A Temple police drone collides with a semi-truck on I-35

(02)Police drone hits a lorry on I-35

city-of-temple.prowly.com — Temple Police Department's Implementation of Drone as First Responder Program — source

A Temple Police Department drone went through the windscreen of Gurdeep Gill's Peterbilt tractor-trailer on I-35, near West Nugent Avenue, on 2 June 2026. The driver, a Canadian from Brampton, Ontario, was travelling north when the aircraft struck his vehicle. The impact injured Gill in the face and sent him to hospital.

The time of the collision is given as 14:36. Recently released documents indicate that the incident occurred earlier than the time in the report. Dispatch records describe Gill as alert, with a head injury. Several months after the incident, the City of Temple is contesting a request for access to documents intended to make public the full version of the incident. The outcome of this proceeding is not known.

(03)Temple's DFR programme and flight rules

On 16 October 2026, the Temple Police Department provided an update on its Drone as First Responder programme, still in the implementation and testing phase. The system aims to provide officers with live aerial video and better situational awareness before they arrive on scene. The department lists possible uses: searches for missing persons, traffic accidents, dangerous situations, major public events and emergency calls.

The programme describes drones positioned strategically and deployed remotely. One is housed in an automated docking station in the 1700 block of North General Bruce Drive. Full deployment, with two additional aircraft, is announced for December, in the 8400 block of W Adams Avenue and the 400 block of Waters Dairy Road. The programme credits the system with protecting the drone against weather conditions, automatic battery-swap management and rapid deployment.

All Temple Police Department drones are operated in accordance with Federal Aviation Administration requirements, including in the DFR programme. Officers assigned to drone operations receive specialised training, and remote pilots hold FAA Part 107 Remote Pilot certificates. The programme mentions Aerodome drones managed via Flock Safety. The 2 June accident does not appear in the DFR programme presentation.

(04)The circumstances of the impact remain unestablished

The cause of the impact, the drone's altitude, its trajectory, its status at the time of the collision and any DFR mission are not established. No investigation conclusion has been made public. The City of Temple's contesting of a request for access to documents limits access to the case materials.

No remote pilot is named and no allegation is specified. An allegation is not a conviction. The filing of an incident report and insurance involvement are not established. The case remains open as to the exact circumstances and any administrative or legal follow-up.

(05)Checks for a European operator

The case is American. FAA requirements do not apply to the European framework. For an operator in Europe, verification concerns the territory and the date: rules on flying over road corridors, any authorisations, emergency procedures, coordination with emergency services, flight documentation and insurance. These points are not detailed for Temple.

An incident involving a moving vehicle requires documenting the area, obstacles, people on the ground and the action to take in an emergency. The drone is not described as equipped with a parachute, and the presence of an observer is not established. For professional operators, compliance includes the remote pilot's certificate, risk analysis, procedures and traceability. The Temple case remains open as to access to documents and the conclusions of the incident.