations are shown in 

Exhibit 1. 

EXHIBIT 1: IACP RECOMMENDED GUIDELINES FOR 

UAS OPERATIONAL CONTROLS AND IMAGE RETENTION
 

1. Obtain a COA as necessary from the FAA before operating a UAS. 

2. UAS may only be operated by trained and certified personnel. Such personnel 

also receive training in proper use of UAS. 

3. All UAS flights should be (1) approved by a supervisor and (2) for a legitimate 

public safety mission, training, or demonstration purpose. 

4. The purposes, times, and supervisory approvals of all UAS flights will be 

documented. 

5. A supervisory or third-party review of UAS documents at regular intervals and 

document review results to ensure compliance with agency UAS procedures. 

6. Defined consequences for employees who use UAS outside of agency policies. 

7. Except in cases where officer safety might be jeopardized, agencies should notify 

people in the vicinity of UAS flights to enhance public safety and assistance. 

8. Obtain a search warrant prior to flight when the UAS will be used to collect 

evidence of criminal wrongdoing and if the operating UAS will intrude upon 

reasonable expectations of privacy. 

9. Images captured by UAS should not be retained unless required for evidence of a 

crime, an on-going investigation, training, or required by law. 

10. Retained images should be available for public inspection unless exempt by law. 

Source: IACP Recommended Guidelines for the Use of Unmanned Aircraft, August 2012, as 

summarized by OIG. 

7 
 

 

 

 

As suggested by the IACP guidelines, the surveillance policy the FBI 

has applied to UAS requires the FBI to obtain a warrant if the surveillance 

would intrude on an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy, 

consistent with Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search 

and seizure. In finalizing its UAS guidelines, ATF has told us that it plans to 

apply the same warrant threshold to UAS as to any other investigation. 

A consistent policy specific to UAS, however, may be merited in light of 

the trending technological capabilities of UAS in order to guide their proper 

and safe use in circumstances unanticipated by existing policies. For 

example, although investigators generally do not need to obtain search 

warrants for surveillance of areas outside of a home, the area surrounding a 

residence, called the curtilage, presents a possible exception.18 The unique 

capability of small UAS to maneuver effectively yet covertly in the curtilage 

distinguishes such devices from manned aircraft. When DOJ law 

enforcement components use UAS to perform surveillance in areas where 

individual expectations of privacy are not clear or well-defined, more explicit 

guidelines specific to UAS could provide appropriate protection of individual 

privacy interests and ensure the admissibility of UAS-acquired evidence in 

court proceedings. 

Similarly, as power systems for UAS improve, UAS surveillance will be 

capable of extended flight times of several hours or even days at a time, far 

beyond the capabilities of manned aircraft. Such a capability could permit 

law enforcement to conduct pervasive tracking of an individual’s 

movements, which could have legal implications whether the tracking was 

performed on private or public property.19 

18 Law enforcement is required to consider four factors to ascertain whether activity 

occurring in the curtilage constitutes a search and therefore requires a warrant: (1) the 

proximity of the area to the home, (2) whether the area is within an enclosure surrounding 

the home, (3) the nature of the use to which the area is put, and (4) any steps taken to 

protect the area from observations from passers-by. See United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 

294, 301 (1987). 

19 The U.S. Supreme Court held in 2012 that a law enforcement agency’s installation 

of a global positioning system (GPS) on a vehicle and its use of the GPS to monitor the 

vehicle’s movements constituted a search and therefore required that the law enforcement 

agency obtain a warrant to engage in such monitoring. See United States v. Jones, 565 

U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012). In addition, while not the holding of the Court, concurring 

opinions in this case expressed the view that monitoring or surveillance of a person’s 

movements by GPS, even while the person is in public, may impinge on societal 

expectations of privacy. 

8 
 

The FBI has been and is currently using UAS and is drafting 

component-level UAS policies. In addition, although the ATF is not yet using 

UAS, it has taken steps towards using them, including contacting the FAA to 

obtain COAs. Moreover, we learned that the National Institute of Justice 

(NIJ) in the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) has been working with the FAA 

to expand state and local law enforcement UAS use over a wider-number of 

areas. 

We believe the Office of the Deputy Attorney General (ODAG), which 

has responsibility within DOJ for formulating cross-component law 

enforcement policies, should consider the need for a DOJ-wide policy 

regarding UAS use in areas and ways that could have significant privacy or 

other legal implications. We therefore recommend that ODAG convene a 

working group comprised of DOJ components using or with an interest in 

using UAS to: (1) determine whether UAS capabilities are sufficiently 

distinct from those of manned aircraft that they require a specific DOJ-level 

policy to address privacy and legal concerns; and (2) identify and address 

UAS policy concerns that are shared across components or require 

coordination among components and other federal agencies. We believe 

that any such working group should include the DOJ Office of Privacy and 

Civil Liberties, which is responsible for developing legal guidance to help 

ensure compliance with privacy laws, regulations, and policies. 

Further, we believe DOJ needs to promptly address the September 

2012 GAO report recommendation that DOJ explore with the FAA and DHS 

whether actions should be taken to guide the collection and use of UASacquired data. We found that as of May 2013, DOJ had not taken steps to 

address this recommendation. By contrast, since 2009 and at the direction 

of Congress, the FAA and the Department of Defense have convened a task 

force with other federal agencies referred to as the UAS Executive 

Committee.20 As of May 2013, DOJ was not a member of this committee. 

We recommend that ODAG consider whether to solicit DOJ’s admission to 

this committee so that DOJ can be involved in formal discussions with other 

Executive Branch agencies regarding UAS issues. 

20 Congress mandated the Department of Defense and Department of Transportation 

develop a plan for expanded access into the national airspace for UAS in consultation with 

DHS. Pub. L. No. 111-84, § 935 (2009). The result of this legislation was the formation of 

the Executive Committee. 

