Uncrewed aerial systems (UAS) have become both silent guardians and illicit specters that span city skylines and shadowy enclaves. The Full Crew newscast recently assembled a panel of drone visionaries—Kaye Cruz (Sky Fish Drone Operations), Thomas Eder (Nokia) and Alan Gabriel (Pilots of the Caribbean Podcast)—who addressed promising developments like Drones as First Responders (DFR) as well as serious concerns surrounding criminal and other nefarious drone use globally. From saving lives as the new eyes of emergency response to enabling the nefarious operations of drug cartels, drones today impact security, safety and privacy. The discussion made one thing clear: technology’s gifts are only as safe as our collective grip on their trajectory through policy.
Drones as First Responders (DFR): The Los Angeles Policy Expansion
DFR programs involve deploying drones from fixed locations to emergency scenes, well before first responders arrive on-site. For the uninitiated, the mechanics of DFR include drones strategically positioned in metropolitan grids, programmed to launch on command, feeding instant video and sensor data back to human operators. Municipalities have increasingly embraced these programs for their ability to provide real-time incident data, support decision-making and improve situational awareness. But as Eder pointed out, the real marvel is less about the gear and more about the data. “Data from drones isn’t just video,” he explained, “It’s building a real-time map of a situation. When seconds count, that data integration saves lives.”
Dialing in insight from his dual roles as pilot and commentator, Gabriel emphasized the global impacts of DFR. “We’re seeing agencies from Miami to Medellín modeling their UAS programs on these successes,” he noted. “Drones are no longer toys or novelties—they’re critical first response infrastructure.”
Cruz, whose hands-on experience with tactical UAS deployments has made his name in public safety tech circles, agreed that DFR has transformed public safety operations. “DFR shifts the paradigm,” he said. “We don’t have to wait on a chopper or risk officers rushing in blind. The drone gets there first, providing immediate situational intelligence. That’s the difference between chaos and a controlled response.” And policy drives these operations.
Lengthening the Lifeline—DFR Policy Shift
Just last month, the LA Police Commission approved a major policy update to allow the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) to deploy drones as first responders to routine emergency calls, high-risk incidents, investigations, large-scale events and natural disasters—a significant departure from their previous use limited to high-risk or tactical situations, like barricaded suspects or bomb threats. Most notably, this move shifted oversight of the drone program from the Air Support (Aviation) Division to the Office of Special Operations, the same branch responsible for SWAT and other critical incident responses. The change aligns the program more closely with the department’s tactical and field operations and signals a broader and more integrated use of uncrewed aircraft in everyday policing and will provide more operational flexibility and faster deployment. This move also brings LAPD’s approach more in line with other agencies that have demonstrated success in similar DFR programs.
Lessons Learned: LAPD Transparency as a Model
Despite the value of DFR, in some circles, a debate simmers around how to balance lifesaving speed with public oversight and privacy. Zoldi steered the conversation candidly to these tensions, pressing the need for policies that keep communities informed, protected both from risk and for civil liberty. LAPD’s transparency approach in rolling out its expanded DFR pilot program offers several actionable practices for other agencies:
- Community Engagement: The LAPD launched the pilot program across four divisions with a mandate to report progress within six months, with the aim to foster continuous dialogue both within the agency and with external oversight bodies.
- Policy Accessibility: LAPD published and discussed its updated guidelines and operational parameters in public commission meetings to provide transparency in policymaking and oversight.
- Clear Use Limitations: LAPD balanced its program’s use for both routine and large-scale events by defined restrictions, such as prohibiting drone use solely for monitoring peaceful protests and ensuring compliance with existing privacy laws.
- Restriction on Surveillance: The policy explicitly prohibits equipping drones with weapons or facial recognition and limits monitoring of lawful demonstrations, outlining clear boundaries on acceptable use.
- Public Web Portal: The department is developing an online platform where citizens can track drone flight paths, dates, times, and deployment locations, ensuring accessible public oversight of drone operations.
- Routine Auditing: All drone footage will be subject to periodic internal audits, with policies designed to prevent unauthorized use of video and to assure compliance with departmental and legal standards.
Why the LAPD Approach Matters: Translating Policy into Public Trust
As other departments expand the operational reach of DFR, LAPD’s commitment to transparency and engagement sets a model for how advanced technology can be incorporated into policing while maintaining public trust. These lessons demonstrate that with the right policies and oversight, DFR can serve both efficiency and accountability which helps agencies maximize the benefits of drones, while addressing concerns around privacy and civil liberty.
When Drones Go Dark: Weaponized Drones in The Caribbean and Latin America
As drone technology becomes increasingly accessible and adaptable, the line between civilian innovation and tactical weaponization continues to blur. In fragile and conflict-prone regions of the Caribbean and Latin America, such as Haiti, Colombia and Mexico, commercial drones have evolved beyond surveillance platforms into improvised strike weapons capable of deep disruption and strategic violence.
