I saw this posted on Facebook and I thought they meant that he had been confirmed killed by a drone which sent my head spinning with rage. To be the "target of a drone" usually means "killed by a drone" not "being searched for with a drone."
Drones piss me off. The Army War College had a panel once where an Air Force Colonel told us, "Drones are extrajudicial killings, meaning there's no laws." As far as he was concerned, it would be absolutely legitimate for a combatant to attack a soldier driving their pickup home from an Arizona military base where he had just finished remotely controlling a drone.
The concept of "the battlefield" has been expanded greatly. During a hearing on domestic or "homegrown" terrorism, Senator Lindsey Graham stated, "I don't see why the Supreme Court wouldn't consider the Homeland part of the battlefield."
It's all very messy. And the collateral damage is intense. On the order of hundreds of innocents to one or two alleged terrorists. The lack of due process is also disturbing. And the effectiveness is questionable.
Killing terrorist leaders does not lower terrorist attacks, in fact, I've seen statistics that show otherwise. The attacks increase, but those attacks are less effective in terms of casualties because the drone attacks killed all the smart terrorists. Risky trade off.
All that said, I'm pretty okay with the police using drones like helicopters in cases like this. I don't think they should be used to bomb people, but they are a cheaper safer way to do that kind of eye-in-the-sky surveillance than using a helicopter. Especially, since this guy says he has the gear to shoot down helicopters.