Assignment: Integrating New Technology in Law Enforcement Practice/Student Replies

p.312

C H A P T E RC H A P T E R 1313

© POOL New

Media Library

CHAPTER 13 Media Library

V I D E O L I N KV I D E O L I N K

Can technology and training strengthen community policing af- ter Ferguson?

New crime mapping system in Greensboro

Anderson Police Trade Batons for Nunchucks as Nonlethal Weapon of

TECHNOLOGY AND THE POLICE

Choice

P O L I C I N G I N P R AC T I C E V I D E OP O L I C I N G I N P R AC T I C E V I D E O

Director of IT and Electronic Security

What are the advantages and disad- vantages of body cameras?

What is one example of how tech- nology helped to solve a call?

What technology in your depart- ment do you find important? Why?

What technology should students interested in policing careers learn or be educated on?

AU T H O R V I D E OAU T H O R V I D E O

Technology and policing

How does law enforcement use so- cial media and new means of technology?

W E B L I N KW E B L I N K

New Cellphone Surveillance Safe- guards Imposed on Federal Law Enforcement

AU D I O L I N KAU D I O L I N K

After SCOTUS DNA Ruling, What Changes for Police?

S AG E J O U R N A L A RT I C L ES AG E J O U R N A L A RT I C L E

Surveillance technologies and the crises of confidence in regulatory agencies

CHAPTER LEARNING OBJECTIVES:

1. Evaluate the cost and benefits of technology in policing

2. Summarize the variety of ways that computers have affected policing

3. Identify and describe the issues surrounding the increased use of video cameras by police and the private security industry

4. Describe the many constitutional issues now confronting judicial and legislative bodies presented by the growth of surveillance technologies

5. Explain how crime mapping is used in crime analysis and crime prevention

6. Describe the four main biological identifiers and how they are used in investigations

7. List the main tools officers use for speed detection

8. Discuss the effects of technology on police armor and weaponry, both lethal and nonlethal, and identify any legal issues associated with the use of these various technologies

“T

© Signatures Collection

The “eye in the sky” image is an example

of the sophisticated technologies

available to law enforcement and private

security personnel.

p.313

echnology, in a very real sense, is transforming policing in

fundamental respects. New and emerging technologies are playing an increasingly crucial role in the daily work of frontline police officers, equipping them with

enforcement and investigative tools that have the potential to make them better

informed and more effective.”1 The first technological advances that changed policing in the United States were the telephone, the two-way radio, and the

automobile (see Figure 13.1).2 There are two basic currents in new police technologies: information technology and “hard” technology.

■ THE COSTS AND BENEFITS OF TECHNOLOGY

Technology has continued to change rapidly. The Internet has become an invaluable communication and information resource. Wireless computer and cell phone applications appear unlimited, digital technology in televisions and cameras advance at a rapid pace, global positioning systems (GPS) are now standard equipment in many vehicles and on most smartphones, surveillance and targeting are now possible through the use of unmanned aircraft, and all of these are linked together not only on a national level, but internationally. These dramatic changes have affected the police perhaps as much as any other institution, and often in very positive ways. However, as is the case with technological changes at the societal level, not all the changes in policing have been positive. Proper deployment of technological devices in

policing, whether in the public or private sector, requires officer training, judicious discretionary behavior, and a thorough understanding of the legal and ethical issues involved.

Author Video Technology and policing CLICK TO SHOW

All technology users have to be concerned about its misuse as well. Internet users risk hackers obtaining their personal information and using it for illegitimate purposes. The police must be able to understand and investigate a variety of Internet crimes, which include child pornography, conspiracies to commit financial crimes, or identity theft. Cell phones and computers may be used to facilitate terrorism, and GPS can be used to locate the exact positions of police cars with the purpose of evasion.

Increasingly, citizens are worried about the misuse of technological devices to track their every movement and invade their privacy. For example, the ability to hear and “see” through walls may be used to conduct surveillance on us in our most private moments without our knowledge or consent. In fact, almost every innovation seems to create new ways to invade individual privacy; thus, there is an ongoing tension over how much leeway the police should have in using technology and how

much privacy the citizen should retain. The procedural safeguard of privacy is the requirement of a search warrant. For example, thermal imaging detects changes in heat and is especially useful for helping to identify indoor marijuana grows. The powerful lights used to grow marijuana indoors produce a significant amount of detectable heat, and that information can support probable cause for a search warrant. However, attempting to balance the needs of investigation with privacy rights of individuals, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Kyllo v. United States that the police are required to obtain a search warrant even before examining a private

dwelling using the imaging technology.3

Author Video How does law enforcement use so- cial media and new means of technol- ogy? CLICK TO SHOW

p.314

Figure 13.1 ■ Historic Technological Advances of the 19th and 20th Centuries

Sources: Adapted from The Evolution and De-

velopment of Police Technology, by

Seaskate, Inc., 1998, National Institute of

Justice; “Touch DNA: From the crime

scene to the crime laboratory,” by J. Mi-

nor, April 12, 2013. Forensic Magazine;

“Law enforcement investigation tools ex-

pand beyond DNA to bacteria,” by D.

Weiss, January 22, 2015. Public Safety;

“Facial recognition software moves from

overseas wars to local police,” by T.

Williams, August 12, 2015. The New York

Times; “70 percent of U.S. police depart-

ments use license plate readers,” by J.

Hsu, July 8, 2014. IEEE Spectrum; “North

Dakota legalizes armed police drones,” by

L. Wagner, August 27, 2015. NPR.

p.315

Technological advances have an allure for all of us. Careful evaluation of the benefits relative to the costs is essential. Technology has the potential to divert critical resources away from more traditional crime prevention and police strategies that may do more to protect

public safety than the newest device.4

Although data can be a useful tool, the overreliance on data can be a shortcoming. Data can supply important information about crime trends and patterns, including when, where, and how crimes occur in a particular area. This helps police agencies to direct valuable resources strategically and with maximum effectiveness. However, many serious crimes are still solved using information gained from community members, who in many cases are better informed about the events in the neighborhood than police officers. It is vital that police departments continue to develop and maintain community partnerships.

There is little argument that technological advances have improved the effectiveness, the efficiency, and even the productivity of police. However, “technology should not move officers away from the interpersonal contact with the community that is vital to developing collaborative partnerships and

solving neighborhood problems.”5 In other

words, it is important that technologies such as mobile data terminals, video cameras, and automated nameplate recognition systems do not prevent police officers from interacting and communicating with the community.

Web Link New Cellphone Surveillance Safe- guards Imposed on Federal Law En- forcement CLICK TO SHOW

Not all the effects of increased technology in police agencies are positive. In 2011, for example, “Highly computerized cities reported larger shares of employees in technical positions, spent more per capita, and reported fewer officers per capita than cities with lower computerization

levels.”6

Each new technology comes at a cost, and police departments have limited budgets. Moreover, the newer a technology, the more expensive it generally is to purchase and to maintain. Highly advanced or cutting-edge technologies often contain “bugs,” defects that have yet to be corrected by the manufacturer. As a general rule, the more advanced, complex, or sophisticated a technology, the more that can go wrong. The cost of a malfunction, depending on the type of technology, can be serious. For example,

when an officer’s MDC (see below) fails because of poor cellular coverage, the officer may lose his or her ability to communicate with other officers in the field, or to receive certain calls for service. In addition, with time, other technologies designed to thwart the latest police tool become available; there is a market for those as well—for example, methods to defeat polygraph tests or urine tests, “bug” detection devices, and radar alarms, to

name a few.7

13.113.1

A Chicago police officer investigating a robbery of an iPhone recently made use of the “Find My iPhone” application to make an arrest. Police stopped the suspect and typed in the victim’s Apple ID and password, and “instantly her stolen phone was pinpointed on the map.”

Police have received training and used similar apps to “track down other brands, such as Droids and BlackBerrys.” In another case, police used the “Find My iPhone” application to locate a phone in a residence, which resulted in the arrest of the perpetrator and the

recovery of the phone.

1. How can law enforcement make better use of emerging technologies like “Find My iPhone?”

2. Should police agencies be allowed to use emerging technologies like “Find My iPhone” to apprehend criminals without waiting for the victim or owner’s consent?

Source: From “Chicago case shows how

to use iPhone app to find a thief,” by

Frank Main, May 2012. Chicago

Sun-Times .

p.316

Additionally, the greater the amount of information available to police officers, the greater the potential gravity of its misuse or abuse. Police officers often have access to personal information about citizens not available to the general public. The information about where people live and the types of vehicles they drive is useful to law enforcement, but can be misused. As the type and amount of information becomes more readily available to the police through advances in technology, agencies will need to take increasing steps to ensure that information is properly controlled.