9 
 

 

 

 

DOJ UAS Grant and Cooperative Agreement Awards 

As of May 2013, two DOJ components – OJP and COPS – have made 

awards to at least seven local police departments and non-profit 

organizations that in part supported UAS acquisition, research, and 

deployment. Within OJP, two separate bureaus had made awards involving 

UAS: the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) and the National Institute of 

Justice (NIJ). As shown by Exhibit 2, the seven award recipients reported 

spending $1.2 million to purchase, research, and test UAS, or almost 5 

percent of the total $27 million provided by these awards.21 

21 Some of the awards funded additional research or law enforcement initiatives. 

For example, the Gadsden Police Department’s award was part of COPS’ 2007 national antimethamphetamine initiative and Eastern Kentucky University’s award also supported 

additional law enforcement initiatives in rural areas of which UAS constituted a small part. 

10 
 

 

 

	 

	 
 


 


 

EXHIBIT 2: IDENTIFIED DOJ UAS AWARDS, 2001-2013 

Awarding 

Component Recipient 

Award

 Period 

Award 

Type 

Total 

Award ($) 

Estimated 

UASRelated 

Costs* 

($) 

OJP/NIJ Eastern Kentucky 

University, Richmond, 

Kentucky 

7/2001 to 

2/2008 Cooperative 

Agreement 13,306,560 200,000 

OJP/NIJ The Sheriffs’ 

Association of Texas, 

Austin, Texas** 

7/2006 to 

9/2011 Cooperative 

Agreement 5,244,642 405,000 

OJP/NIJ The Center for Rural 

Development, Hazard, 

Kentucky 

10/2009 

to 9/2013 Cooperative 

Agreement 7,220,614 280,000 

COPS Gadsden (Alabama) 

Police Department 

9/2007 to 

2/2011 Grant 446,165 150,000 

OJP/BJA Miami-Dade (Florida) 

Police Department 

9/2007 to 

8/2009 Grant 150,000 150,000 

OJP/BJA North Little Rock 

(Arkansas) Police 

Department 

10/2007 

to 

12/2009 

Grant 330,000 84,334 

OJP/BJA San Mateo County 

(California) Sheriff’s 

Office 

9/2007 to 

8/2009 Grant 150,000 N/A***

 TOTALS $26,847,981 $1,269,334

 Source: OJP, COPS, and award recipients 

 Notes: *	 UAS-related costs are estimated based on approved budgets or reports from the 

awarding agency or award recipient. UAS purchases may have comprised only a part of 

the award recipient’s total UAS program costs and the reported expenditures may also 

include training, travel, and other program-related support costs. **	 The Sheriffs’ Association of Texas received two awards under different funding
 

initiatives.
 *** San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office’s UAS award was deobligated and not used to
 

purchase a UAS or otherwise support UAS activities. 

We note that OJP appeared to have difficulty identifying the above BJA 

UAS awards. When we initially spoke with OJP officials, they told us BJA had 

not funded UAS. However, our review of FAA-approved COAs, public source 

information, and contacts with local police department officials identified the 

awards to the police departments of Miami-Dade County, Florida and North 

Little Rock, Arkansas. Only after notifying OJP and BJA of this information 

was BJA able to confirm these UAS awards. Four months after our initial 

UAS award inquiry, OJP identified another BJA grant that was made in 2007 

to the San Mateo County (California) Sheriff’s Office solely for the purchase 

of a UAS. BJA stated it did not initially identify these awards because it had 

only searched its largest grant program for UAS awards. In addition, BJA 

11 
 

did not use a standardized term for UAS technology that would quickly 

identify all UAS awards in its Grants Management System. As a result, we 

believe we cannot rule out the possibility that additional awardees may have 

been provided DOJ funds to acquire or deploy UAS. We therefore 

recommend that OJP assess and enhance its ability to track UAS-related 

awards to ensure that it can readily identify how DOJ award funds have been 

used to support UAS technology. 

Although COPS reports that it does not plan to award funds to state 

and local police for UAS acquisition, it has announced a $250,000 award to 

develop UAS surveillance guidelines to assist local law enforcement 

agencies.22 This COPS-funded initiative will use focus groups to examine the 

benefits and challenges of local law enforcement use of UAS. COPS intends 

that the final deliverable for this award will be a toolkit or guidebook that 

local law enforcement agencies can use to implement their UAS programs. 

Because it also has plans to provide at least one future UAS-related award, 

we recommend that COPS review its award tracking system to ensure that 

this and any other future UAS award will be tracked accurately and 

expeditiously. 

Grants to Local Law Enforcement Agencies 

According to DOJ award documents, the purpose of the Gadsden, 

Alabama and the North Little Rock, Arkansas grants was to help fund larger 

DOJ-supported crime initiatives and UAS acquisition was not a disallowed 

cost under the terms of the awards. The awards to Miami-Dade, Florida, 

and San Mateo, California, were provided solely to purchase and evaluate 

UAS for use in the field. We spoke to officials at these local police 

departments to discuss how the UAS they acquired helped to further the 

respective purpose of each grant. 

Gadsden Police Department spent $150,000 on UAS-related costs with 

funds from a 2007 COPS grant to enhance community policing efforts 

focused on stopping the spread of methamphetamine. In 2009, it attempted 

to use the UAS to perform one surveillance mission. However, Gadsden 

Police Department officials stated that during the mission the ground control 

station lost communication with the UAS, causing the UAS to collide with a 

tree. Officials told us that they believe that the rugged topography (hills and 

valleys) of the mission area led to the communication problem. According to 

22 The solicitation was open to all public government agencies, profit and nonprofit 

institutions, universities, community groups, and faith-based organizations. COPS 

anticipates making an award by September 2013. 

12 
 

the FAA, the Gadsden Police Department did not obtain the required COA 

prior to its mission. The Gadsden Police Department reports that it has kept 

the UAS in a secured storage facility since that time, and that it has yet to 

determine whether or how it will use its UAS in the future. 

An official with the North Little Rock Police Department stated that it 

spent $84,000 to purchase a UAS in 2008 from a BJA grant specifically to 

perform aerial surveillance over high-risk drug and gun crime areas. The 

BJA approved the UAS purchase as part of a larger award for other 

equipment (such as software and communications devices). North Little 

Rock received a training COA and began testing the device over a limited 

area just outside of their jurisdiction. A North Little Rock official told us that, 

as of May 2013, the UAS had not been used for law enforcement-related 

activities, but North Little Rock Police Department is evaluating the use of 

UAS technology for future surveillance. 

