Citizen uses drone to catch alleged prostitute, offering legal loophole for police

A private citizen in Oklahoma is using drones in his efforts to fight prostitution, and his surveillance video from the unmanned aerial vehicle has sparked a debate over privacy issues.

Brian Bates, the creator of JohnTV.com, used a GPS-guided drone in March to capture an alleged prostitute and a client engaging in lewd acts. The video was eventually was used to charge the pair with crimes.

The use of drone technology in everything from real estate to agriculture has exploded in the past few years. As with many rapid technological advances, regulation has not moved as quickly. And the use of drones in law enforcement, in particular, provides additional legal challenges, prosecutors say.

Bates told News 9 this week that he saw a vehicle stop and pick up a woman that he knew to be a prostitute. With his camcorder in hand, he followed the vehicle to an Oklahoma City tire dump.

Bates has gained notoriety for his anti-prostitution tactic of surprising unsuspecting prostitutes and Johns while engaged in sexual acts and filming them. He would then post the videos onto his website.

But this time, instead of charging the car with his camcorder, he decided to use a unique strategy of capturing the suspected criminals in the act.

“I was fully prepared to just use my camcorder, but it appeared she was being followed by her pimp,” Bates said. “(The drone) got footage, that otherwise, I don’t think I would’ve gotten. They were parked in an area where they could’ve seen any one walking up on them.”

Bates says his drone captured video of Amanda Zollicoffer and Douglas Blansett having sex. Bates turned the video to authorities. They were later charged with engaging lewd acts, a misdemeanor, by Oklahoma County prosecutors.

While the use of a drone in catching criminals is relatively new, obtaining video surveillance of a crime from civilians isn’t.

“That’s probably one of the biggest changes that I’ve seen in prosecution over the last 15 years,” First Assistant District Attorney Scott Rowland said. “It used to be unusual to have video evidence of crime. Not it’s somewhat unusual not to, because everybody has video cameras from their phones. It’s very common to have video brought in from civilians on crimes.”

According to Rowland, because Bates is a private citizen, use of the drone footage doesn’t involve the legal red tape authorities have to go through.

“The use of drones by police agencies is still somewhat controversial,” Rowland said. “A police officer can’t use a drone to view an area where a person has an expectation of privacy. So if a police officer couldn’t go there his or herself, then they can’t use a drone to go their either. But the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment doesn’t apply to private parties. Private parties can do pretty much whatever they deem proper at the risk of being sued for invasion of privacy.”

The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) in 2012 published an a list of recommended guidelines for use of drones in law enforcement. Endorsed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), its recommendations include:

  • Police should obtain warrants to use drones where subjects have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
  • Police should not retain images captured by drones unless they are relevant to a crime.
  • Police should give the public meaningful notice of drone use.
  • Use of drones by police should be subject to tracking and audits, with accountability for misuse.

Civilians like Bates do not have to adhere any of these guidelines. Rowland expects to see more drone videos come in from citizens.

“I personally know several civilians who purchased drones for their own amusement, their hobby,” Rowland said. “I think you will probably see more and more criminal activity captured until there is some regulations placed on them. It’s my belief there will probably be more regulations placed on private use of drones just for safety purposes.”

But according to Cleveland County (Oklahoma) District Attorney Greg Mashburn, drone owners like Bates do find themselves under the microscope more and more with other private citizens who do not appreciate the way drones can be used.

“I have had calls where people are upset that people are flying drones outside their windows, in their air space above their property,” Mashburn said. “So you get into those type of issues of who is controlling the air space? Is it legal for someone else, other than the owner, to fly a drone overlooking their property? So it gets kind of complicated.”

Yet, because the prosecution of criminals has become so dependent on video footage, don’t expect to see law enforcement to start turning away videos from drones anytime soon.

“The problem is that juries come to expect that,” Rowland said. “Juries have become conditioned of everything being captured on video. With all the TV shows, reality shows, etc. So that when those crimes occur that someone didn’t capture on video… juries want video evidence, which sometimes you just don’t have.”