Regional expert Gabriel emphasized the speed and scale of this development. “We’re seeing a rapid shift,” he said. As tends to be the case universally, the policy, legal and security frameworks governing these uses remain outpaced by the technology.
Commercial Drones, Criminal Hands: The Spread of Weaponized UAS
The misuse of drones is no longer theoretical. Eder painted a picture of the current reality, “A $600 drone with a camera is now a bomb carrier. The threshold for violence has dropped, and attribution is murky in these fog-of-war situations.”
Over the past year, several major incidents have made clear that small, commercially available drones have become tools of targeted violence. For example, in March 2025, Colombia’s ELN (National Liberation Army) used a kamikaze drone to kill a soldier in Catatumbo. It marked one of the first publicly confirmed fatalities from a drone strike by a non-state actor in the region. Just a month prior, insurgents in Ecuador attacked La Roca prison with a commercial drone armed with over 40 pounds of explosives. And just before that, Brigadier General Jorge Gutiérrez Martínez survived an assassination attempt via an explosive-laden drone in Chihuahua, Mexico.
Perhaps most notable, Haiti’s Transitional National Council in 2025 authorized the use of commercial explosive drones against gang hideouts. “These kamikaze drones were used by the state against violent gangs embedded in civilian neighborhoods,” Gabriel said. “And unsurprisingly, gangs responded in kind.” The feedback loop of violence only intensified on the ground. He continued “The scariest thing? There’s almost no oversight. It’s mercenaries, task forces and gangs in a tech arms race. The legal framework is seriously lacking.”
Regional Strategy: CARICOM’s Policy Blueprint for Drone Security
While the region lacks coherent regulation at both the national and regional levels, one group, the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) Implementation Agency for Crime and Security (IMPACS), should be tasked with engaging the issue head-on. The organization is nudged to follow a four-part plan as presented in the article:
- Ban imports of high-capability drones except for law enforcement.
- Impose strict criminal penalties for misuse, including long-term prison sentences and asset seizure.
- Distinguish between drone models, permitting only non-military-grade civilian drones for general users.
- Push for an international treaty banning lethal autonomous systems without human oversight by 2026.
The policy also included several deployment-focused actions. It recommended creating a regional technical working group for drone detection and interdiction and standardizing training across the 14 Caribbean states, with technical support from external partners.
Policy Vacuum and the Regional Response: The Need for a Balanced Approach
While Gabriel supported a staged approach, he stressed, banning drones outright for all but law enforcement would be counterproductive. “We shouldn’t take that kind of heavy-handed approach,” he said, “because in doing so, we risk cutting off access for legitimate users, innovators, emergency responders, journalists—even private security working within the law. The industry can’t police itself entirely, but we also shouldn’t treat drone innovation like it’s inherently dangerous. There’s far too much public safety potential at stake.”
Over-regulation would remove critical situational tools from civilians and vetted private operators, according to Cruz. “We need smarter controls, not blanket bans,” he said. “These stories are exactly what make the news—drones as tools of terror, not rescue. It’s why responsible operators need to advocate for and help build the guardrails.”
Eder agreed. “If you ban drones across the board, you also ban innovation—and that would be a disservice to all the good work being done in public safety and disaster relief,” he said.
Instead of total restriction, the panel acknowledged the need for carefully defined use cases, registration regimes, remote identification enforcement and partnerships with manufacturers to limit capabilities, such as geofencing and payload restrictions, based on user categories.
Reactionary measures, either wholly permissive or highly restrictive, will not suffice. Managing malicious drone use in the Caribbean and Latin America will require regulatory nuance, regional coordination and the will to act before these trends further escalate. Shared airspace needs rules. Right now, they’re being written too late. Policy has to catch up to reality. The goal is to build a policy environment that supports responsible use while deterring weaponization.
The Next Threat on the Horizon: Lone Wolves and Big Catastrophes
The weaponization of drones is not limited to groups and gangs. A recent U.S. intelligence bulletin indicated that commercially available drones can also empower lone individuals to threaten power stations, mass gatherings and critical infrastructure, in novel ways that conventional defenses will struggle to intercept. While recent years have seen a decline in high-profile mass shootings, public safety experts caution against interpreting this lull as a sign of improved security. Instead, threats may simply be evolving: taking to the air in forms that evade conventional defenses. The “Lone Wolf” threat is no longer confined to traditional firearms or explosives. Today, authorities across the United States are grappling with the reality that a single person, equipped with a commercially available drone, could quietly deliver mass disruption or even mass harm.
Vulnerable Events, High Stakes: How Open Venues Magnify Drone Risk
One of the most concerning aspects of the Lone Wolf threat is how easily one person with a drone can exploit large public events. Unlike stadiums protected by fixed anti-drone systems, open-air festivals, parades or multi-block celebrations have limited options for detection and response.
