Perhaps the responsible officers of the Straubing police were at the Kunsthalle Hamburg before Christmas, just like me.
Perhaps they also stood there before Caspar David Friedrich's „Wanderer above the Sea of Fog“.
And perhaps they too thought, „You just have to climb higher to see more clearly.“
Perhaps the large-scale drone surveillance announced in the media today (train station, city centre, ice stadium, large car park) at ice hockey games in Straubing is also based on completely different considerations.
The Bavarian lawmakers are remarkably honest about the use of surveillance drones, at least. The original explanatory memorandum speaks of a measure with „not insignificant (additional) intrusive quality“ (Printing Document 17/20425).
The view from above therefore promises an overview. However, earthly conflict is programmed.
The creation of image recordings and the transmission of camera images to a monitor by means of drones should each constitute an independent interference with the fundamental right to informational self-determination. One can therefore be curious whether and how this open measure (particularly with regard to the accompanying duty to inform) will be designed to withstand legal scrutiny.
The police use of a surveillance drone must be „noticeable“ to the affected individuals (Administrative Court Sigmaringen, judgment of 20.10.2020, file no. 14 K 7613/18). The deployment of unmanned aircraft systems by the police must be specifically pointed out. In most cases, the mere visibility of the drone itself is therefore not sufficient. Nor is situational contextualisation (visible police vehicle = police drone) enough.
So how is this duty to inform fulfilled? Through physical warning signs on the uniforms of police officers? Through a widespread, media-based announcement beforehand? Or will we see drones with flashing blue lights in the Bavarian sky in the future?
In and around German stadiums, a new Nika riot is rarely seenhttps://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nika-Aufstandto fear, therefore police actions should always be carried out with restraint.
A small but illuminating side anecdote regarding Article 47 of the PAG: Until October 2025, a ban on arming unmanned police aerial systems was in place. This has now been lifted. External threats serve as leverage for domestic rearmament. Remember, remember: State intervention standards, once achieved, are rarely rolled back. 😉
The law doesn't arise in a vacuum. It's a reflection of societal conditions, political decisions, historical developments, and public discourse. I therefore welcome every personal exchange.