Guidance for police officers on drones pdf

Found this while browsing.
If it’s already posted here please feel free to delete but it contains some interesting info from the angle of police powers should a drone flyer get reported for whatever reason.


It’s something that has been posted before …. but, being dated 2015, it is a bit out of date in relation to changes in the law earlier this year.

Ah fair enough, I did wonder if it was a little out of date tbh.
Is there an updated version Ozonevibe?

1 Like

Not as far as I’m aware.

I mean - there probably is …. but we’ve not got our hands on it as yet. :wink:


28 pages!!! :flushed:

Really informative, thank you Martin!:+1:t2:


I didn’t know we couldn’t drop animals from them.

1 Like

Well bang goes my business ‘hamsters by drone’ delivery service :pensive:
Back to the drawing board.


Makes for interesting reading and great for reference. I’ll be keeping a copy. Thank you for posting it.:ok_hand:

1 Like

Some interesting parts but procedures are way out of date.

CAA no longer investigate drone incidents and power has been passed to the police.

1 Like

No mention of FPV with spotter being allowed…grounds for an argument with an ill informed constabulary.

I think we shouldn’t read too much currency into a 2015 document.

Yes, I noticed that too. Maybe the spotter is a more recent idea, but if this is current advice to the police, there’s still a chance they could take it literally I suppose.

Huh? Page one …. 2015

Current as in “not superceded”, not current as in “I need coffee currently”

But …
a) there are bazillions more drones now than in 2015,
b) public attitudes have changed dramatically in that time, and …
c) the laws pertaining to drones have changed more than once.

How can it even be considered current?

It comes up in a search of NPCC so how “current” it is would depend on NPCC internal rules about when they delete things. If police officers normally regard what they find here as “current” then there’s a good chance they’ll still use it. If, on the other hand, they’re used to finding out-of-date documents , they might ignore it in favour of the undated blog entry that comes back in the same search, or use official guidance issued to them by other means.

Actually, I see from that this document originally appeared as a result of an FOI request made back in 2015 so, on that basis, it would be unlikely that it would be regarded as “current” now , but who knows?

I’d imagine they treat the most recent version of any document as ‘current’, no matter how far behind the times it may be :confused:

1 Like

I’d wager this is only the most recent to be in public circulation.

1 Like

That’s probably quite a safe bet :slight_smile:

1 Like