SAGE Journal Article Surveillance technologies and the crises of confidence in regulatory agencies CLICK TO SHOW

Technological and scientific advances make it possible to collect and preserve a wide variety of types of evidence, but the probative value of such evidence varies from case to case. In an attempt to establish some degree of balance between scientific evidence collected through the use of new technologies and presented by expert witnesses in court and the knowledge and understanding of such evidence on behalf of judges and jurors, a set of rules has been established. The Daubert Standard, as articulated in Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, is particularly instructive:

If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, or experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if: (1) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the

facts of the case.8

The subsections of Rule 702 make it clear that the police must be trained in the collection and preservation of scientific evidence and that they must use appropriate and reliable technology in such collection and preservation. Only then can expert testimony in support of the evidence be admitted and considered

by judges and jurors.9 Other federal rules of evidence and other court decisions

apply as well,10 but the Daubert example should suffice as a caution against the belief that police technology guarantees success in court.

■ COMPUTERS

Over four decades have passed since LEAA (Law Enforcement Assistance Administration) first began its effort to bring technology to the fight against crime. Computers, and especially wireless computers, have become an integral part of the tools of law enforcement.

Officers use computers to access a number of databases, to fill out paperwork, and to record witness statements while they are still at the scene. They can also use wireless technology to upload digital photos they have taken of crime scenes and to check license plate numbers or

suspect IDs against a database of stolen cars or outstanding warrants. They can retrieve a suspect’s criminal record and photograph on the screen in front of them, without having to relay information through a dispatcher. In 2007, about 9 in 10 local police officers worked for a department that used in-field computers,

compared to 3 in 10 officers in 1990.11 By 2013, over 90% of departments that serve communities of at least 25,000 residents had in-field computerized access to driving and vehicle records and outstanding

warrants.12

Mobile digital communicators or mo- bile digital computers (MDCs) in patrol vehicles have been one of the most important technological tools for patrol officers since the introduction of radio communications. In fact, “radio communications for law enforcement may

soon be a thing of the past.”13 In some police departments, MDCs communicate with the city’s main computer system using a computer-aided dispatch (CAD) system, which operates on a cellular radio

frequency.14 In addition to receiving radio assignments using voice communication, officers are able to view assignments on the MDC screen and have car-to-car communication capability. Officers can also receive certain radio assignments by MDC, thereby keeping voice communications to a minimum and

security levels high. Coordinating with GPS technology, dispatchers can see where the patrol cars are on a digital map. Data communications via MDC have several distinct advantages over voice communications:

p.317

• Supervisors are able to review pending assignments, check the status of all patrol units, and communicate directly with any unit by using the MDC. This permits supervisors to spot potential problems and take a proactive approach to managing their resources and workload.

• Transmissions are secure, eliminating concerns about unauthorized scanning and interception of sensitive transmissions.

• MDCs increase available airtime, freeing existing voice frequencies for both officers and dispatchers when engaging in priority transmissions.

• Officers no longer have to “stand by” while other officers and dispatchers are engaged with priority transmissions. Officers have the ability to recall up-to-the-minute pertinent data, premise history, and information on radio assignments.

• Queries of wanted persons, stolen vehicles, or National Crime Information Center (NCIC) status can

be done directly by an officer in an MDC-equipped vehicle. Officers can query as many vehicles and personnel as required, whenever or wherever needed.

• Information is accessed and received faster and more efficiently. Unlike our present voice communications, all MDC-equipped vehicles can make NCIC queries simultaneously.

The use of MDCs allows for the collection of time use statistics, which enable better time management of officers and, thus, greater efficiency. In addition, dispatch- related transactions such as dispatch receipt, status updating, busy updating, and on-view and traffic-stop updating, as well as access to the status of other units, other complaints, location information (hazards/alerts, history, contacts, etc.), optional map display, and unit history, are

all possible.15 Police also use handheld scanners to scan documents or photos and later view these types of images on a computer. For example, fraudulent checks, driver’s licenses, and other documents can be scanned and transferred to a computer via a USB cable or Micro SD (secure digital

memory) card.16

The integration of CAD, records, mobile, and automatic vehicle location (AVL)— including mapping—and many other features and functional tools is another

step forward using combined technologies. Each vehicle reports its position to a computer in dispatch and displays that position on a map. GPS involves a combination of hardware and software that uses satellite technology to provide the latitude and longitude of specific

locations.17 This aids dispatchers when they receive a high-priority call by permitting them to look at the map and determine which officer is closest to the call location. At the same time, patrol officers also see a real-time AVL map in their vehicles and can decide who is closest

to the location in question.18 The technology is particularly useful for remote, often-rural areas that lack specific addresses, including large forest preserve areas. GPS has also been used by police on vehicles of persons under investigation for committing a crime. However, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in United States v.

Jones (2012)19 that police agencies seeking to use a GPS tracking device on a vehicle of a person under investigation must first obtain a search warrant, which refers back to the issue of individual privacy versus the needs of law

enforcement.20

An additional component associated with the AVL is the geographic information system (GIS). A GIS is software that captures, analyzes, and stores spatial data. These programs make it easy to visualize

and interpret geographic information and examine the effects of crime, traffic safety, home foreclosures, and urban planning to

mention a few.22 Although GISs are in use in approximately 63% of large police departments, researchers still know little about the location of police officers when they are not responding to calls for

service.23

p.318

1 3 . 11 3 . 1

Some feel that body-worn cameras can significantly affect the field of policing. Advantages to law enforcement include improving evidence collection, strengthening officer performance and accountability, enhancing agency transparency, documenting encounters between police and the public, and investigating and resolving complaints and officer- involved incidents.

However, the idea of videotaping interactions with citizens does not sit well with many police officers. This shouldn’t surprise anyone in light of the fact that video and audio

equipment has been around for several decades, yet officers and detectives still testify in court about their interview with a suspect (often in an interview room at the police station), but do not offer a recording for the jury to listen to.

1. If cost were not an issue, should city managers force their police department to issue body cameras to officers, requiring them to videotape all encounters with citizens? Why or why not?

2. Should citizens be allowed to tape their own encounters with police, as well as other police incidents they just happen to come across? Why or why not?

Suggestions for addressing these questions can be found on the Student Study Site: e d g e . s a g e p u b . c o m /c ox p o l i c i n g 3 ee d g e . s a g e p u b . c o m /c ox p o l i c i n g 3 e

In Chicago, beginning in 2005, police officers gained access to some 5 million mug shots and other computerized crime information without having to return to

the station.24 Wireless portable data terminals gave police officers on the street instant access to Illinois Citizen and Law Enforcement Analysis and Reporting (I-

CLEAR), a computerized data warehouse designed to allow them to search for suspects based on nicknames, tattoos, country of origin, vehicle make and model, and other characteristics. Files are said to contain everything from information on gang membership and a history of previous police calls at an address to crime reports, arrest warrants and citations, and vital homeland security information, including

watch lists and terrorism alerts.25 Police officers are able to show mug shots to crime victims while they remain at a crime scene and while events are still fresh in the victim’s mind. The longer the time between a crime and the identification of a possible suspect, the greater the chance for error. Officers have the advantage of entering case reports into the system from their vehicles, eliminating the bulk of the previously required paperwork. “I-CLEAR represents an unprecedented partnership between the Illinois State Police (ISP) and the Chicago Police Department, one that promises to position Illinois well in the

regional data-sharing arena.”26

Psychophysiological detection of de- ception (PDD), previously referred to as a polygraph or lie detector, is another evolving technology. The PDD is a device that registers involuntary physical processes such as pulse rate and perspiration and is often used in an attempt to detect whether or not a suspect is telling the truth. The theory is that lying

causes stress, and the instrument is designed to detect the physiological evidence of stress in the body. The early lie detectors were instruments with needles that scribbled lines on a single strip of scrolling paper. These analog machines have been replaced by digital computerized equipment. The scrolling paper has been replaced with sophisticated algorithms and computer monitors. Such computerized PDD systems allow a trained examiner to do voice and audio recordings, to read a subject’s pulse, and to gauge voice responses and other physiological markers. Algorithms allow comparisons of the data collected from a suspect with information known to be truthful and deceptive. In theory, at least, the computerization of the polygraph makes it extremely difficult for a suspect to deceive

the instrument.27

p.319

The Pentagon issued handheld PDDs to U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan to screen local police officers, interpreters, and allied

forces for access to U.S. military bases.28

Such handheld devices are available in other settings as well. For example, portable devices using voice tension technology to measure varying degrees of vibration in the voice are available. Changes in vibrations are alleged to be caused by the person being tested going

from a state of calm to a state of nervousness. These devices may even be connected to cell phones and used to measure changes in vibrations at a

distance.29 It is still questionable whether these devices yield reliable results.

It can take time and experimentation for the limits of a technology to become apparent to the field. The PDD serves as a good example of that process.

Policing in Practice Video Director of IT and Electronic Se- curity CLICK TO SHOW

The reliability of PDD results has been the source of a long-standing controversy. Proponents assert that the most advanced PDD can be calibrated to the individual and that questioning is structured to be individualized and precise. Critics question their reliability, pointing out that some people actually believe their falsehood is the truth or they can control their physical responses and fool the machine.

The Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 (EPPA) recognized and attempted to safeguard against the abuse of information collected by the technology

of the time.30 The act prohibits employers from requiring applicants to take a polygraph test; with certain exceptions,

employers are prohibited from using PDD results in the hiring or promoting of employees or as a basis for discipline or

discharge.31

Also, given the potential for error, many courts do not consider PDD results as evidence admissible in court. See Chapter 4 for a discussion of polygraph use in the hiring of police officers.

Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) is being tried as a method of detecting deception. The fMRI reveals areas of the brain or other anatomy that are experiencing momentary changes in

blood flow or electrical activity.32

Neurophysiologists know that certain areas of the brain activate when recalling memories, while others are stimulated when we’re being creative, e.g. lying. The idea is that a lie requires some creative thought, while answering a question truthfully relies only on memory. Similarly, a suspect can be shown pictures of a crime scene and their brain activity analyzed to see if the image is registering as something never seen before (because they had not been present at the

scene of the crime).33

■ VIDEO CAMERAS

Police use of cameras has proliferated dramatically over the past two decades. As digital technology has become increasingly available, the use of cameras to record and store evidence has become invaluable to the police. Cameras are now attached to everything from patrol cars to uniform lapels to Tasers, and they are increasingly deployed by both public and private police to assist in the surveillance of property, traffic patterns, crowds, airports, other transportation hubs, and more. The police also used thermal imaging and infrared cameras during searches both by land and by air. For example, indoor marijuana growing operations can be located by thermal imaging, but the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Kyllo v. United States (see page 313) that police are required to obtain a search warrant before examining

a private dwelling with this technology.34

The use of CCTV (closed-circuit television) in England has been widely publicized, as has the use of red light cameras (which record stoplight violations at intersections) and police in-car cameras. In the United States, systems also exist today that can photograph suspects who are vandalizing property and notify the police

that the vandalism is in progress.35 Graffi- ti cameras (talking surveillance cameras) warn intruders to leave the area and that their photograph has been obtained. An additional video camera advancement involves the use of an eight-pound,

remote-controlled submarine that can

send video footage to police.36 The submarine has been used to search underwater for missing persons and explosives.

p.320

Vehicle Cameras

Police vehicles are increasingly being fitted with video cameras (with sound-recording capability) that can record activity inside or outside the car. Such cameras record information that can later be used to determine whether officers followed departmental policy, whether officers or those they encountered were harassed, whether anyone violated the law, the identities of those involved in an encounter, facts about the location of a stop, and the make and license number of a vehicle stopped by the police. Evidentiary information recorded can later be used in court to prove or disprove witness statements or can be evaluated as evidence in itself.

Advocates of the cameras say they provide officers with additional evidence to convict traffic offenders, especially in DUI (driving under the influence) cases. The cameras are also touted as a way of protecting officers against false complaints of brutality and racial profiling. Motorists benefit from the camera, because officers

are less likely to misbehave during traffic stops if they know they are being taped. As one officer put it, “With the video camera, it makes you a better officer because you know you’re being videotaped. . . . I would never want to work without a camera. If I

had to, I’d feel it was a disadvantage.”37

Today the video display can “show not only what’s being seen by the in-car video cameras of that one officer’s squad, but also get tactically significant video from another officer’s car—or another video feed like traffic cameras or security cameras connect to the system—to get eyes on the target before even arriving at a

scene.”38 Based on numerous similar accounts, police agencies throughout the country have adopted these cameras for the benefit of both the public and their officers. The advantages in terms of improved community relations and increased professionalism appear thus far to outweigh the disadvantages. (See Figure 13.2.)

Figure 13.2 ■ Use of In-Car Video Cameras by Local Police Departments, by Size of Population Served, 2000, 2007, and 2013

Source: Local police departments, 2013:

Equipment and technology, by B. A.

Reaves, 2015. Bureau of Justice

Statistics.

In 2005, the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) conducted research to evaluate the impact of in-car camera systems on state police and highway patrol agencies. Study results, based on surveys, focus groups, and on-site interviews, indicated that the cameras were of considerable value in the following ways:

p.321

• Enhanced officer safety

• Improved agency accountability

• Reduced agency liability

• Simplified incident review

• Enhanced new recruit and in-service training (post-incident use of videos)

• Improved community and media perceptions

• Strengthened police leadership

• Advanced prosecution/case resolution

• Enhanced officer performance and professionalism

• Increased homeland security

• Upgraded technology policies and

procedures39

The authors of the report also found that agencies sometimes failed to view the entire camera system continuum by neglecting components such as storing, filing, and retrieving video evidence. Some agencies also failed to gather sufficient information on officer attitudes, long-term equipment maintenance costs, and other

policy areas.40

Body-Worn Cameras

Following the 2014 police shooting of Michael Brown, an unarmed Black man, in Ferguson, Missouri, a grand jury acquitted the officer involved. The African American community erupted in protest, to which the police responded with force and military-style equipment; more violence ensued. In the wake of these events, the discussion of body-worn cameras for the police expanded. President Obama asked for $263 million to support community policing efforts to help rebuild trust in the

police, $75 million of which was designated for body-worn cameras, also

known as “cop cams” or “body cams.”41

Previously, a New York judge included these cameras in her judicial order after ruling that the city’s “stop and frisk”

program was unconstitutional.42

Policing in Practice Video What are the advantages and disad- vantages of body cameras? CLICK TO SHOW

These recording devices may seem like the answer to the problem of the police acting with impunity. They are like the public’s eyes on the cops. In 2013, approximately one-third of departments were already

using body cameras.43 Many officers welcome them and feel they offer protection against unjustified accusations. Some communities are already reporting a reduction in complaints of excessive use of

force.44

However, there are still many important questions about the use of body cameras on police officers. To begin with, the cameras still offer only one point of view. Different people can look at the same video and interpret it in two completely

different ways.45 So, a video from the police officer’s point of view does not necessarily provide the best-possible perspective. The cameras are only one of

many tools, and there is a danger in relying too heavily on them. The question of who controls the on-off switch is of critical importance. If officers can turn their cameras off themselves, the question of discretion is still at the forefront. If officers cannot turn the cameras off, there is the problem of whether the department can protect the privacy rights of witnesses, bystanders, confidential informants, victims, and officers themselves. In these times of increasing government surveillance, there is the question of whether the police use of body-worn cameras constitutes an unjust expansion of that surveillance. In addition, there are the questions of the storage and security of the footage. Video files must be carefully protected to maintain their integrity as evidence and to ensure they won’t be tampered with or improperly leaked to the

public.46 Without proper training and procedures in the use of body cameras, this tool has the potential to increase instead of reduce the public’s mistrust of the police. Of course, agencies will also have to address the issue of the costs to buy, maintain, and use the equipment. There is as yet very little research to support any claims of effectiveness, so most of these questions remain to be answered, possibly in the courts.

Video Link Can technology and training strengthen community policing after

Ferguson? CLICK TO SHOW

p.322

Mobile Phone Cameras

In addition to cameras installed by the police department, the majority of citizens are walking around with cameras in their pockets. Since the pivotal moment of the Rodney King beating by Los Angeles police officers in 1991, witnesses have taken videos of police interactions in a more or less happenstance way. In most of these cases, the police were unaware of the filming; their behavior was documented without their knowledge, which tends to alarm the public and lead to the conclusion that police act badly on their own when they think no one is watching.

Because citizens are increasingly aware of problematic police interaction, they may be more likely to pull their phones out of their pockets and document what they see. The police as well are likely to be increasingly aware of the possibility of being filmed at any time. Some observers are taking this a step farther into the prevention of unwanted police behavior, not only the “proof” of it.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of California has developed an application

for mobile phones that allows citizens to record police actions. The recorded video goes directly to an ACLU server that stores the footage even if the phone is destroyed. Additionally, a user can alert other nearby users about the incident. The ACLU is making a “Know Your Rights” guide available as part of the launch of this tool, which over 40,000 people downloaded in

the first week.47

Policing in Practice Video What is one example of how tech- nology helped to solve a call? CLICK TO SHOW

Similar applications were already in use in New York City to record stop-and-frisk incidents and in Ferguson, Missouri. Compelled by events in Missouri, three Georgia teenagers developed a phone app called “Five-O” that allows users to record and rate their interactions with police officers and then share the reports they create with others. The user can immediately alert a predefined list of recipients of the incident as it is happening, and the app pinpoints the user’s location

through GPS.48 Though inspired by incidents of excessive force and serious police misconduct, these tools have the potential to record positive interactions with the police as well.

This is an example of the public taking a

proactive approach to holding the police accountable for their actions. However, citizen documents may be problematic in many of the same ways that cameras worn by police officers or installed in patrol cars are—for example, the issue of protecting the privacy of bystanders or victims and ensuring the integrity of the footage.

■ SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY

Wiretapping originated before the invention of the modern telephone, when telegraph wires were literally tapped to intercept communications. Statutes prohibiting the use of wiretaps in this regard were enacted in the 1860s, and, from the 1890s until the present day, it has been illegal in the United States for unauthorized persons to listen in on or record private phone conversations.