In September 2007, the Miami-Dade Police Department and the San 

Mateo County Sheriff’s Office each received a BJA grant for $150,000 with 

the sole purpose of purchasing a UAS. Both of these were non-competitive 

awards directed by the Office of the Assistant Attorney General for OJP. The 

objective of both awards was to test how local law enforcement agencies 

could use UAS to address high-risk situations in heavily populated areas. 

Miami-Dade officials confirmed that they used the award to purchase and 

test the UAS. After the award period ended, Miami-Dade received an 

operational COA from the FAA to use the UAS only within a defined 

perimeter of a crime scene, such as a hostage crisis. However, as of May 

2013, Miami-Dade reports it has not used the UAS operationally. With 

regard to the award to San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office, we found that BJA 

subsequently deobligated the funds because the recipient decided not to 

purchase a UAS. 

Cooperative Agreements with Non-Profit Organizations 

The NIJ is a research, development, and evaluation branch for DOJ. 

The NIJ’s Office of Science and Technology has established an Aviation 

Technology Program in part to research and evaluate UAS.23 As discussed 

below, since 2003, the NIJ has established cooperative agreements for UAS 

23 In addition to researching UAS, the Aviation Technology Program is also 

responsible for determining whether lower cost aircraft can cost effectively enhance law 

enforcement work, evaluating operational aspects of low cost aircraft, and identifying and 

developing new aviation technology. 

13 
 

 

research with three non-profit organizations.24 An objective of each 

agreement was to assess how UAS, as low-cost aviation alternatives, could 

be used by smaller non-federal law enforcement agencies. 

In 2003, NIJ provided a supplement to an earlier cooperative 

agreement with Eastern Kentucky University in Richmond, Kentucky, to 

begin evaluating the feasibility of unmanned aerial technology use by rural 

law enforcement. The NIJ estimates that the university spent $200,000 on 

UAS-related costs working with other institutions to develop an early UAS 

prototype and software to control the UAS, and performed limited field 

testing. The agreement with Eastern Kentucky University ended in February 

2008 and, as of May 2013, the most recent NIJ UAS awardee, the Center for 

Rural Development (the Center) in Somerset, Kentucky, has custody of the 

UAS prototype developed under this award. 

In 2006 and 2009, the NIJ awarded cooperative agreements to the 

Sheriffs’ Association of Texas (Sheriffs’ Association) to evaluate different 

types of low-cost aviation technologies. Under these agreements, the NIJ 

estimates that the Sheriffs’ Association spent $405,000 on UAS-related 

costs. The Sheriffs’ Association served as a repository for different types of 

manned and unmanned aviation equipment – including a small UAS – so 

that local law enforcement agencies could receive and test the equipment. 

The agreement with the Sheriffs’ Association ended in September 2011. As 

discussed below, the Sheriffs’ Association transferred the UAS to the Center. 

In 2011, the NIJ amended a larger 2009 cooperative agreement with 

the Center to include evaluating low-cost aviation solutions for local law 

enforcement agencies. The NIJ estimates that the Center spent $280,000 

on UAS-related costs. The agreement also supported UAS training and 

demonstrations using the UAS assets transferred from prior NIJ UAS award 

recipients Eastern Kentucky University and the Sheriffs’ Association. 

Additionally, the Center has helped the NIJ test and demonstrate a DHS UAS 

with the Queen Anne’s County Office of the Sheriff in Grasonville, 

Maryland.25 

24 According to OJP, cooperative agreements are distinct from grants in that 

cooperative agreements are used whenever the awarding agency intends to be substantially 

involved with the recipient during performance of the supported activity. 

25 The NIJ has received three UAS from DHS at no cost. The additional UAS models 

have been tested at the Naval Air Station Patuxent River in Maryland. Because these UAS 

were operated in military airspace, no COAs were required. The NIJ returned one UAS to 

DHS and plans to transfer the other UAS to two state and local law enforcement agencies. 

14 
 

The Center has also worked with the NIJ to negotiate an agreement 

with the FAA to streamline the state and local law enforcement agency COA 

process. Under the agreement, the requesting agency will still need to 

demonstrate that it will operate the UAS safely and proficiently. However, 

after receiving an operational COA, state and local law enforcement agencies 

will be able to deploy UAS throughout their jurisdiction quickly without 

additional FAA approvals. Furthermore, the NIJ will establish a process by 

which it will collect and share UAS training and operational mission data by 

law enforcement. The FAA and NIJ signed this agreement in March 2013. 

The NIJ expects that this agreement will help expedite the COA application 

process and the FAA anticipates increased UAS use by law enforcement. 

Need for Enhanced Coordination and Oversight of UAS Awards 

Like other DOJ grant recipients, the UAS awardees were subject to 

general administrative and financial requirements, such as the submission of 

semi-annual performance activity reports. COPS and BJA officials stated 

that its awards largely pre-dated the significant public interest in domestic 

UAS use and therefore both components treated UAS purchases in the same 

manner as they would have treated the purchase of other law enforcement 

equipment. The objectives of the UAS awards did not require that recipients 

report the type of UAS models acquired, how many times and when they 

used or tested UAS, any problems encountered during operation, what type 

of data was collected, how collected data was safeguarded and used, or 

other similarly specific information pertaining to UAS operations and testing. 

Without requiring the reporting of such information, neither COPS nor OJP 

was positioned to acquire uniform UAS data needed to identify specific 

issues local law enforcement may encounter while using UAS funded through 

current or future grant awards. Therefore, we recommend that OJP and 

COPS establish enhanced reporting requirements and use reported 

information to measure the effectiveness of their UAS awards. These 

enhancements could include information such as: (1) the specific UAS 

models acquired, (2) the frequency and manner with which the recipient 

used or tested UAS, (3) what type of data was collected by UAS and whether 

the recipient had UAS-specific policies, (4) how collected data was used in 

an investigation and subsequently safeguarded, and (5) other concerns or 

best practices identified by the recipient that pertain to UAS operations and 

testing. 

