Sandy Ground: The use of a drone by the gendarmes has been challenged

The prefectoral decree of January 18 authorizing gendarmes to use a camera on a drone over part of Sandy Ground did not escape the attention of the Vigie Liberté association, which applied to the Administrative Court of Saint Martin to have this decision suspended.

Following “several disturbances of public order of various kinds (armed robbery, carjacking and attempted carjacking, ambushes) [committed in Sandy Ground and] by a group of individuals in recent weeks,” the gendarmerie commander asked the préfet for permission to use a camera mounted on a drone in part of the neighborhood. The state representative granted authorization for a period of three months “for the prevention of threats to the safety of persons and property.” This is not the first time that the gendarmerie has resorted to this type of surveillance in Saint Martin. However, it is the first time that the association Vigie Liberté has denounced it here.

Created in February 2024 and based in Paris, this association “aims to ensure respect for the protection of individuals' personal data and to act in favor of the right of all individuals to move around, meet, and gather in public spaces or places open to the public.” It regularly brings cases before the administrative courts in France to overturn prefectoral or municipal decisions that it believes infringe on citizens' freedoms.

Over the past two months, the association thereupon filed a lawsuit —some successful, some unsuccessful—with the courts in Paris, Cergy-Pontoise, Montpellier, Lille, Bordeaux, Versailles, Poitiers, Melun, Rennes, and Orléans. It also has done in French Guiana, Guadeloupe, and Martinique. On January 26, it appeared before the administrative court of Saint-Martin.

The association based its defense on two main points: “the serious and manifestly illegal infringement of the right to privacy and the right to personal data protection” and the disproportionate use of drones in relation to the context.

On the one hand, the association considers that the prefectoral decree reduced the rights of the population because it was enforced as soon as it was published, which did not give her time to read it and challenge it. It adds that the measure “authorizes the mass processing of personal data” and that once the images have been recorded by the camera, “the damage suffered by the persons concerned cannot be repaired.”

On the other hand, the association considers that the use of drones is unnecessary and “disproportionate.” It argues that the préfet has “insufficiently” justified his choice, has not reported “specific circumstances” and has not shown that “the use of cameras [not mounted on drones but] located” in the neighborhood and “the deployment of gendarmes” could not be used instead to ensure the safety of the population.

The Administrative Court of Saint Martin does not share this view. In its opinion, “the resurgence of insecurity, due to a group of individuals engaging in armed robbery and carjacking” described by the préfet, requires “the implementation of particularly reinforced security measures based, in particular, on cameras installed on aircraft.” The court points out that the drone provides “a wide-angle view from the sky” and facilitates “the maintenance and restoration of public order by limiting the involvement of ground forces,” as explained by the préfet in his order. It added that the investigation of the case did not demonstrate that “the objectives of security and maintaining order” could be achieved by “other available means” than drones.

The Administrative Court said that authorizing a camera on a drone in part of Sandy Ground for three months did not constitute “a serious and manifestly illegal infringement of a fundamental freedom.” It rejected the association's request.

(illustration photo)