However, in 1928, the U.S. Supreme Court approved the practice of wiretapping by the police and other government officials, and it was not until the 1960s that the requirement that police personnel obtain a court order to listen in on private conversations (under most circumstances) came into existence. Specifically, in 1968, Congress passed the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, which established strict procedures for conducting interception of wire, oral, and

electronic communications.49

With the development and expansion of the Internet, new concerns arose. Because Internet communications are not actually verbal conversation, they were not protected by the same laws that protected traditional phone use. This became and remains a concern, because government officials as well as others can view information transmitted over the Internet using sophisticated technology. In 1986, the U.S. government enacted the Elec- tronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) wiretapping regulation, which protects email, pagers, and cell phone

calls.50 Technology changes extremely rapidly and mostly in the private sector; politics and legislation are constantly trying to catch up and respond to the new situations created by an evolving technosphere.

p.323

Technology changes extremely rapidly and mostly in the private sector; politics and legislation are constantly trying to catch up and respond to the new situations created by an evolving technosphere.

The events of September 11, 2001, changed many things, including laws

having to do with electronic eavesdropping. In October 2001, former president Bush signed legislation expanding the ability to tap telephones and track Internet usage in the hunt for terrorists. The bill, known as the USA PATRIOT Act (see Chapter 9), updated and clarified the ECPA and gave federal authorities much wider latitude in monitoring Internet usage and expanded the way such data are shared among different agencies. Under the Foreign In- telligence Surveillance Act (FISA), for example, the purpose of electronic surveillance must be to obtain intelligence in the United States on foreign powers (such as enemy agents or spies) or individuals connected to international terrorist groups. The government must show the FISA court probable cause that the target of the surveillance is a foreign power or agent of a foreign power to obtain authorization to eavesdrop. However, if the attorney general determines that an emergency exists, he or she may authorize the emergency employment of electronic surveillance before obtaining the necessary authorization from the FISA court. Having taken such emergency measures, the attorney general must notify a judge of the court not more than 72 hours after the authorization of such surveillance.

Since the 1980s, National Security Let- ters (NSLs), which are written demands

from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) that compel Internet service providers, credit companies, financial institutions, and others to hand over confidential records about their customers (such as subscriber information, phone numbers, email addresses, websites visited, and more), have been used to collect extensive information concerning electronic communications. The USA PATRIOT Act expanded the kinds of records that could be obtained with an NSL. These letters do not require court approval. The FBI need merely assert that the information requested in the NSL is relevant to an investigation, and recipients are prohibited from disclosing that they

have received the NSL.51

In 2010, President Obama signed a one- year extension of some sections of the USA PATRIOT Act (which had previously been extended by the Bush administration) without approving any new limits on the provisions allowing the government, with permission from the FISA court, “to obtain roving wiretaps over multiple communication devices, seize suspects’ records without their knowledge, and conduct surveillance of a so-called ‘lone wolf,’ or someone deemed suspicious but without any known ties to an organized

terrorist group.”52

In keeping with the changes occurring following 9/11, the FBI developed “a

sophisticated, point-and-click surveillance system that performs instant wiretaps on

almost any communications device.”53 The Digital Collection System Network (DCSNet) “connects FBI wiretapping rooms to switches controlled by traditional land-line operators, internet-telephone

providers and cellular companies.”54

DCSNet consists of software that collects, sifts, and stores phone numbers, phone calls, and text messages.

The system directly connects FBI wiretapping outposts around the country to a far-reaching private communications network. . . . The surveillance system[s] let FBI agents play back recordings even as they are being captured (like TiVo), create master wiretap files, send digital recordings to translators, track the rough location of targets in real time using cell-tower information, and even stream intercepts outward to mobile

surveillance vans.55

p.324

As might be expected, the expansion of government powers authorized in post- 9/11 legislation has caused considerable concern. Can any of us be certain that conversations we regard as private are not being monitored? Should we give up some degree of privacy in the interests of

homeland security? How far should invasion of privacy go? Should we accept not only having our communications monitored but permitting full-body scans at airports? These and other questions related to technological advances and the potential for abuse by police and other government (and perhaps some private) officials are complex and not easily answered.

Policing in Practice Video What technology in your depart- ment do you find important? Why? CLICK TO SHOW

In combination, computers and cameras have proven useful to the police. For example, in Murrysville, Pennsylvania, police vehicles are equipped with laptops that receive live video feeds from school buildings in the district and are able to access electronic floor plans and building diagrams. According to Chief Tom Seefield, “We’re trying to be proactive and be prepared for anything that lies ahead for us. If we have an incident in the school district, such as a gunman or somebody in there trying to kidnap a child, we would be able to go on the laptops, and the cameras in each school giving us the ability to get a live video feed. . . . That gives us eyes from outside the building to help us better prepare and plan prior to entering the

building.”58 In police departments in

Denver, Colorado; Washington, DC; Ann Arbor, Michigan; and Louisville, Kentucky; among others, mobile cameras read license plates of parked and moving vehicles and

compare them to vehicle databases.59 The system, known as a license plate recogni- tion (LPR) system, helps the police fight motor vehicle theft and identify unregistered cars, and it may be of use in AMBER Alert searches as well. LPRs are one version of automatic number plate recognition (ANPR), which uses optical character recognition to read the license plates on vehicles. The system takes pictures of a vehicle license plate and processes the numbers and letters using the optical recognition software against a

known database.60 While some are concerned about potential misuse as revenue generators and as devices to track vehicle movements for questionable purposes, the technology appears to be

gaining acceptance across the country.61

Although LPR technology has increased in use, research results have not found a significant crime deterrent effect, either

general or offense specific.62 (See Figure 13.3.)

Exhibit 13.1

A Policy Framework for the Deployment of Police Technology

In response to the proliferation of new and unregulated technologies, and in recognition of their surveillance power, potential dangers, and encroachment into the private lives of citizens, the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) developed a policy framework for the deployment of police technology.

The IACP emphasizes the need for comprehensive policy that covers technology objectives, deployment, privacy protections, records management, data quality, systems security, data retention and purging, access and use of stored data, information sharing, accountability, training, and sanctions for noncompliance. Its specific recommendations include the following:

1. Determine the intended use and the benefits to law enforcement goals and public safety requirements

2. Engage the community in the planning process and assure the public and the media of the agency’s intentions to protect privacy

3. Inform the public of all use

4. Operate equipment only with trained and certified

personnel; approve all use by a supervisor

5. Fully document all use and audit all documentation

6. Do not equip a remote apparatus with weapons

7. With specific and arguable exceptions, secure a search warrant prior to conducting surveillance or searches

8. Do not retain images56

In addition, the IACP describes the need for appropriate policies. “Policies function to reinforce training and to establish an operational baseline to guide officers and other personnel in proper procedures regarding its use. Moreover, policies help to ensure uniformity in practice across the agency and to enforce accountability. Policies should reflect the mission and values of the agency and be tightly aligned with applicable local, state, and federal laws, regulations, and judicial

rulings.”57

p.325

Internet protocol (IP) cameras are basically CCTV cameras that use the Internet to transmit image data and

control signals over an Ethernet link. These cameras are commonly used by the police for surveillance and are typically deployed in a network with a digital video recorder (DVR) or a network video recorder (NVR)

to form a video surveillance system.63

Output from multiple cameras can be monitored from remote locations and images stored securely for future use. Police applications include traffic monitoring through the use of cameras placed at appropriate intervals along roadways, in subways, or in tunnels. IP camera networks can also be used to monitor employees in cases involving theft, involving compliance with regulatory requirements, and where employees are suspected of conspiring to commit crimes or acts of terrorism. Further, the cameras can be used to provide views of remote sites that are not easily accessible or are extremely dangerous, such as suspected

terrorist training camps.64 Thus, IP applications cover the gamut of police activities, ranging from local traffic control through Department of Homeland Security (DHS) surveillance of suspects and sensitive locations. As is the case with all surveillance technology, opportunities for abuse using IP technology certainly exist.

© Signatures Collection

This police car is fitted with two forward-

facing automatic number plate

recognition (ANPR) units mounted on the

trunk, which can be used to take pictures

of license plates and check them against

police databases.

p.326

Figure 13.3 ■ Use of Selected Video Technologies by Local Police Departments

Source: Local police departments, 2013:

Equipment and technology, by B. A.

Reaves, 2015. Bureau of Justice

Statistics.