Moreover, we found that the UAS awards did not stipulate 

prerequisites necessary to ensure proper controls over the use of DOJ funds, 

such as requiring that recipients receive COAs or confirm that UAS use was 

legal in their jurisdiction. Without such controls, we believe there is a risk 

that applying agencies may receive UAS awards, but will be unable to use a 

15 
 

 

UAS. If the recipient is unable to obtain a COA or cannot legally operate a 

UAS, taxpayer funds used to purchase it are wasted as the UAS remains in 

storage and becomes obsolete. Accordingly, we recommend that OJP and 

COPS require that grant applicants demonstrate that they can meet the 

necessary prerequisites to become authorized to operate a UAS. 

In December 2012, BJA and COPS entered into a Memorandum of 

Understanding to improve collaboration and information sharing for FY 2012 

grants. The memorandum notes that both agencies make awards to the 

same group of recipients (state and local law enforcement agencies) and 

emphasizes the importance that BJA and COPS work together to mitigate the 

risk of making duplicative or unnecessary awards. The memorandum 

establishes a meeting calendar for BJA and COPS to identify and discuss 

related award projects and solicitations. BJA and COPS both report that UAS 

awards are a topic about which they are coordinating under this agreement. 

We note, however, that the December 2012 agreement does not 

explicitly include NIJ as a member of this collaborative effort. While BJA has 

provided documents to us that evidence that NIJ has participated in grant 

coordination meetings, to mitigate the risk of wasting taxpayer funds by 

performing unnecessarily redundant UAS testing and policy development, we 

believe that the memorandum should be updated to formalize NIJ’s 

participation. NIJ’s formal involvement will also help facilitate cooperation 

between grant recipients testing UAS. We therefore recommend that OJP 

and COPS update the December 2012 award coordination memorandum to 

ensure that NIJ is included as a participant in UAS award coordination 

efforts. 

Although UAS supported by DOJ award funds may have the potential 

to assist federal law enforcement surveillance efforts, it is also possible that 

the uncoordinated use of local UAS could interfere with federal surveillance. 

For example, there exists a risk that a local law enforcement agency could 

use a DOJ-funded UAS in a way that could inadvertently make a subject of 

federal monitoring aware that they are under surveillance. We found no 

evidence that OJP or COPS coordinated with or notified DOJ law enforcement 

components (FBI, DEA, USMS, and ATF) about UAS awards, either before or 

after the awards were made.26 Providing notice to relevant federal law 

enforcement personnel that DOJ-funded UAS will be available in their 

locations will afford DOJ law enforcement components the knowledge of the 

26 According to USMS, personnel in its Eastern District of Arkansas office became 

aware that North Little Rock had received a UAS, but not as a result of coordination with 

OJP. 

16 
 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 

UAS’ existence, thereby affording opportunities to coordinate the use of the 

UAS and avoid potential conflicts. 

Enhanced coordination would also provide an important opportunity for 

OJP and COPS to keep DOJ law enforcement components aware of DOJfunded UAS activity at the local police department level. We therefore 

recommend that OJP and COPS notify the FBI, ATF, DEA, and USMS of 

future UAS awards and work with these components to identify and share 

relevant data derived from UAS projects funded with DOJ awards. Such an 

initiative should leverage NIJ’s responsibility to collect similar UAS data 

under the March 2013 COA agreement with the FAA, allow components to 

share their expertise with UAS award recipients, and provide a venue for 

DOJ to receive feedback on law enforcement needs to ensure that DOJfunded local use of UAS does not affect ongoing DOJ law enforcement 

initiatives. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that ODAG: 

1.	 Convene a working group comprised of DOJ components using or 

with an interest in using UAS to: (1) determine whether UAS 

capabilities are sufficiently distinct from those of manned aircraft 

that they require a specific DOJ-level policy to address privacy 

and legal concerns; and (2) identify and address UAS policy 

concerns that are shared across components or require 

coordination among components and other federal agencies. 

2.	 Consider whether to solicit DOJ’s admission to the UAS Executive 

Committee so that DOJ can be involved in formal discussions 

with other Executive Branch agencies regarding UAS issues. 

We recommend that OJP: 

3.	 Assess and enhance its ability to track UAS-related awards to 

ensure that it can readily identify how DOJ award funds have 

been used to support UAS technology. 

We recommend that COPS: 

4.	 Review its award tracking system to ensure that this and any 

other future UAS award will be tracked accurately and 

expeditiously. 

17 
 

	 

	 

	 

	 

We recommend that OJP and COPS: 

5.	 Establish enhanced reporting requirements and use reported 

information to measure the effectiveness of their UAS awards. 

6.	 Require that grant applicants demonstrate that they can meet 

the prerequisites necessary to become authorized to operate a 

UAS. 

7.	 Update the December 2012 award coordination memorandum to 

ensure that NIJ is included as a participant in UAS award 

coordination efforts. 

8.	 Notify the FBI, ATF, DEA, and USMS of future UAS awards and 

work with these components to identify and share relevant data 

derived from UAS projects funded with DOJ awards. 

18 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX I 

THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL’S RESPONSE 

TO THE DRAFT REPORT 

 U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Deputy Attorney General 

Washington, D.C. 20530

 September 26, 2013 

MEMORANDUM 

TO: RAYMOND J. BEAUDET 

ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR AUDIT 

FROM: TRISHA B. ANDERSON 

SENIOR COUNSEL TO THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL 

SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO DRAFT INTERIM REPORT ON THE DEPARTMENT OF 

JUSTICE’S USE AND SUPPORT OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS 

This memorandum provides a response on behalf of the Office of the Deputy Attorney General 

(ODAG) to the Office of the Inspector General’s September 6, 2013 draft audit report titled, “Interim 

Report on the Department’s Use and Support of Unmanned Aircraft Systems.” Thank you for the 

opportunity to comment on the draft report’s recommendations. Below is our response to the two 

recommendations that pertain to ODAG. 

Recommendation 1: Convene a working group comprised of DOJ components using or with an 

interest in using UAS to: (1) determine whether UAS capabilities are sufficiently distinct from 

those of manned aircraft that they require a specific DOJ-level policy to address privacy and 

legal concerns; and (2) identify and address UAS policy concerns that are shared across 

components or require coordination among components and other federal agencies. 

