Well, governmental agencies didn't ask permission from the FAA to fly drones, anyway, right? I don't think this changes anything for them.

If you're OP: Dude stop posting, deleting, changing, and then re-deleting your comments. You are making valid points, there's no need to do this, even if I don't agree with you, these are valid points.

Sadly, I'm not OP. :/

I'd argue that the rules are the same for the government and private citizens. Specifically in the law enforcement context, in Florida v. Riley, evidence obtained by observation from the air was admitted only because the police were operating an aircraft in a way that any ordinary citizen could: "Any member of the public could legally have been flying over Riley's property in a helicopter at the altitude of 400 feet and could have observed Riley's greenhouse. The police officer did no more." A slightly older but similar case, Ciraolo, said "The Fourth Amendment simply does not require the police traveling in the public airways at this altitude to obtain a warrant in order to observe what is visible to the naked eye." Both included an important distinction that the police were observing from a lawful vantage point, where anyone else could lawfully observe the same things.

So, there's that. Whether the government has more latitude to use airspace in non-standard ways during emergencies and exigencies is a different question, just as they can legally run a red light for the same reasons.