Drones and Robots

Technology that has potential benefits for the police continues to expand. More than 50 institutions, including dozens of universities and law enforcement agencies, have received a certificate of authorization (COA) from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to operate remotely piloted aircraft known as drones. In the United States, the FAA has “the responsibility to ensure that the privacy of individuals is protected and that the public is fully informed about who is using drones in public airspace and why,” according to

the same legislators.65 It appears that dozens of companies are currently developing over 100 different drone systems, ranging from miniature models to those with wingspans comparable to

airliners.66 Those approved include not only agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security but also smaller ones such as police departments in North Little Rock, Arkansas, and Ogden, Utah, as well the University of North Dakota and

Nicholls State University in Louisiana.67

However, the FAA will not release the

number of agencies it has issued COAs.68

AP Photo/Noah Berger

Sgt. Jim Linn retrieves the Alameda

County Sheriff’s Office drone while

demonstrating a search and rescue

operation on Friday, Aug. 14, 2015, in

Dublin, Calif. As law enforcement joins

the ranks of hobbyists sending drones

into California skies, civil liberties

advocates are raising the specter of

unchecked police surveillance and state

lawmakers are drafting limits.

p.327

Robots are emerging quickly as another seemingly futuristic trend in many arenas, including policing. Potentially ranging from R2-D2 to RoboCop, robot developers may have the goal of reducing crime in mind.

However, the for-profit companies involved in technology innovation are not necessarily thinking about the Constitution. One such company, Knightscope, is developing an autonomous bot that roams around and collects data through thermal imaging and facial and license recognition sensors, among other

things.69 Proponents claim that robots will expand the capacity of the police to monitor a burgeoning population, which would otherwise outpace the traditional police. It doesn’t seem that they have yet addressed the vulnerability of such equipment on the streets of the United States’ tough cities. The extreme scenario for robot technology would be fully autonomous weapons, which are allegedly being developed for the military.

As is the case with most new police technology, drones and robots are controversial and raise many issues related to safety and privacy rights and whether the use of such technology for surveillance is consistent with the U.S. Constitution and U.S. values. This may be especially true in the case of these new technologies, because “even the smallest drones can carry a host of surveillance equipment, from video cameras and thermal imaging to GPS tracking and cellphone eavesdropping tools. They can also be equipped with advanced forms of radar detection, license plate cameras, and facial

recognition.”70

■ CRIME MAPPING

Crime mapping has long been associated with crime analysis and is a process that uses a GIS to conduct spatial analyses of crime problems and other police issues. Crime analysis is the systematic study of crime and disorder problems to assist police in apprehending criminals, reducing and preventing crime and disorder, and

evaluating methods.71

1 3 . 11 3 . 1

“Western Australian police are using number-plate recognition technology to spot motorists with drug convictions and then subject them to roadside saliva testing and vehicle searches.” The technology is able to scan a vehicle plate and reveal convictions against the owner of the vehicle, outstanding warrants, and whether the owner has a valid driver’s license and valid vehicle license. Police determined that the prior convictions of the motorists met the standard of a reasonable suspicion required to conduct a search.

1. Western Australian police report that the technology is

assisting them in “intelligence- led” operations. Prior to the use of number-plate recognition technology, police stopped drivers “in a random manner.” However, one police minister is “not convinced that the police had the legal right to search private vehicles solely based on the basis that the driver had a drug conviction.” The U.S. Constitution provides a reasonable expectation of privacy. Do you believe that number-plate recognition technology constitutes a “reasonable” search? Explain.

2. Do you believe that prior drug offenses provide sufficient reasonable suspicion to search a motorist’s vehicle? Why or why not?

Source: From “Police use of technology

to target drug users,” by Ronan O’-

Connell, July 2011. The Western

Australian. Retrieved June 2012

from http://au.news.yahoo.com.

p.328

Some of the earliest crime mapping involved sticking different-colored pins into a wall map to indicate the location of

reported crimes. The problem with wall maps is they are difficult to keep updated and accurate and can only display limited

data.72 Another form of crime mapping involves computer maps. The third type of crime mapping, briefly discussed earlier in this chapter, involves a GIS and is different from the pin and computer maps. The GIS “allows an analyst to view data behind the geographic features, combine various features, manipulate the data and maps,

and perform statistical functions.”73

For example, at the Jacksonville County Sheriff’s Office in Florida, the Crime Analysis Unit cleans, classifies, and merges data from multiple tables in the Record

Management System.74 This information is geocoded and delivered to a base map containing a variety of geographic layers. The analysts at Jackson County employ geospatial and temporal techniques to identify emerging crime patterns and at the same time analyze long-term crime problems. The county uses criminal incidents, field interviews, arrests, and

other data in its analysis.75

Video Link New crime mapping system in Greensboro CLICK TO SHOW

Additional analysis often involves the creation of density analysis maps, which

are commonly referred to as “hot spots.”76

Density analysis can reveal areas of elevated crime activity and can also be used to perform geographic profiling. The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) discovered that the statistical program CrimeStat and a desktop GIS will permit police to accomplish the following tasks:

• Identify and analyze hot spots within larger areas

• Plot crime incidents on a map

• Track offender behavior over time

• Estimate a serial offender’s

residence77

The interest in crime mapping and analysis has not been confined to police agencies. WikiCrimes is a unique new use of Internet technology to promote collaborative relationships between citizens and law enforcement by providing a “common interaction space for the general public where they can note criminal activity and track the locations where such crimes occur.” Although the effectiveness of WikiCrimes has not yet been evaluated, both law enforcement and the academic community might use WikiCrimes as a

means for partnership.78

13.213.2

Americans are increasingly tracking crime trends as police departments install Internet-based crime mapping services. The services obtain live feeds from police agencies and immediately post them to their Internet site.

Many crime-mapping sites were developed in 2007 with the addition of Google Maps. “An Internet-enabled mapping service that provides satellite images for most urban areas, Google maps gave crime mapping a cost-effective foundation. The crime mapping services were then able to focus exclusively on software that recognized addresses and build systems capable of pulling data from police records.”

1. Although crime-mapping tools can provide a host of useful information, what might the privacy issues be surrounding the use of crime-mapping data?

2. If you were the victim of a crime, how would you feel about sharing that information on a public forum?

Source: From “New programs put crime

stats on the map,” by B. White,

2009. The Wall Street Journal, p.

D1.

p.329

13.313.3

Legislature Could Try Again on Eavesdropping

Although some Illinois legislators made serious attempts to change the state’s strict eavesdropping statute, many criticized bills that would have allowed both the police and other citizens to audio record one another. There were at least three serious attempts to change the state’s strict eavesdropping statute during the legislative session in 2012.

The Senate considered the third attempt—House Bill 1263—as it went into legislative overtime. Some lawmakers criticized the bill, which would have allowed both police officers and citizens, in public and when interacting with one another, to record each other.

“Our state constitution has specific language in it that speaks to eavesdropping, and we’re throwing out our constitution on June 1. . . . We ought not to do this,” said Sen. Kwame Raoul (D-Chicago).

HB1263 was intended to require the person recording to inform everyone else involved that the recording was under way. Raoul said in his conversation with the bill’s chief sponsor, Sen. Michael Noland (D- Elgin), the only notification a police officer would need is his uniform and his badge.

The Senate never voted on the measure. After 15 minutes of debate on the bill, Noland withdrew it.

“Obviously, there is a great deal of misinformation on this bill, and it’s going to take a little more education of my colleagues here,” Noland said.

Rep. Elaine Nekritz (D-Northbrook) said she is very reluctant to support Noland’s version of the legislation. “I think you’re opening the door to police being able to engage in a conversation, get people to say things on the record—when that person may or may not be involved in anything— without having to go out for a warrant or read their Miranda rights,” Nekritz said. “I am very leery of that.”

During a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) summit held in Chicago in May 2012, the police did not enforce a state law that would have made it a felony to record

someone without that person’s permission. Thus, protestors and demonstrators using smartphones and video cameras could record the police without their knowledge. Enforcement would have been extremely difficult under the circumstances, and the constitutionality of the Illinois law was subsequently challenged in court. Still, some argue that, whether or not it is enforced, as long as the law prohibiting audio recording without permission remains on the books, it is problematic.

Chicago’s police superintendent said that the “Illinois eavesdropping law is a ‘foreign concept’ to him. He said the police can benefit from having events recorded so there are no false

accusations of misconduct later.”79

In 2014, the Illinois Supreme Court held that the state eavesdropping law “criminalized innocent conduct” and violated free-speech rights by prohibiting recording conversations with police or another citizen without

that person’s permission.80 However, late in the year, the state house and senate reinstated the prohibition by wide voting margins. The new bill makes it a felony to “surreptitiously record a private conversation” if at least one person had a reasonable

expectation of privacy. The law is vague about what constitutes a public encounter and therefore what constitutes an expectation of privacy. Ironically, it appears that the legislature acted to prevent the public from recording the police and

not the other way around.81

1. Do you believe that police officers and private citizens should be allowed to record each other in public places, such as coffee shops, restaurants, and parks? Why or why not?

2. Do you believe that an officer’s uniform and badge is enough notification to surreptitiously record conversations with private citizens? Why or why not?

3. With the proliferation of cell phone cameras and recording devices, is there any reason to continue debating privacy issues? Should people simply behave as if every conversation is being recorded and useable as evidence in the event of a crime?

Sources: “Legislature could try again on

eavesdropping in fall,” by D.