ODAG agrees with this recommendation. In August 2013, ODAG directed the Office of 

Legal Policy (OLP) to convene a working group composed of a broad range of DOJ components, 

including the Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties, to identify and address any policy and legal issues 

pertaining to the use of UAS for surveillance purposes. This working group will make a 

recommendation to DOJ leadership on the need for any DOJ policies or guidance specific to UAS, and 

will work to develop any such policies or guidance as needed. We will notify your office once the 

19 
 

 

internal DOJ working group has reached a conclusion about the need for any DOJ policies or guidance 

specific to UAS. 

DOJ is also participating in an interagency process that is considering UAS-related policy issues 

that are shared across departments and agencies. We believe DOJ’s participation in that interagency 

process will satisfy OIG’s recommendation that DOJ identify and address UAS policy concerns that are 

shared between DOJ and other agencies. 

Recommendation 2: Consider whether to solicit DOJ’s admission to the UAS Executive 

Committee so that DOJ can be involved in formal discussions with other Executive Branch 

agencies regarding UAS issues. 

ODAG agrees with the recommendation insofar as it asks DOJ to consider participating in formal 

interagency discussions with other Executive Branch agencies regarding UAS issues. DOJ has begun 

participating in the interagency process described above, which will entail formal discussions with other 

departments and agencies about a range of issues related to UAS use. 

We believe this recommendation has been satisfied and request that it be closed. 

Please contact me or Mark Michalic at (202) 514-2101 if you have any questions about our 

response. 

20 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX II 

THE OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS’ RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT 

REPORT 

 U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

Washington, D.C. 20531 

September 16, 2013 

MEMORANDUM TO: Michael E. Horowitz 

Inspector General 

United States Department of Justice 

THROUGH: Raymond J. Beaudet 

 Assistant Inspector General for Audit 

 Office of the Inspector General 

 United States Department of Justice 

FROM: Karol V. Mason 

Assistant Attorney General 

SUBJECT: Response to the Office of the Inspector General’s Draft Audit 

Report, Interim Report on the Department's Use and Support 

of Unmanned Aircraft Systems 

This memorandum provides a response to the Office of the Inspector General’s (OIG’s) 

September 6, 2013 draft audit report, entitled Interim Report on the Department's Use and Support of 

Unmanned Aircraft Systems. The Office of Justice Programs (OJP) appreciates the opportunity to 

review and comment on the draft report. 

The draft audit report contains eight recommendations, of which Recommendation Numbers 3 and 5-8 

pertain to OJP. For ease of review, these recommendations are restated in bold and are followed by 

OJP’s response. 

3. We recommend that OJP assess and enhance its ability to track UAS-related awards to 

ensure that it can readily identify how DOJ award funds have been used to support UAS 

technology. 

21 
The Office of Justice Programs agrees with the recommendation. In March 2013, OJP added 

three unique project identifiers to its Grants Management System (GMS) to enhance its ability 

to track Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)-related awards (see Attachment 1). The new 

project identifiers include unmanned aerial vehicle, unmanned aircraft, and unmanned aircraft 

system. This will allow OJP bureaus and program offices to select the identifiers by grant, as 

appropriate, during the award process. Individual grant files will include the descriptor(s), 

which permits the grant to be readily identified using key word searches. Key word searches of 

GMS also examine text in the solicitation title, project title, and project description sections. In 

addition to using the project identifier feature and conducting key word searches of GMS data, 

the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) can access UAS-related awards through its Performance 

Measurement Tool (PMT). The Office of Justice Programs requests closure of this 

recommendation and requests written acceptance of this action from your office. 

5. We recommend that OJP and COPS establish enhanced reporting requirements and use 

reported information to measure the effectiveness of their UAS awards. 

The Office of Justice Programs agrees with the recommendation. OJP currently requires a 

programmatic progress report that outlines project activities throughout the project period for 

all grants and cooperative agreements. Additionally, beginning with the fiscal year (FY) 2013 

cycle, all grants awarded under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) 

Programs (State and Local), will include the special condition noted below (see Attachment 2). 

Unmanned Aircraft, Aircraft Systems, or Aerial Vehicles (UA/UAS/UAV) 

“No JAG funds may be expended on unmanned aircraft, unmanned aircraft systems, or 

aerial vehicles (US, UAS, or UAV) unless the BJA Director certifies that extraordinary 

and exigent circumstances exist, making them essential to the maintenance of public 

safety and good order. Additionally, any JAG funding approved for this purpose would 

be subject to additional reporting, which would be stipulated by BJA post-award.” 

None of the FY 2013 JAG applications processed by BJA requested funds for 

UAS-related purposes (see Attachment 3). However, BJA will review the existing JAG 

performance measures to determine if additional questions, related to UAS technology, can be 

added in the PMT to collect data on the effectiveness of such purchases awarded under future 

grants. 

Further, OJP’s National Institute of Justice (NIJ) already establishes performance and 

evaluation criteria as part of its UAS-related awards, with the results of that research being 

disseminated to the criminal justice community. The Office of Justice Programs considers this 

recommendation resolved and requests written acceptance of this action from your office. 

6. We recommend that OJP and COPS require that grant applicants demonstrate that they 

can meet the prerequisites necessary to become authorized to operate a UAS. 

The Office of Justice Programs agrees with the recommendation. BJA included language in its 

FY 2013 JAG solicitations notifying applicants that no JAG funds may be expended on UASrelated technology unless the BJA Director certifies that extraordinary and exigent 

22 
 

circumstances exist, making these items essential to the maintenance of public safety and good 

order. BJA will require the grantee to demonstrate their ability to meet all relevant 

prerequisites within this justification. The FY 2013 State JAG program solicitation can be 

found at https://www.bja.gov/Funding/13JAGStateSol.pdf, see page 5; and the FY 2013 Local 

JAG solicitation can be found at https://www.bja.gov/Funding/13JAGLocalSol.pdf, see page 5. 

Additionally, in May 2013, BJA updated its “Frequently Asked Questions,” which are posted 

on its website at https://www.bja.gov/Funding/JAGFAQ.pdf, with information on the 

Unmanned Aircraft, Aircraft Systems, or Aerial Vehicles requirement for the JAG program. 