Cruz flagged San Antonio’s Fiesta 2025 as a case study in vulnerability. The 10-day, city-wide celebration draws massive crowds to non-enclosed public spaces and holds huge economic and cultural significance. “Disrupting a single day of Fiesta could cause financial loss, jeopardize community safety and potentially result in casualties… Most drones can’t carry much, but it’s about precision, not brute force. A single bad actor with the right drone can cause chaos—whether it’s a protest/march, an outdoor festival event, or a piece of critical infrastructure.”
The challenge is compounded by technical limitations. As Cruz put it, “Current UAS monitoring tools tend to work well in static environments—but at sprawling outdoor venues, with traffic, rooftops, and shifting line-of-sight issues, it becomes extremely difficult to maintain aerial situational awareness.”
From Marketplace to Mission—The Accessibility Problem
Motivated individuals do not need access to classified technology to pose a serious threat. Drone payloads can be improvised—from small explosives to airborne irritants or toxic liquids and or materials. Agricultural drones, which are designed to disperse chemicals over crops, could be repurposed to deliver harmful substances over event areas. Docking stations or GPS-denied navigation enable drones to persist or launch autonomously, even in areas designed to block traditional communications.
“You can buy a Blue UAS drone on eBay. You can build something attack-capable in your garage,” Cruz warned. “That’s the disconnect that we haven’t closed yet.”
Gabriel reinforced this point, referencing broader availability and the lack of enforcement. “We’re dealing with a technology base that’s both globally distributed and poorly tracked. Between international sellers, aftermarket parts and DIY forums, the technical barrier is low,” he noted.
The proliferation of FPV (first-person view) drones, particularly those designed for racing or extreme sports, adds another layer of difficulty. These drones can be modified to deliver payloads with high precision, often traveling below radar and avoiding standard counter-UAS detection systems. Drawing on his own research and operational experience, Cruz argued that the FPV (first-person view) drone threat has become both technically viable and strategically attractive.
Traditional metrics used to assess security risks, like licensing, device serial tracking, or purchase restriction, no longer hold up against such threats. “Everything needed to cause disruption is legally available in pieces,” Cruz said. “And no one agency, local or federal, is responsible for putting those puzzle pieces together before an attack happens.”
Invisible Airspace, Uncoordinated Response: The Need for Proactive Strategy
Current security measures remain fragmented among local event planners, state law enforcement units and federal agencies. No unified framework for drone threat response at public events exists. In most places, it’s still reactive.
Cruz stressed that without proactive planning and airspace integration, detection and response will always occur post-incident. “What we need,” he said, “is layered security, like what we use to protect VIPs or government buildings, but adapted for crowds in open spaces.”
With a systems-level perspective, Eder chimed in, “We can’t identify threats if we don’t have shared detection infrastructure. What’s needed now is interoperability—local, state, and federal systems working together in real-time.” (See prior AG coverage of Drones-As-A-Service for Public Safety here).
Such infrastructure might include the use of permanent or deployable counter-UAS nodes at high-risk events. Integrating optical, acoustic, and RF sensors, and combining their data into a single situational awareness platform, could provide early warning if a rogue drone enters a protected zone.
But even the best technical solutions won’t be enough without a coordinated policy approach. The panelists agreed that the current patchwork of limited no-fly zones and reactive enforcement will fail if regulatory reform doesn’t catch up with the speed of innovation.
“Without integrated airspace monitoring or coordinated threat detection and response plans, especially at local events,” Cruz warned, “the occurrence of a ‘Lone Air Wolf’ attack becomes a matter of when—not if.” Until national, state, and local authorities implement layered detection systems, define jurisdictional responsibilities and regulate aftermarket drone sales, public gatherings will remain exposed to this emerging class of risks. Policy makers have spent a lot of time regulating commercial operators and enterprise drones, but the real threat may come from someone who builds a highly capable system in their basement. That has to be part of the national conversation…now.
Innovation Can’t Thrive In Chaos: Smart Guardrails Needed
The future promised by drones is at once dazzling and fraught. For every life saved by a DFR unit, there is a street in Port-au-Prince changed forever by a drone’s shadow; for every stadium guarded, a substation somewhere could fall within a lone wolf’s crosshairs. If this is an arms race, it will be fought not just with airwaves and code, but more so by the policies put forth from council meetings and board rooms.
The sky has become a new commons, contested by hope and hazard. We are all left to chart that space, one hard-earned rule and one courageous innovation at a time. This month’s Crew made clear: Innovation can’t thrive in chaos. We need smart guardrails, ones that honor both public safety and civil liberties, that empower good actors while deterring the bad. The next chapter of drones depends on getting this right.