Thomas, June 4, 2012. The State

Journal-Register. “Chicago police

can be recorded at NATO summit,”

by J. Keyser, April 29, 2012. Journal

Star (Peoria), p. B7; “Illinois Gen. as-

sembly revives recording ban,” De-

cember 5, 2014. IllinoisPolicy.org.

p.330

■ BIOLOGICAL IDENTIFIERS

Fingerprints

Because they identify unique individuals, fingerprints have been used for many years to identify victims, suspects, and perpetrators. They are also used to access secure facilities and equipment and to check for criminal records. The police have routinely kept fingerprints of criminals on file for years, but because they had to be checked by hand for a match, and because the files were often maintained locally and not shared with other agencies, they were seldom used to their full potential. Currently, however, prints are stored as electronic pictures on computers and are accessible to police around the world. Computers can now rapidly scan millions of files and can locate possible matches. If a suspect’s fingerprints are on file somewhere in the world, it is likely that a specific police agency can locate them and

identify the suspect.82

Policing in Practice Video What technology should students in- terested in policing careers learn or be educated on? CLICK TO SHOW

One development in fingerprint technology is the increasingly widespread use of fingerprint scanners. A fingerprint scanner system has two basic jobs—it needs to get an image of the finger, and it needs to determine whether the pattern of ridges and valleys in this image matches the pattern of ridges and valleys in prescanned images.

Once the scanner processor ascertains that a clear image has been captured, it compares the print to stored data. This is done using algorithms to compare specific features of the fingerprint, known as minutiae. To get a match, the scanner system has to find a sufficient number of minutiae patterns that the two prints have

in common.83 There are numerous uses of fingerprint scanners in both private and public policing. There are clear-cut advantages over ink and paper prints, those most obvious being the speed with which analysis can be accomplished.

Facial Recognition

New surveillance and identification techniques that can be used to identify and eavesdrop on unwitting community

members are emerging quickly and being implemented before society can determine the legitimate use of those tools. There are always reasons to adopt more powerful law enforcement tools, but these must be weighed against the constitutional rights to privacy of regular citizens, which the new tools increasingly undermine. Proponents of new technologies often claim that they help the police respond immediately to crimes in progress or to intercept criminals before they can carry out their plans. On the other hand, we have seen the erosion of constitutional privacy rights and ever more intrusive means of gathering information. The police are becoming capable of identifying a person stopped for a traffic violation with only a photo, amassing huge databases and accessing existing ones such as driver’s license photos, storing information of law- abiding citizens. This may be a case of it being easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.

© Signatures Collection

The use of fingerprint scanners has

greatly accelerated the speed with which

law enforcement can complete

comparison analysis.

p.331

In 2013, the Chula Vista Police Department, near San Diego, began piloting the use of facial recognition technology. The Tactical Identification System matches photos that officers take in the field to those stored in databases of 350,000 arrestees and 1.5 million booking photos. With facial recognition, the police can compare a photo of an individual almost instantly to the faces in the database and identify the person in question, no ID required. Without a photo, they can view driving records, criminal records, and immigration status. The police can also identify someone who is injured and unresponsive.

The program—in use by the San Diego Police and Sheriff’s Departments—was rolled out quietly, without any public hearing or notice. This came at a time when the debate on the sharing of massive amounts of data on the public is

widespread and ongoing.84 The information storage is a key factor; the San Diego Police Department claims that the

data are safeguarded, but it appears to be up to individual officers to delete photos

from their handheld devices.85

The technology was originally developed for use in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; thus, this is another example of military technology being adapted for domestic use in law enforcement.

DNA

DNA evidence can be used to identify a perpetrator—even decades after the

commission of a crime.87 DNA (deoxyri- bonucleic acid) is one of two types of molecules that encode genetic information. While only about one-tenth of a percent of DNA (about 3 million bases) differs from one person to the next, scientists can use these variable regions to generate a DNA profile of an individual, using samples from blood, bone, hair, and other body tissues and products. In criminal cases, this generally involves obtaining samples from crime scene evidence and a suspect, extracting the DNA, and analyzing it for the presence of a

set of specific DNA regions or markers.88

Exhibit 13.2

Facial Recognition Software

Facial recognition is one of several types of biometric information on the cutting edge of identity technology. The FBI has developed a comprehensive program called Next Generation Identification, which comprises the following developing technologies:

• Advanced Fingerprint Identification Technology increases accuracy, processing speed, and system availability.

• The Repository for Individuals of Special Concern (RISC) allows officers to rapidly identify wanted persons, suspected terrorists, and registered sex offenders.

• The Interstate Photo System is a database of 23 million photos that provide leads but not positive identification.

• The Universal Latent File and National Palm Print System (NPPS) contain millions of palm prints that are searchable on a nationwide basis.

• The Rap Back Service notifies law enforcement agencies of criminal activity by parolees and probationers.

• Iris Recognition is a new tool to accurately identify individuals

that is becoming more accurate

and more widespread.86

p.332

13.413.4

Sheriff’s Department Surveillance Program Angers Residents

The sheriff’s department in Los Angeles had detected a string of necklace snatchings in Compton and were looking for a solution. Over nine days in early 2012, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department flew a small plane in a continuous loop over the city of Compton, filming it in real time. The plane was equipped with a dozen wide-angle industrial imaging cameras that recorded low- resolution footage of every area in the city (the equivalent of 800 video cameras) and sent them to Compton Sheriff’s Station. At the station, deputies observed the local crime, as well as the everyday activities of the city’s residents. The flights were part of an aerial surveillance campaign aimed at fighting crime in the cities

and unincorporated county areas under the sheriff’s jurisdiction. The desert community of Lancaster, approximately 80 miles north of Compton, was also part of the same pilot observation program.

The sheriff’s department publicized the aerial surveillance program at a council meeting in Lancaster. However, anticipating resistance to the idea, the sheriff did not inform the residents of Compton. Two years later, they found out about it from the Center for Investigative Reporting. The revelation angered many Compton residents. In response, Compton mayor Aja Brown proposed a “citizen privacy protection policy” to require sheriff’s officials to make public notification next time they deploy monitoring equipment.

The surveillance program not only angered residents and civil libertarians, but at least one technologist expressed doubts about whether the video was intrusive enough to actually impact crime. The images may be comprehensive, but they are not detailed enough to use for positive identification. The program came at a time of increasing debate over the advantages and dangers of high-tech surveillance techniques, which can be used to

eavesdrop on unwitting community members.

Sheriff’s department officials attempted to defend the program by pointing out that Compton residents had already been under surveillance since 2007 with ground-based video monitoring. A spokesperson for the sheriff’s department stated that the department had decided against fully deploying the program because “it didn’t enhance the law enforcement capacity of the department.” Lancaster officials decided to hire a private contractor to continue to supply them with aerial views for a cost of $90,000 a month.

1. Do you think the sheriff’s department deployed the program appropriately? Why or why not?

2. How much notification should the public receive about police surveillance?

3. What restrictions should the police have to observe with regard to aerial surveillance?

Source: Adapted from “Sheriff’s secret

air surveillance of Compton sparks

outrage,” by A. Jennings, R. Winton,

and J. Rainey, April 23, 2014. Los

Angeles Times. “Hollywood-style

surveillance technology inches clos-

er to reality,” by G. W. Schulz and A.

Pike, April 11, 2014. The Daily Re-

veal.

The analysis technologies used in forensic DNA investigations are beyond the scope of this text; it is safe to say, however, that proper collection and preservation of DNA evidence by crime scene technicians or investigators can both help convict the guilty and exonerate the innocent. According to the Innocence Project, for example, some 200 male prisoners who have served a combined total of 2,496 years have been exonerated by DNA

evidence.89 Although it may be impossible to determine the number of suspects convicted as a result of DNA analysis, the number is certainly significant, and even more advanced technology appears to be on the horizon. It is predicted that DNA chip technology (in which thousands of short DNA sequences are embedded in a tiny chip) will enable faster, less expensive analyses using many more probes and raising the odds against coincidental

matches.90

p.333

Still other developments that may aid police officers in apprehending offenders hold promise for the future. For example, fingerprints can be smudged or impossible

to obtain on some surfaces, and blood, tissue, semen, or saliva may not always be present in sufficient quantities for analytic purposes, but each of us leaves a unique trail of bugs (in this case, hand germs or bacteria) behind as we conduct our daily activities. Some have predicted that bacterial trail will become a valuable new

tool for forensic scientists.91 These bacteria are abundant, can be lifted from small areas, and remain essentially unchanged after two weeks at room temperature. According to some researchers, it may be easier to recover bacterial DNA than human DNA from touched surfaces, although they caution that additional studies are needed to

confirm initial results.92

Audio Link After SCOTUS DNA Ruling, What Changes for Police? CLICK TO SHOW

Among the objections to DNA databases, for example, are the allegations that DNA typing is not a mature enough technology to avoid false matches, that extracting DNA samples invades bodily integrity, that forensic genotyping reveals intensely personal information, that offender databases and data banks might be used for purposes other than criminal justice, that DNA data banking invades the privacy of innocent relatives, and that using

samples from offender data banks for genetics research violates the Nuremberg

Code.93 Other databases are subject to criticism on variations of these objections —for example, that databases on sex offenders sometimes contain inaccurate information and that they punish innocent relatives by identifying them with the listed offenders.