If any future JAG award funds are budgeted for UAS-related projects, an additional special 

condition, to verify the prerequisites necessary to become authorized to operate the UAS, will 

be added to the award. Additionally, as part of its programmatic monitoring, BJA grant 

managers will review these requirements and ensure grantee compliance. The Office of Justice 

Programs requests closure of this recommendation and requests written acceptance of this 

action from your office. 

7. We recommend that OJP and COPS update the December 2012 award coordination 

memorandum to ensure that NIJ is included as a participant in UAS award coordination 

efforts. 

The Office of Justice Programs agrees with the recommendation. OJP will work with the 

Department of Justice (DOJ, Department), Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 

(COPS Office), to update the December 2012 Memorandum of Understanding between the 

COPS Office and BJA to include NIJ in collaboration and information-sharing efforts related to 

UAS awards. The Office of Justice Programs considers this recommendation resolved and 

requests written acceptance of this action from your office. 

8. We recommend that OJP and COPS notify the FBI, ATF, DEA, and USMS of future UAS 

awards and work with these components to identify and share relevant data derived from 

UAS funded with DOJ awards. 

The Office of Justice Programs agrees with the recommendation. OJP believes that the 

appropriate forum to coordinate and share information on relevant Department level UASrelated activities is the DOJ UAS Working Group, currently comprised of representatives from 

NIJ and the DOJ law enforcement components. NIJ members, in this capacity, represent all 

OJP bureaus and program offices, and as appropriate, will bring relevant OJP information to the 

attention of the working group. This group will determine the most effective mechanism(s) to 

share and disseminate information to the DOJ law enforcement components. The Office of 

Justice Programs requests closure of this recommendation and requests written acceptance of 

this action from your office. 

Thank you for your continued support and assistance. If you have any questions regarding 

this response, please contact Maureen A. Henneberg, Director, Office of Audit, Assessment, 

and Management, on (202) 616-3282. 

23 
 

 

Attachments 

cc: Anna Martinez 

Senior Advisor to the Associate Attorney General 

Office of the Associate Attorney General 

Mary Lou Leary 

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General 

James H. Burch, II 

Deputy Assistant Attorney General 

 for Operations and Management 

 Denise O’Donnell 

Director 

Bureau of Justice Assistance 

Gregory K. Ridgeway 

Acting Director 

National Institute of Justice 

 Leigh Benda 

Chief Financial Officer 

Maureen A. Henneberg 

Director 

Office of Audit, Assessment, and Management 

Jeffery A. Haley 

Deputy Director, Audit and Review Division 

Office of Audit, Assessment, and Management 

Rafael A. Madan 

General Counsel 

Charles Moses 

Deputy General Counsel 

Melodee Hanes 

Acting Director 

Office of Communications 

Richard P. Theis 

Director, Audit Liaison Group 

Internal Review and Evaluation Office 

Justice Management Division 

24 
 

cc: OJP Executive Secretariat 

Control Number 2013 – 1514 

25 
 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX III 

THE OFFICE OF COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING SERVICES’ 

RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT REPORT 

MEMORANDUM 

TO: Raymond J. Beaudet 

Assistant Inspector General for Audit 

Office of the Inspector General 

FROM: Joshua A. Ederheimer 

Acting Director 

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 

DATE: September 16, 2013 

SUBJECT: Draft Audit Report on the Department of Justice Use and Support of Unmanned 

 Aircraft Systems 

This memorandum is in response to the Office of the Inspector General’s (OIG) above- referenced 

draft audit report, dated September 6, 2013. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on 

the draft Office of the Inspector General report entitled, “Interim Report of the Department of Justice’s 

Use and Support of Unmanned Aircraft Systems.” The Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of 

Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) appreciates the work of the OIG and has carefully 

considered the findings and recommendations presented in OIG’s draft interim report. 

The COPS Office thanks the OIG for its review of the COPS Office’s grant management of one award 

where a budget modification of a methamphetamine eradication award resulted in the purchase of an 

Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) by local law enforcement in 2009. We believe that we did follow 

all statutory requirements in place at that time. We are pleased that, despite its extensive review, the 

OIG found no evidence to the contrary. In reviewing our current authorized grant programs--COPS 

Hiring, Tribal Resources Grant Program, and Community Policing Development—it is highly unlikely 

that a UAV would be requested and approved as an allowable cost. However, should a request for this 

type of equipment arise in the future, we will coordinate with the Office of Justice Programs on any 

issues that would affect the management of such grants. 

Five recommendations are addressed to the COPS Office or to both the COPS Office and the 

Office of Justice Programs (OJP). For ease of review, the draft audit recommendations are 

stated in bold and underlined, followed by the COPS Office’s response to each recommendation. 

26 
 

Page 2 

Recommendation 4 (to the COPS Office): Review its award tracking system to ensure 

that this and any other future UAS award will be tracked accurately and expeditiously. 

The COPS Office concurs with this recommendation. 

None of the current programs funded by the COPS Office lend themselves to funding UAS. 

However, for future programs, the COPS Office will re-evaluate the prospective program 

statutory language and determine the allowability of funding a UAS. Should the COPS Office 

determine that funding a UAS is allowable, we will ensure that all future UAS awards will be 

tracked accurately and expeditiously. 

Recommendation 5 (to the COPS Office and OJP): Establish enhanced reporting 

requirements and use reported information to measure the effectiveness of their UAS 

awards. 

The COPS Office concurs with this recommendation. 

None of the current programs funded by the COPS Office lend themselves to funding UAS. 

However, for future programs, the COPS Office will re-evaluate the prospective program 

statutory language and determine the allowability of funding a UAS. Should the COPS Office 

determine that funding a UAS is allowable, we will establish enhanced reporting requirements. 

Recommendation 6 (to the COPS Office and OJP): Require that grant applicants 

demonstrate that they can meet the prerequisites necessary to become authorized to 

operate a UAS. 

The COPS Office concurs with this recommendation. 

None of the current programs funded by the COPS Office lend themselves to funding UAS. 

However, for future programs, the COPS Office will re-evaluate the prospective program 

statutory language and determine the allowability of funding a UAS. Should the COPS Office 

determine that funding a UAS is allowable, we will require that grant applicants demonstrate 

that they can meet the prerequisites necessary to become authorized to operate a UAS. 

