Another quizzical problem for the Court. Is it OK to watch something on the ground robotically with the same resolution that, say, a human in a zeppelin would have with the naked eye?
You do bring up a really good point to ponder on the remote control aspect. The last SCOTUS case on GPS trackers said you had to have a warrant to place a tracker, but it seemed to be based on the invasion of privacy by placing a device on somebody's car. Most of the legal precedence on surveillance is related to the concept that what the police are viewing is in open view of the public. The question would be whether the courts view a UAS as enhancing a surveillance or relieving law enforcement of the work required to conduct the surveillance.
The driving force behind this bill isn't domestic work in the first place. The issue is that UAVs have been around for a decade and the FAA hasn't budged much on the restrictions for their use. DHS bought Predator B's for work on the border and have for the most part been locked on specific tracks. To deploy a UAS, even for a natural disaster requires a lot of work with the FAA. DHS wants greater access to the border areas and the ability to fly their unmanned aircraft to sites where they need them like a regular airplane. The FAA is a pain, but DHS jumped the gun by at least 7-10 years on UAS.