That 46 million could be spent on education, transportation, aid for low-income families, the homeless, jobs programs, small business tax breaks, infrastructure renewal, public works, etc. According to the report, not only are they largely not used for anything productive, there's potential harms to both people and the environment. And as many have pointed out, the same work can be done with drones.
To drive this point further: The one stable causal relastionship relevant here is the one between inequality and crime. Reduce inequality in ways
0xbadcafebee suggested would reduce inequality - though probably not in sizes measureable after a few years.
The report is wrong. If you bother to watch LA news you'll see they are used a few times a night to track vehicles from the air. This frees up ground units and avoids high speed chases which saves lives.
It's fun to call this a waste of taxpayer dollars until you watch a carjacked vehicle recovered with kids inside.
Do you really need 17 helicopters and 90 employees for the occasional car chase? This feels wildly over the top. They could do that just fine with one third the resources.
Just LA city police service an area about half the size of Rhode Island. If you count all the surrounding areas LA has mutual aid agreements with, it would be the 6th largest state by population.
LA Sheriffs are responsible for an area larger than Delaware and Rhode Island combined.
They also assist in rescue operations, transporting SWAT and crisis negotiators to scenes, flying snake venom antidotes from the airport to the hospital, and dozens of other things.
I'd say 17 helicopters and 90 employees is pretty lean given that they have a crew ready to go within 5 minutes 24/7.
Helicopters avoid car chases by allowing them to follow the car until it gets to a destination or runs out of gas.
Even if they "usually" start from a minor traffic violation (which they do not), the majority of individuals who run have outstanding felony warrants or are engaged in committing another crime.
> Helicopters avoid car chases by allowing them to follow the car until it gets to a destination or runs out of gas.
So, the thing that we could do cheaper and easier with drones, we should continue to do with vastly more expensive helicopters.... why?
> Even if they "usually" start from a minor traffic violation (which they do not),
Except that both independent journalists, and every major law enforcement agency, has been saying they do, for 30 years.
- San Francisco Chronicle "Fast and Fatal" Investigation reported that 82% of car chases that resulted in a death started as a pursuit over a traffic stop or a non-violent offense. (https://github.com/sfchronicle/police_pursuits) (https://journalistsresource.org/media/police-chases-how-they-did-it-san-francisco-chronicle/)
- A 2025 NY State Attorney General's Office report on improving policing and public safety cited data suggesting that many chases are for minor reasons and highlighted data on the high risk of negative outcomes. (https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/reports/improvingpolicingandpublicsafety.pdf)
- A 2020 California Highway Patrol report detailed that half of all police pursuits in California during 2019 were initiated for four non-violent reasons: speeding (20.7%), stolen vehicles (13.6%), license/registration violations (8.8%), and red light violations (7.5%). (https://www.chp.ca.gov/siteassets/files/police_pursuits_sb_719_-2020.pdf)
- A 2010 article from an FBI bulletin noted that "the majority of police pursuits involve a stop for a traffic violation". (https://leb.fbi.gov/articles/featured-articles/evidence-based-decisions-on-police-pursuits-the-officers-perspective)
- A 1998 Bureau of Justice Statistics analysis of over 952 pursuits in Dade County found that 512 (over 50%) were initiated for a traffic violation. (https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/police-vehicle-pursuits-2012-2013)
> the majority of individuals who run have outstanding felony warrants or are engaged in committing another crime
So what? That doesn't justify vehicular homicide, either of bystanders or the perpetrators, not to mention property damage.
You could stop a suspect from running by firing a rocket launcher. But there's a substantial risk associated with what that rocket is going to hit, so we don't do that! A car is a 2-ton missile, and you have multiple of them careening wildly through the street. The risk is insanely out of balance with the objective. There are much less dangerous methods to find and apprehend suspects, and law enforcement agencies have said the same.
If you haven't watched the John Oliver episode that I linked above (YouTube link), I highly recommend it, because it goes over all this in detail.
So, you think a drone is harder to fly in protected airspace than a helicopter, and somehow you've taken my evidence that police chases need to stop (de-emphasizing the need for helicopters...) as evidence that we need helicopters. Might also be worth considering that the police often don't respect airspace limits. They frequently fly where they're not supposed to, in LA.
Are you asserting that the report is lying, and that a majority of the flight hours aren't actually being used for all those mentioned low priority purposes? If so, is your assertion based on the helicopters being used a few times a night per television reports?