Appropriate language will be added to the grant terms and conditions of the award. 

Recommendation 7 (to the COPS Office and OJP): Update the December 2012 award 

coordination memorandum to ensure that NIJ is included as a participant in UAS award 

coordination efforts. 

The COPS Office concurs with this recommendation 

27 
 

 

. Page 3 

The December 2012 award coordination memorandum to which the OIG is referring is a 

December 2012 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the COPS Office and OJP 

Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA). The COPS Office will work with BJA to update the MOU 

to include NIJ in collaboration and information-sharing efforts. 

Recommendation 8 (to the COPS Office and OJP): Notify the FBI, ATF, DEA, and 

USMS of future UAS awards and work with these components to identify and share 

relevant data derived from UAS funded with DOJ awards. 

The COPS Office concurs with this recommendation. 

None of the current programs funded by the COPS Office lend themselves to funding UAS. 

However, for future programs, the COPS Office will re-evaluate the prospective program 

statutory language and determine the allowability of funding a UAS. Should the COPS 

Office determine that funding a UAS is allowable, we will notify the FBI, ATF, DEA and 

USMS of future UAS awards and work with these components to identify and share relevant 

data derived from UAS-funded with COPS awards, as appropriate. 

The COPS Office thanks the Office of the Inspector General for the opportunity to review 

and respond to this draft audit. If you have any questions, please contact Martie Viterito at 

(202) 514-6244, or Donald Lango at (202) 616-9215. If I may be of further assistance to 

you, please do not hesitate to contact me. 

cc: Richard P. Theis 

Assistant Director, Audit Liaison Group 

Justice Management Division 

Wayne Henry, Acting Deputy Director 

 Management Services Directorate 

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 

Katherine McQuay, Acting Deputy Director 

 Community Policing Advancement 

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 

Sandra Webb, Deputy Director 

 Operations Directorate 

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 

Troy Meyer 

Regional Audit Manager, Washington Regional Audit Office 

Office of the Inspector General 

28 
 

Page 4 

cc: Marcia L. Wallace 

Director, Office of Operations 

Office of the Inspector General 

29 

 


 

	 

APPENDIX IV 

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 

ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY OF ACTIONS
 

NECESSARY TO CLOSE THE REPORT
 

The OIG provided a draft of this report to the ODAG, OJP and COPS. 

The ODAG’s response is incorporated as Appendix I of this report. OJP’s 

response is incorporated as Appendix II, and COPS’ response is incorporated 

as Appendix III. The following provides the OIG analysis of the responses 

and summary of actions necessary to close the report. 

Recommendation Number: 

1.	 Resolved. The ODAG concurred with our recommendation to 

convene a working group comprised of DOJ components using or 

with an interest in using UAS to determine whether DOJ requires a 

UAS specific policy to address privacy and legal concerns and to 

identify and address UAS policy concerns shared across components 

or requiring coordination among other federal agencies. The ODAG 

stated that in August 2013, it directed the Office of Legal Policy (OLP) 

to convene a working group composed of several DOJ components, 

including the Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties, to identify and 

address any policy and legal issues pertaining to the use of UAS for 

surveillance purposes. According to ODAG, this working group will 

make a recommendation to DOJ leadership on the need for any DOJ 

policies or guidance specific to UAS, and will work to develop any 

such policies or guidance as needed. 

However, ODAG also states that it is participating in an interagency 

process that is considering UAS-related policy issues that are shared 

across departments and agencies. The ODAG believes that this 

interagency process will satisfy the recommendation that DOJ 

identify and address the need for UAS policy concerns. 

This recommendation can be closed when we obtain a list of 

components comprising the DOJ working group and receive evidence 

that the DOJ working group has met, considered the substance of 

any privacy-related deliberations as well as the scope and content of 

any UAS-related policies resulting from DOJ’s involvement in the UAS 

interagency process, and that the working group has reached a 

30 
 

	 

	 

	 

conclusion on whether DOJ-specific policy to address privacy and 

legal concerns of UAS operations is warranted. 

2.	 Closed. The ODAG concurred with our recommendation to consider 

whether to solicit DOJ’s admission to the UAS Executive Committee 

so that DOJ can be involved in formal discussions with other 

Executive Branch agencies regarding UAS issues. The ODAG states 

that DOJ is now participating in alternative, formal discussions with 

other departments and agencies about a range of issues related to 

UAS use. The OIG considers DOJ’s participation in this alternate 

interagency process sufficient to close this recommendation. 

3.	 Resolved. OJP concurred with our recommendation to assess and 

enhance its ability to track UAS-related awards to ensure that it can 

readily identify how DOJ award funds have been used to support UAS 

technology. 

OJP indicates that it has added new project identifiers to its Grants 

Management System (GMS) to enhance its ability to track UASrelated awards. OJP also states that individual grant files will include 

these descriptors which will allow OJP bureaus and program offices to 

identify the grants during the award process. 

In addition to using the project identifier feature, OJP indicates that it 

can conduct key word searches to access UAS-related awards. OJP 

states that the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) can access UASrelated awards through its Performance Measurement Tool (PMT). 

Although OJP states that it can access UAS-related awards through 

keyword searches and project identifiers in GMS and PMT, it has not 

provided sufficient documentation to demonstrate how these tools 

will be used. 

This recommendation can be closed when we receive evidence, 

including a demonstration, of how these new search terms and tools 

actually enhance OJP’s ability to identify UAS-related awards. 

4.	 Resolved. COPS concurred with our recommendation to review its 

award tracking system to ensure that UAS awards will be tracked 

accurately and expeditiously. 

COPS stated that none of its current programs lend themselves to 

funding UAS. For future programs, COPS states that it will reevaluate prospective program statutory language, determine the 

31 
	 

allowability of funding a UAS, and ensure that all future UAS awards 

are tracked accurately and expeditiously. 

Although COPS is not currently funding UAS, as noted in our report, 

COPS did solicit a UAS-related award in 2013. Therefore, OIG would 

expect that COPS will review its award tracking system and method 

of identifying award funding for UAS uses to ensure that current and 

any future UAS awards can be tracked accurately. 

