The Role of Drones and Counter-UAS Efforts to Combat Contraband

An overview of the Drone Detection and Deterrence Symposium at the 2025 ACA Winter Conference
By Kat Balster
The rapid advancement of drone technology has introduced new challenges for correctional facilities, as criminal organizations increasingly exploit drones to smuggle contraband into prisons. At the recent Drone Detection and Deterrence Symposium at the ACA Winter Conference in Orlando, Fla., experts highlighted the severity of the issue and discussed the latest countermeasures being developed to combat unauthorized drone activity.
Jeff Newell and Glenn Davis, founders of Paragon Analysis, a consulting firm that works with agencies to develop preventive strategies, emphasized that drone smuggling has become the equivalent of “Uber Eats for bad guys,” with drones delivering illicit goods such as cell phones, drugs and weapons into prison yards. The problem has grown so severe that Georgia’s Department of Corrections (DOC) has recorded 384 drone-related incidents in a single year, leading to the confiscation of 876 cell phones, 343 kilos of narcotics and contraband valued at over $7 million.
Developing a Counter-UAS Strategy
Addressing drone-based contraband smuggling requires a multi-layered approach, as no single technology or method can fully mitigate the threat. Several key components were identified at the symposium:
- Detection Systems – Anti-drone technology utilizes radar, radio frequency (RF) monitoring, electro-optical sensors, and acoustic detection to identify and track unauthorized drones in real time.
- Identification and Tracking – Systems such as DJI Aeroscope allow authorities to detect drone manufacturers, flight paths and even the location of pilots.
- Legal Barriers and Policy Gaps – While prisons have an urgent need for drone mitigation, they remain one of the most underrepresented sectors in FAA regulations. Under current federal law, drones are classified as aircraft, making it illegal to tamper with or disable them—even when they are used for illicit purposes.
- Countermeasures and Intervention – Correctional facilities are exploring various mitigation tactics, including signal jamming, geofencing and AI-driven tracking systems. However, legal constraints limit options for neutralizing rogue drones.
Operation SkyHawk: A Case Study in Georgia

Photo Credit: Correctional News
Georgia has emerged as a leader in tackling drone smuggling through Operation SkyHawk, a state-led initiative in collaboration with the FBI’s Safe Streets Gang Task Force. The presentation was led by Special Agent Greg Phillips and Deputy Director Chase Hallman, both with the Georgia Department of Corrections, the operation has resulted in more than 150 arrests and 1,000 criminal charges, including drug trafficking and gang-related offenses.
The program leverages digital forensics, cellular analysis, and surveillance techniques to track drone operators and dismantle smuggling networks. Georgia’s success underscores the importance of interagency collaboration and intelligence-driven enforcement strategies.
The Future of Anti-Drone Technology in Corrections
As drone technology continues to evolve, so must counter-UAS strategies. Experts at the symposium stressed the importance of layered security solutions, combining radar, RF sensors, and AI-powered analytics to detect and intercept drones before they breach facility airspace.
David Lewin, critical infrastructure manager with Echodyne, introduced Electronically Scanned Array (ESA) radar, a technology designed to enhance drone detection capabilities in high-security environments. Meanwhile, Airsight CEO Robert Tabbara discussed the need for adaptive counter-drone measures, emphasizing that no single solution is foolproof due to the increasing sophistication of drone operations.
Policy and Legislative Challenges

One of the biggest hurdles in combating drone contraband remains the legal and regulatory framework. Current laws prohibit facilities from interfering with drone communications, limiting correctional agencies’ ability to disable or seize unauthorized drones. Calls for policy reform are growing, with experts advocating for streamlined access to drone registration data and expanded authority for law enforcement to act against illicit drone activity.
Neal Parsons of the National Institute of Justice (NIJ)’s extensive research shows the need for a comprehensive legal framework, stating that “no one drone detection technology is a panacea; they all have their strengths and limitations.” A coordinated approach involving policy reform, technological advancement and strategic enforcement will be essential to staying ahead of this evolving threat.
Conclusion
The Drone Symposium highlighted the urgent need for enhanced counter-UAS programs in correctional facilities, as drones continue to be exploited for criminal activity. While advancements in detection and tracking are promising, legislative hurdles remain a significant barrier to effective drone mitigation. Moving forward, collaboration between government agencies, security experts, and lawmakers will be critical in securing prison airspace and preventing the flow of contraband.
As drone technology progresses, correctional facilities must adapt swiftly to protect their institutions from airborne threats, ensuring that prisons remain places of rehabilitation—not hubs for illegal operations.