By David Lewin
Corrections professionals have a new threat to deal with, and this one flies in the skies! It is cheap to procure, difficult to detect and especially complicated to mitigate. The rapid proliferation of drones has opened the door for criminals who are looking for cunning ways to get dangerous contraband over the prison fence, and drone delivery of contraband has quickly become a widespread crisis.
Also known as Uncrewed Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), drones are small, agile and capable of bypassing traditional security measures, making them a preferred method for delivering illegal items such as drugs, weapons, and cell phones to incarcerated individuals. They are getting increasingly larger and more capable every day, and it’s only a matter of time before we see a heavy-lift drone used to carry someone over a prison fence from the inside to facilitate an escape.
To put the problem into perspective, let’s look at the hard figures. According to the National Institute of Justice, between 2015 and 2019 the Department of Justice reported only 130 drone incidents in federal prisons. However, once the Federal Bureau of Prisons adopted a formal reporting policy in 2018 the number of incidents recorded increased by 87%; the estimate now hovers at 243 suspected drone incidents at prisons every year.
This percentage increase is worth noting, however, the true number of drone incidents is believed to be significantly higher. The discrepancy is due to the lack of reporting standards and not yet having a national database for drone incidents across the industry. Also, most facilities are still relying on human eyes and ears to determine when a drone is present, which is much less reliable than deploying detection technology.
There are significant considerations prisons need to make when attempting to mitigate drone contraband drops. This article explores six common mistakes that can compromise prison security when addressing drone incidents and practical solutions to address them.
Mistake #1: Attempting to knock a drone out of the air
One of the most common reactions to an incoming drone is the impulse to knock it out of the sky. While this might seem like a straightforward solution, it can lead to significant legal ramifications. Under U.S. federal law, drones are considered aircraft, and interfering with them in the National Airspace System (NAS) is a federal offense.
Attempting to bring down a drone by force, whether through shooting it, jamming its signals, or using other means, would violate these laws, leading to potential legal action against the prison and its staff. The best course forward is to make sure that the corrections security team is aware of these laws and instead of focusing on stopping the drone, it is crucial to ensure that systems are in place for detecting drones and that policies are enforced for exactly what to do in the heat of the moment when a drop is occurring. Keeping in mind that the ultimate goal is ensuring that incarcerated individuals and prison staff are safe, and secondly finding and prosecuting the bad actors who are behind the drone flights.
Mistake #2: Not realizing when a drone is present
One of the most significant challenges in combating drone threats is simply being aware of their presence. Drones are small, fast and can fly at altitudes that make them difficult to detect with the naked eye. Relying solely on passive sensors or human observation is no longer sufficient to spot incoming drone threats. Many facilities that think they don’t have a drone problem likely already do, they just don’t know about it when they lack the technology necessary to detect them.
To further complicate the problem, “dark drones” can evade traditional radio frequency (RF) sensors that are the most commonly deployed technology today for detection. However, operators can watch a quick YouTube video or dive into a Reddit thread to learn how to modify their drone to skirt these long-trusted sensors and fly completely undetected.
To address this issue, it is essential to deploy a layered system with radars and cameras at the foundation and passive sensors for additional metadata to ensure that even modified drones will be detected in any weather or lighting condition.
Mistake #3: Touching a drone after it landed or crashed
In the heat of the moment, it can be tempting for prison staff to try to grab a drone that has landed or pick up a drone after it has crashed. However, drones should be treated as forensic evidence, and any tampering can compromise its integrity for use in prosecution. If a drone is touched or moved, it could alter or destroy data, making it difficult for law enforcement to track down the operators or understand their methods.
Forensic analysis of a drone can provide valuable information, such as flight paths, data logs and even fingerprints. This information is crucial for building cases against those who use drones to smuggle contraband. Training programs on drone handling can reinforce these protocols and ensure that staff members know how to respond correctly when they encounter a drone. Some prisons now have advanced forensic capabilities to pull invaluable information off drones that happen to crash on their property, including recorded flights and video footage, which can greatly assist in investigations and at times lead to enough evidence to make arrests.
Mistake #4: Assuming there is only one drone involved
Drones are often used in coordinated operations, with multiple UAVs deployed to achieve different objectives. For example, one drone might be used as a distraction, while another delivers contraband. Alternatively, one drone could provide surveillance from a high altitude while another operates at a lower level.
Assuming that only one drone is involved in an incident can leave a prison vulnerable to additional threats. If security personnel focus all their attention on a single drone, they may miss other UAVs that are actively participating in the operation.
To mitigate this risk, prisons should adopt a comprehensive response strategy that anticipates the possibility of multiple drones. This approach should include advanced detection technologies – such as high-fidelity radar – that can monitor the entire facility and identify all drones in the vicinity. By being prepared for coordinated drone operations, prisons can more effectively counter these 360-degree threats.
Mistake #5: Forgetting to engage with local police departments before a drone incident
Effective drone mitigation requires collaboration between the prison and local law enforcement before a drone incident occurs. When prisons and police departments engage with one another only in the heat of the moment or after an incident, this reactive approach can lead to delays in action and miscommunication during critical moments.
Local PDs can provide valuable support during a drone incident, but they need to be involved in the planning process long before any drones appear. This includes establishing communication protocols, developing a common language for reporting and responding to drone threats, and creating a drone incident reporting policy. By working together, prisons can handle the drone incursion from the inside of the fence, while local law enforcement can focus on apprehending the operator on the outside.
Mistake #6: Forgetting to educate legislators on the drone contraband crisis
Another common mistake is the failure to engage with legislators at both state and federal levels. Many prison administrators assume that because drone threats are a pressing issue, and can lead to a full-fledged crisis, lawmakers are already aware of the problem.
However, this is often not the case, as most are completely surprised when hearing real-world stories from representatives of the corrections industry. Legislators often have no idea the true extent of what is taking place, and thus have been under-equipped to represent the needs of the corrections industry on this issue.
Without legislators understanding the full scope of the problem, prisons will remain handicapped in their ability to respond effectively to drone incidents. For example, they currently lack the legal authority to deploy certain “advanced” detection technologies due to Wiretap and Pen Trap laws, and are not allowed to actively mitigate a drone in flight through jamming its signal, cyber takeover, or anything that would disrupt its flight.
By building relationships with legislators and telling their stories, prisons can advocate for the necessary policy changes that will enable them to better protect their facilities.
Establishing a proactive security posture against drone incidents
While current legislation on drone mitigation prohibits correctional facilities from physically mitigating a drone, a proactive security team can still understand these six common mistakes and consider the recommendations in order to establish a proactive security posture, promote collaboration and strategically deploy reliable detection technologies to position themselves to better protect incarcerated individuals and prison staff.
By refining their response strategies and enhancing awareness through technology, prisons can better safeguard against the sophisticated methods used in drone contraband drops while continuing to advocate for legislative change.
Resources
About the author
David Lewin serves on the Counter UAS Working Group with Security Industry Association (SIA) and is a Senior Advisor with the AAM Institute. As a Critical Infrastructure, RSM with Echodyne, David helps clients leverage 3D radar systems to detect unauthorized perimeter access whether ground targets or drones. With over a decade of experience in critical infrastructure security, David has dedicated his career to protecting people, property and critical infrastructure from sophisticated attacks especially for Corrections Facilities, Electric Utilities and Law Enforcement agencies. Follow David on LinkedIn for current updates on the industry or to be a guest on his podcast.