The San Francisco Police Department's drone program is now explicitly exempt from the city's Surveillance Technology Ordinance, reflecting a broader shift in the city's accommodation of technology.

The San Francisco Police Department's burgeoning drone program has officially solidified its exemption from key city oversight, marking another step in San Francisco’s evolving accommodation of technology. According to the public review draft of SFPD General Order 10.12, revised March 3, 2026, the department's use of drones "shall not be subject to the requirements of Chapter 19B of the Administrative Code," effectively carving out a special status for these devices that bypasses the city's broader Surveillance Technology Ordinance.

This explicit exemption, detailed in General Order 10.12, grounds itself in San Francisco Administrative Code § 96I.2(e), a parallel ordinance. The regulatory architecture also leans on Chapter 19B's own carve-out provision in § 19B.2(c), which states Chapter 19B does not apply to SFPD drone use under Chapter 96I, provided Chapter 96I contains such an exemption. The legal foundation for this shift traces back to Proposition E, which voters approved in March 2024, expanding police surveillance powers and laying the groundwork for drone use in critical incidents. The Board of Supervisors formally enacted Ordinance File #240636 on October 3, 2024, codifying the program, though Mayor London Breed and Police Chief William Scott publicly launched drone operations nearly two months prior on August 6, 2024. The status of General Order 10.12 as a "public review draft" means its final adoption is pending.

This move to explicitly authorize city-led surveillance technology stands in contrast to the city's more nuanced stance on other forms of tech. San Francisco's 2019 ban on facial recognition applied exclusively to city agencies. This narrow scope has allowed private entities such as Grocery Outlet stores, utilizing SAFR Guard software, and various bars equipped with Patronscan systems, to freely deploy the technology. This creates a de facto acceptance of widespread private surveillance that operates outside direct city prohibitions. Similarly, autonomous vehicles, while a visible presence on city streets, are primarily regulated through permits rather than proactive legislative endorsement. Companies like Waymo engaged in extensive lobbying, making 678 contacts with San Francisco officials in 2025 alone, according to a Mission Local analysis of lobbying disclosures. Specific permits, such as the Planning Commission's Conditional Use Authorization for Waymo's fleet charging at the SoMa Grand, facilitate operations, but there is no documented city-level legislative push actively promoting autonomous vehicle use beyond necessary permitting.

The collective impact of these policies reshapes the narrative of San Francisco's relationship with technology. Where there was once significant public resistance, particularly against surveillance tech, the city has pursued a pragmatic pivot. The absence of comprehensive community input mechanisms, such as those Chapter 19B was intended to provide, leaves a gap in public oversight for this increasingly prevalent technology. The final adopted version of General Order 10.12 will be a key document to watch, as will further deployments of surveillance technology by both public and private entities operating within the city's accommodating regulatory framework.