Guidance is too strong of a word. The ASA actually wrote:
After deliberation, ASA, CSG, and NCSL provide the following considerations:
- Warrants: States may consider requiring a warrant for government surveillance of an individual or their property where the individual is specifically targeted for surveillance in advance without their permission. All other observation activities should not require a warrant, to the extent allowed under Supreme Court rulings. Additionally, if there is not a specific person identified for surveillance in advance, it is generally not possible to obtain a warrant. Requiring one would eliminate UAS benefits, but can be addressed per recommendation number two, below.
- Data Concerns: Some are worried about government use of data derived from warrantless observations. States may consider addressing this by prohibiting the repurposing of data collected from Government use of UAS in warrantless observation unless a warrant allows the repurposing.
Were Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev worthy of drone surveillance on and after the F.B.I. interviewed Mr. Tsarnaev in January 2011 at the request of the Russian government, which suspected that he had ties to Chechen terrorists?