Exhibit 13.3

Police Databases

There are dozens of databases, other than the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS) and DNA data banks, that contain information useful to or provided by police agencies, and many of these are also accessible to the public:

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF)— with the advent of the Internet, seizes the opportunity to employ Internet subscribers in its continuing effort to combat violent crime by advertising wanted persons

Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Fugitives

—contains information about DEA fugitives who are being tracked and are listed by field division, and information concerning major international fugitives and captured fugitives is also available

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Crime Alerts/FBI Most Wanted List—provides information about the FBI’s efforts to locate fugitives and missing persons

FBI Most Wanted Terrorists— includes information concerning alleged terrorists who have been indicted by federal grand juries in various jurisdictions in the United States for the crimes reflected on their wanted posters

FBI National DNA Index System —contains data or records (e.g., the genotypes), and data banks store the original samples taken from offenders

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Most Wanted Fugitives—provides information on ICE’s top fugitives

Interpol Most Wanted—the

official site of the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol) provides rapid access to official, controlled information (National wanted websites, http://www.inter- pol.int/Crime-areas/Fugitive- investigations/National-want- ed-websites).

p.334

Bacterial Forensics

The next frontier for investigations may be the analysis of bacterial traces that can identify specific individuals for forensic purposes. Scientists now believe they can analyze the bacterial exchange between humans and their environment. According to researchers, individuals leave highly detectable microbes behind when they touch things, through their footprints, and

on their cell phones.94 The microbial “fingerprint” appears to be quite stable as well, remaining identifiable up to a year

after its collection.95 As this technology develops, it may in many cases replace the need for DNA analysis, for example in

sexual assault cases.96

■ SPEED DETECTION DEVICES OR SYSTEMS

Police have used a variety of detection systems to monitor vehicle speeds and issue traffic citations for violators. Use of patrol car speedometers was one of the first techniques and may still be used occasionally when more technologically sophisticated systems are unavailable or inoperable. Since the late 1940s, police have used radio detection and ranging (RADAR) systems, which use remote sensors that emit electromagnetic radio waves to determine vehicle speeds. These systems may be either moving (e.g., mounted in patrol cars, aircraft) or stationary to measure the speed of oncoming or receding traffic. They often track one or two targets at a time. Detection ranges vary, but may be up to a

mile or more.97

Photo radar automatically detects a speeding violation and photographs or video records the driver, the vehicle, and the license plate and records vehicle speed

and the date, time, and location.98 In addition, photo radar often connects to a computer or printer to retrieve stored data, including the number and type of prior violations. In many cases, violators do not even know they have been detected and recorded until they receive a ticket and a photograph of the driver and license plate in the mail. Even though the registered owner of the vehicle may not be the driver in the photograph, he or she still receives the ticket.

Laser radars (referred to as LADARs [LAser Detection And Ranging] or LIDARs [LIght Detection And Ranging]) were introduced in the early 1990s and use laser light instead of the radio waves that are the basis of conventional radar to determine speed (the term laser radar is

technically inappropriate).99 As is the case with other speed detection systems, a number of rules apply to the use of lasers to detect speed. These include the following:

© Courtesy of the U.S. Air Force,

http://www.kirkland.af.mil/

Police use handheld RADAR systems to

detect the speed of oncoming or receding

traffic.

p.335

1. Adequate training and experience on the part of the operator

2. Certification of the device as

acceptable in the jurisdiction in question

3. Verification or calibration of the detection device prior to the beginning of the operator’s shift and again at the end of the shift (to ensure the unit is operating properly)

4. Proper inspection and maintenance by the manufacturer

5. Testimony of the operator indicating that the speed reading was properly obtained and was within the limits of the equipment

6. Proper identification of the targeted vehicle

7. Testimony that the detection device was properly operated and positioned at the time of the

reading100

A Visual Average Speed Computer and Recorder (VASCAR) is a semiautomated technique for determining the speed of a moving vehicle is used by the police to apprehend speeders in jurisdictions where RADAR or LIDAR are illegal or to prevent detection by drivers using radar detectors. A VASCAR unit couples a stopwatch with a simple computer. The operator calculates a vehicle’s speed by recording the time it takes the vehicle to pass between two fixed objects that are a known distance

apart.101

The Electronic Non-Radar Detection

Device (ENRADD) speed detection system uses infrared beams to measure a car’s speed as it passes through a three- foot-long section of road. Sensors detect when a vehicle enters and leaves the section. A display unit indicates the

resulting number for the officer.102 Police officers must start and stop the timing device. Motorists who challenge their citations sometimes allege operator error. When using ENRADD, the vehicle triggers the switches starting and stopping the clock. The officer has no hands-on role but simply reads the display, removing this

particular challenge to citations.103

The key to the use of speed detection devices or systems is officer training. When properly deployed, such systems accurately detect not only speed, but also the make and model and license number of the vehicle. In some cases, they also provide identification of the driver.

■ ARMOR AND WEAPONS

Body Armor

Humans have been wearing various forms of body armor for thousands of years, so the concept is an old one. In the 1960s, engineers developed a unique form of soft body armor constructed from advanced woven fibers that could be sewn into vests

and other soft clothing.104 As a result, more than 3,000 police officers’ lives have been saved by body armor since the mid-

1970s.105 However, it is important to note that bulletproof body armor does not exist. Today, body armor can provide protection against various types of handgun ammunition, and the armor is usually categorized and rated for different threat levels. For example, additional protection is normally employed for SWAT team operations, hostage rescues, and special operation assignments in which police officers are exposed to greater threats that require additional protection than

regular-duty body armor.106 In some of these high-risk incidents, even the perpetrators wear body armor to protect themselves from police weapons.

Most agree that body armor affords police officers protection from a variety of assaults and accidents. A police officer not wearing body armor is 14 times more likely to suffer a fatal injury compared to an

officer wearing body armor.107 However, though the number appears to be increasing, many officers fulfill their duties without the protection of body armor. A 2002 survey by DuPont indicated that 45% of U.S. police departments failed to mandate vest wearing by policy. By 2007, however, 67% of local police officers were employed by a department that required them to wear protective body armor at all

times while in the field.108 By 2013, approximately 71% of police departments

required officers to wear body armor.109

(See Figure 13.4.)

p.336

Future body armor research will most likely benefit from experiments being conducted for the U.S. Army. The army hopes to develop an advanced infantry uniform that integrates nanotechnology, exoskeletons, and liquid body armor by

2020.110 This may exist only in concept, but the basic components include the following:

• Helmet—houses a GPS receiver, radio, and wide and local area network connections

• Warrior psychological status monitoring system—layers closest to the body that contain sensors that monitor heart rate, blood pressure, and hydration

• Liquid body armor—consists of a magnetorheological fluid that remains in a liquid state until a magnetic field is applied, at which time it transforms from a soft to a rigid state in thousandths of a second

• Exoskeleton—lightweight composite devices that attach to the legs and augment the strength of the person wearing the uniform

Police Weapons

Society has provided the police with the authority and obligation to enforce the law, sustain order, and ensure the safety of citizens. To fulfill these obligations, police officers need credible means of countering

threats.111 Thus, according to the research, several factors pertain to the weapons police officers use in society— including human considerations, judicial and societal requirements, and tactical and technical issues. In most cases, police employ a use-of-force options chart to assist officers in determining the amount of force to use in a specific situation. The chart dictates the appropriate options based on the subject’s conduct. For example, if a person is assaultive, the officer has the option of using a personal weapon, control holds, or OC spray. In effect, more severe circumstances require more force, and less force is required in less serious circumstances. Less-lethal force is most often appropriate under the following conditions:

Video Link Anderson Police Trade Batons for Nunchucks as Nonlethal Weapon of Choice CLICK TO SHOW

Figure 13.4 ■ Local Police Officers Employed by a Department With Body Armor Wear Requirements for Patrol Officers, 1990–2013

Source: Local police departments, 2013:

Equipment and technology, by B. A.

Reaves, 2015. Bureau of Justice

Statistics.

p.337

© AP Photo/Grand Rapids Press, Chris Clark

Body armor is an important aspect of a

police officer’s uniform, though no body

armor is completely bulletproof.

• Lethal force is not appropriate.

• Lethal force is justified, but lesser force may subdue the person or resolve the situation.

• Lethal force is justified but could cause collateral effects, such as injury

to innocent bystanders.112

The following are several examples of technology that police officers can use in less-than-lethal-force situations:

• Conducted energy device— involves devices, such as Tasers, stun guns, or stun belts, that induce involuntary muscle contractions that temporarily incapacitate the person. These electrical devices produce an

immediate effect. In 2011, over 15,000 police and military agencies used conducted energy devices such as Tasers, compared to 47% in

2003.113

• Directed energy devices— technology that uses radiated energy to achieve similar effects to blunt force, but with a lower probability of injury (Tasers). In many cases, this device stimulates nerve endings, which causes intolerable discomfort to the person but no lasting or long- term effects.