This recommendation can be closed when we receive evidence of 

COPS’ review of its award tracking system, including a demonstration 

of how COPS’ system can account for UAS-related awards. 

5.	 Resolved. OJP and COPS concurred with our recommendation to 

establish enhanced reporting requirements and use reported 

information to measure the effectiveness of their UAS awards. 

OJP has provided evidence beginning with its fiscal year (FY) 2013 

cycle, that all grants awarded under the Edward Byrne Memorial 

Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Programs (State and Local), will 

include a special condition that requires BJA Director approval prior 

to expending JAG funds on unmanned aircraft, unmanned aircraft 

systems, or aerial vehicles. This special condition will also state that 

JAG funding approved for this purpose would be subject to additional 

reporting, which would be stipulated by BJA post-award. OJP also 

states that BJA will review existing JAG performance measures to 

determine if additional questions, related to UAS, should be added to 

its PMT to collect data on the effectiveness of such purchases 

awarded under future grants. 

However, this recommendation is not limited to a particular grant 

program, and OJP should ensure that any grant program capable of 

funding UAS also include similar stipulations and conditions. 

Furthermore, OJP has not specified what additional reporting 

requirements will be implemented or what types of information will 

be collected. 

OJP further states that the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) already 

establishes performance and evaluation criteria as part of its UASrelated awards, and disseminates research results to the criminal 

justice community. OIG notes that the report took no issue with the 

reporting under NIJ’s cooperative agreements. 

COPS stated that none of its current programs lend themselves to 

32 
	 

funding UAS. For future programs, COPS states that it will reevaluate prospective program statutory language, and determine the 

allowability of funding a UAS. Should COPS determine that funding a 

UAS is allowable, it will establish enhanced reporting requirements. 

COPS also stated that it is not currently funding UAS and should it 

decide to fund UAS in the future, it will establish enhanced reporting 

requirements at that time. 

This recommendation can be closed when we receive evidence of the 

components’ review of their performance measures related to UAS 

awards and determination of additional reporting requirements. With 

respect to OJP, such review should include not only the State and 

Local JAG Programs, but any OJP grant program. Further, such 

evidence should show that these reporting requirements will obtain 

uniform UAS information and will identify issues local law 

enforcement may encounter. As noted in the report, components 

could consider whether to include as reporting requirements: (1) the 

specific UAS models acquired, (2) the frequency and manner with 

which the recipient used or tested UAS, (3) what type of data was 

collected by UAS and whether the recipient had UAS-specific policies, 

(4) how collected data was used in an investigation and subsequently 

safeguarded, (5) any problems encountered during operation or 

other concerns, and (6) best practices identified by the recipient that 

pertain to UAS operations and testing. 

6.	 Resolved. OJP and COPS concurred with our recommendation to 

require that grant applicants demonstrate that they can meet 

prerequisites necessary to become authorized to operate a UAS. 

OJP provided evidence that BJA has included language in its FY 2013 

JAG solicitations regarding BJA Director approval for UAS-related 

technology expenditures. OJP stated that if any JAG award funds are 

budgeted for these expenditures an additional special condition will 

be added to the award to verify the prerequisites necessary to 

become authorized to operate the UAS. OJP states that BJA grant 

managers will review these requirements and ensure grantee 

compliance as a part of its programmatic monitoring. 

COPS stated that none of its current programs lend themselves to 

funding UAS. For future programs, COPS states that it will reevaluate prospective program statutory language and determine the 

allowability of funding a UAS. Should COPS determine that funding a 

UAS is allowable, it will require the grant applicants demonstrate that 

they can meet the prerequisites necessary to become authorized to 

33 
 

	 

	 

operate a UAS and will add appropriate language to the award terms 

and conditions. 

However, we believe it is necessary for both COPS and OJP to 

memorialize in a written communication to its program offices the 

need to develop UAS prerequisites for any future awards that 

applicants will have to meet. Further, we note that it appears that 

BJA does not plan to communicate to future applicants that 

prerequisites will be required until after it awards UAS-related grants. 

This recommendation can be closed when we receive evidence that 

OJP will communicate the existence of any prerequisite requirements 

to future applicants for UAS-related funding prior to making awards 

and when we receive evidence that both OJP and COPS have made 

written communications to their program offices regarding UAS 

prerequisite development. 

7.	 Resolved. OJP and COPS concurred with our recommendation to 

update the December 2012 award coordination memorandum to 

ensure that NIJ is included as a participant in UAS award 

coordination efforts. 

OJP and COPS state that they will work together to update the 

December 2012 Memorandum of Understanding between the COPS 

Office and BJA to include NIJ in collaboration and information-sharing 

efforts related to UAS awards. 

This recommendation can be closed when we receive evidence that 

OJP and COPS have updated the Memorandum of Understanding to 

include NIJ in UAS-award coordination efforts. 

8.	 Resolved. OJP and COPS concurred with our recommendation to 

notify the FBI, ATF, DEA, and USMS of future UAS awards and work 

with these components to identify and share relevant data derived 

from UAS projects funded with DOJ awards. 

OJP indicates it believes that the DOJ UAS Working Group, currently 

comprised of representatives from NIJ and the DOJ law enforcement 

components is the appropriate forum to coordinate and share 

information on UAS-related activities. OJP further states that NIJ is 

representing all OJP bureaus and program offices at this working 

group. 

COPS stated that none of its current programs lend themselves to 

34 
funding UAS. For future programs, COPS states that it will reevaluate prospective program statutory language, and determine the 

allowability of funding a UAS. Should COPS determine that funding a 

UAS is allowable, it will notify FBI, ATF, DEA, and USMS of future 

UAS awards and work with these components to identify and share 

relevant data derived from UAS-funded awards. 

This recommendation can be closed when we receive evidence that 

DOJ UAS Working Group has met and developed a documented 

method for DOJ awarding components to identify and share relevant 

data derived from DOJ funded UAS projects with DOJ law 

enforcement components, allow those components to share their 

expertise with UAS award recipients, and provide a venue for DOJ to 

receive feedback on law enforcement needs to ensure that DOJfunded local use of UAS does not affect ongoing DOJ law enforcement 

initiatives. 

35