• C h e m i c a l sC h e m i c a l s—involves chemicals such as OC spray, tear gas, and stink bombs.

• D i s t ra c t i o nD i s t ra c t i o n—temporarily incapacitates individuals while causing little harm—includes the laser-based dazzler, bright lights, and noise.

p.338

• Ve h i c l e - s t o p p i n g t e c h n o l o g yVe h i c l e - s t o p p i n g t e c h n o l o g y— includes devices that disrupt and stall a vehicle’s electrical system and tire- deflator devices that immobilize vehicles.

• B a r r i e r sB a r r i e r s—nets, foams, and physical barriers.

• B l u n t f o r c eB l u n t f o r c e—projectiles such as the rubber bullets used in crowd

control.114

Although Tasers are generally considered devices that deliver less-than-lethal force, there have been many incidents in which a person died following being exposed to a Taser by the police. Officers generally resort to a Taser if an individual is noncompliant or resisting arrest. Still, there may be complicating circumstances, such as the individual’s health status, his or her intoxication level, and the specific “dose” from the device. Certainly, given the potential for unnecessary harm, ongoing and improved training on Taser use could help decrease the number of unintentional killings from this less-than-lethal

weapon.115 (See Figure 13.5.)

Physical restraints involve a variety of products that are employed to physically restrain or impede the movement of an individual. They are almost always used in conjunction with less-than-lethal devices. A net gun can discharge a large net and

incapacitate people.116 The net can snare an individual in a web of indestructible nylon and immobilizes the person without physical contact. Another form of physical restraint is a surface chemical substance that makes a surface extremely slippery or extremely sticky.

Finally, research is continuing into the use of calmative agents as a less-than-lethal option for police officers. Calmative agents involve pharmaceuticals or sedative drugs that produce a calming or

tranquil state.117

Excellent examples of new technologies being tested include a handheld detector of concealed weapons that should be available in a few years and the use of acoustic (sonic or ultrasonic) weapons to confuse or incapacitate offenders. The federal government has invested in a weapons detector that emits a sonic pulse; when a knife or gun is present, the pulse is reflected back, triggering an alarm and a light. At least some researchers are convinced that findings clearly demonstrate that acoustic technology is a low-cost alternative to conventional imaging methods for concealed weapons

detection.118 This technology has applications for municipal police as well as DHS officials in settings such as airports, trains, and bus terminals, to mention just a few.

Figure 13.5 ■ Local Police departments authorizing the use of conducted energy weapons, by size of population served, 2000, 2007, and 2013

Source: Local police departments, 2013:

Equipment and technology, by B. A.

Reaves, 2015. Bureau of Justice

Statistics.

p.339

Other sonic or ultrasonic research has focused on the use of weapons that can distract, harass, injure, or even kill a target using sound. At enough decibels, sound can rupture the eardrums and cause extreme pain. Such weapons have been used on some ships to prevent pirates from gaining control, indicating potential international

applications of the technology.119

Police patrol cars throughout the United States are among the most technologically sophisticated and well-equipped vehicles

13

on the road today. Configured with laptop computers or mobile digital terminals/computers, in-car cameras, automated license plate readers, multiband radios, RADAR/LIDAR devices, automated vehicle location, emergency lights, sirens, and much more, the cockpit of the typical police car might appear to the uninitiated to be nearly as complicated as that of a jet airplane and every bit as

crowded.120

CHAPTER SUMMARY

There is perhaps no single issue that has affected the field of policing more than technological advancements. Not that long ago, officers used in-car radios to communicate with their dispatchers and facsimile machines to transmit the fingerprint cards of arrestees to the state bureaus of identification to check for possible outstanding warrants or to learn the criminal histories of their suspects. Now, many departments devote significant resources to equip their officers with highly sophisticated technologies that are used as a matter of routine. The benefits and capacities of technological innovation generally outweigh their financial costs, the possibility of malfunction or misuse,

and the department’s potential vulnerability due to its dependence on a fallible tool.

Some examples of police technology are compact, mobile radios that connect instantly with dispatchers; in- car video cameras to record officers’ interactions with citizens; laptop computers to compose officers’ written reports, conduct driver’s license checks, and receive criminal histories on suspects instantaneously; a computer screen that can scan a suspect’s hand to determine a suspect’s true identity by comparing the prints in question with millions of records maintained by the FBI and state bureaus of identification; cameras in public areas that can record the actions of citizens caught by the camera lenses; new and improved forensic capabilities such as DNA testing; and dozens of other capabilities used in the fight against crime.

These improvements in technology, however, come with potentially serious legal issues—particularly with respect to privacy rights of individuals. Constitutional issues such as invasion of privacy and lack of probable cause have been the subject of much debate among the legal community with respect to these new

technologies. The courts have yet to rule extensively on these matters. Many cases will have to work their way through the legal system.

Finally, sophisticated computer technology has given law enforcement the ability to map crime and gather all of the pertinent details associated with individual acts of crime. Systems like CompStat and I-CLEAR are good examples of these types of police databases. Such programs are of great assistance in the fight against crime, particularly with respect to the prevention of crime. But they too have drawbacks and limitations.

There is no doubt that technology will continue to play an important role in policing. Police departments across the nation and of all sizes must carefully evaluate the tendency toward increased invasion of privacy. The innovations required for the implementation of intelligence-led policing, predictive policing, and other new strategies will likely continue the rapid development of new police technologies. As this occurs, police administrators and the courts will be challenged to stay current with the necessary limits on the use of technology to ensure that police authority is not abused.

Review key terms with eFlashcards.

p.340

KEY TERMS

■ Mobile Digital Communicator (MDC) 316

■ Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD) 316

■ Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) 317

■ Geographic Information System (GIS) 317

■ Illinois Citizen and Law Enforce- ment Analysis and Reporting (I- CLEAR) 318

■ Psychophysiological Detection of Deception (PDD) 318

■ Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 (EPPA) 319

■ CCTV 319

■ Red light cameras 319

■ Graffiti cameras 319

■ Electronic Communications Pri- vacy Act (ECPA) 323

■ Foreign Intelligence Sur- veillance Act (FISA) 323

■ National Security Letters (NSL) 323

■ Digital Collection System Net- work (DCSNet) 323

■ License Plate Recognition Sys- tem (LPR) 325

■ Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) 325

■ Internet protocol (IP) cameras 325

■ Drones 326

■ Crime mapping 327

■ Crime analysis 327

■ Density analysis maps 328

■ Fingerprint scanner 330

■ DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) 331

■ Radio Detection and Ranging (RADAR) systems 334

■ Photo radar 334

■ Laser radars 334

Test your understanding of chapter content. Take the

practice quiz.

■ Visual Average Speed Comput- er and Recorder (VASCAR) 335

■ Electronic Non-Radar Detec- tion Device (ENRADD) 335

■ Body armor 335

■ Conducted energy devices 337

■ Directed energy devices 337

■ Physical restraints 338

■ Calmative agents 338

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

1. Technological changes in policing may have both positive and negative consequences. Discuss some of the potentially positive consequences. What are some of the ethical considerations involved in the proper use of police technology?

2. What are some of the technological applications of mobile data terminals, GPS, and

CAD systems in private and public policing? Are there any major disadvantages to these applications?

3. How do video cameras in police cars (and other mobile video cameras as well) help ensure accountability? What is the role of such cameras in protecting officers and other citizens during police encounters? What are the disadvantages to having mobile cameras record such encounters?

4. Why have crime mapping and associated crime analysis become so popular in policing today? Is the evidence concerning the results of crime mapping and analysis convincing to you? Why or why not?

5. If you were to note one major advantage of DNA analysis for the police, what would it be? What is the major advantage for suspects? What is the major disadvantage for suspects?

6. In your opinion, has the variety of speed detection devices employed by the police reduced the number of drivers who violate speed laws? Why or why not?

7. What have been the major improvements in the area of police body armor and weaponry during the past decade? Is there

any downside to the use of either?

INTERNET EXERCISES

1. View two articles that discuss future trends in policing technology. What are the most recent developments? What are the companies that are producing these technologies?

2. Using JUSTNET.org, choose one of the items on the “Tech Topics” menu and compare that information to two other news articles on the same topic.

p.341

STUDENT STUDY SITE

e d g e . s a g e p u b . c o m /c ox p o l i -e d g e . s a g e p u b . c o m /c ox p o l i -

c i n g 3 ec i n g 3 e

S h a r p e n yo u r s k i l l s w i t hS h a r p e n yo u r s k i l l s w i t h S AG E e d g e !S AG E e d g e !

SAGE edge for Students provides a personalized approach to help you accomplish your coursework goals in an easy-to-use learning

environment. You’ll find action plans, mobile-friendly eFlashcards, and quizzes as well as videos, web resources, and links to SAGE journal articles to support and expand on the concepts presented in this chapter.