Technology use in effective policing strategies

¶ … Technology for Effective Policing

As technological advances proceed at an exponential rate, police must adapt their own tools and behaviors to remain relevant and effective in this new world without creating the opportunity for abuse or public resentment. That is why an investigation into the use of technology for effective policing must examine the topic from a variety of perspectives, looking not only at what technologies have aided police work in the past, but how those technologies are developed as well as any negative side effects incurred from their deployment. Increasingly, police must concern themselves with politically expansive issues such as counter-terrorism, large-scale monitoring, and online crime, leaving less time for traditionally community-specific, beat-oriented policing. Technology can help bridge this gap when applied effectively, but it requires careful attention to the benefits and limitations of specific technologies as well as an eye towards developments to come.

In the book Criminal Justice Technology in the 21st Century, author Laura Moriarty (2005) classifies police technology by breaking down police work into "six functional areas: patrol, investigations, traffic, special operations, command and control, and administration" (p. 98). The most important technological developments for police patrols were the introduction of the patrol car and radio, followed more recently by the widespread adoption of cellular phones among patrol officers. Moriarty notes that "research eventually demonstrated that neither preventative patrol in cars nor rapid response to reported crimes was very effective," and that cell phones and more portable radios have allowed patrol officers to spend more time out of their cars. The now commonplace technology of the cell phone has given the patrol officer greater mobility because he or she can remain connected regardless of transportation mode, and has overcome some of the interoperability issues which plague the variety of two-way radios used by police and other emergency responders. For instance, "in the context of community policing, it has become common for officers to distribute their cell numbers widely, and for residents to call 'their officer' directly with reports of incidents, tips, and requests" (p. 98-99). This has allowed for more direct communication between patrol officers and their communities, but it also exacerbates some of the already-existing interoperability issues regarding police communication. Because centralized dispatchers and management are not privy to the cell phone conversations between patrol officers and residents, they may not be able to disseminate relevant information to additional officers as quickly as if the resident's request had gone through regular channels.

While the addition of the patrol car may not have been as successful as hoped in regards to preventative patrol or rapid response, the in-car computer now common in many police vehicles represents a technological leap on par with the cell phone. In the past, police were required to radio dispatchers in order to request that they look up and respond with necessary information, but now, "many patrol officers have computers in their cars with wireless access to a variety of local, state, and national databases […] resulting in much more information being accessed and many more 'hits' on wanted persons, drivers with suspended licenses, stolen cars, and the like" (Moriarty 2005, p. 99). As mobile technology becomes cheaper and more compact, it only makes sense to assume that this access to information and databases will soon make the transition from vehicle to cell phone, so that the patrol officer on foot can maintain all of the same tools and connectivity as the officer driving a car. Again, the only issue hindering this transition is the continued difficulty of ensuring interoperability between different devices, databases, and agencies. Furthermore, as Moriarty points out, there remains a persistent "technology gap" that affects smaller and more rural law enforcement agencies, and not until this gap is bridged will the connectivity and superfluidity of information possible with mobile policing technologies reach their full potential.

Before moving on the investigations, Moriarty points out one further area in which technological developments have dramatically changed the work of the patrol officers: suspect control. While in the past officers were often limited to the stark choices of a baton or gun, "considerable attention has been directed toward less-lethal technology over the past 25 years," resulting in the widespread adoption of pepper spray and Tasers for use in suspect control. Moriarty believes that "probably the most important suspect control development in recent years has been pepper spray," due to its high level of effectiveness without an accompanying high risk of misuse (Moriarty 2005, p. 100). Tasers have shown promise as well, but specifically due to their classification as a less-lethal choice, some evidence suggests a willingness to use a Taser even in situations that otherwise would not have warranted even the use of pepper spray. Thus, while Tasers are becoming more popular for law enforcement, their adoption has not been as widespread as pepper spray.

In a similar vein as patrol officers' options regarding suspect control, the deployment of technology in regards to special operations has focused on the offensive and defensive equipment and tools available to special operations officers. This includes "helmets, higher-level body armor, bulletproof shields, semiautomatic rifles […] night-vision goggles, flash-bang grenades, laser-dazzlers, cameras that can see around corners, and microphones that can listen in to closed rooms" (Moriarty 2005, p. 106). In practice, the only difference between the technology available to patrol officers and those performing special operations is the degree of assumed danger and the fact that special operations officers, by definition, are expected to operate in situations that require more protection and specialized offensive and surveillance capabilities.

In a way, police investigations benefit from many of the same developments as patrol work. The continued miniaturization of scanning and analysis technology has allowed for better evidence collection and analysis, and information-sharing has allowed for fingerprint and DNA databases to be utilized for more quickly and effectively (Moriarty, 2005, p. 102). To see the importance of the development process when considering the use of technology for effective policing, one need only look at the intersection between patrol and investigation technology. The Los Angeles Sheriff's Department cooperates with private companies in order to encourage the development of useful technologies, and by brainstorming the new technologies within their own program, are able to apply developments in one context to disparate areas of police work. For instance, according to Charles Heal, head of the LASD's technology program, "in one case we were looking at using a laser as a less than lethal device for apprehending suspects but it wasn't that effective. However, it fluoresced body fluids such as blood or semen so we passed it to the crime lab. It means they can search a house for evidence without having to rip it all up" (the Engineer, 2005, p. 27). Just as convergence in the development sphere ultimately aids in the deployment of technology for policing, so too does the deployment of that technology suggest an eventual convergence of patrol and investigation. For example, the day is not far off when a patrol officer will be able to scan a fingerprint, receive relevant information, and transfer that information to fellow officers and agencies all in a matter of seconds and all with a device no larger than a cell phone (in fact there is no reason why the phone itself would not simply be supplied with these added capabilities.)

The areas of traffic, command and control, and administration, despite their ostensible differences, all benefit from the same advances and deployment of technology. Improved communication and monitoring technology, such as cell phones, widespread database access, and networked surveillance systems (including in-car cameras and GPS), allow for the management of multiple assets and targets across large geographic areas (Moriarty 205, p. 104-5, 107, 109).

Determining the future of policing technology is made all the more difficult due to the rapid development of improved technologies. By the time an agency roles out a new piece of tech, odds are a cheaper and more efficient version has already been slated for production. The upside of this is that those agencies suffering from a "technology gap" will be able to use the next five to ten years to update their operations for a much smaller cost than before (Stephens 2005, p. 54). As broadband internet becomes cheaper and more widespread and a variety of diagnostic and analysis tools drop dramatically in price, rural and smaller agencies will finally be able to implement the full range of technological options once limited to agencies as massive and well funded as the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department.

Aside from the necessary developmental and cost issues that must be considered when dealing with the use of technology in policing, public perception remains a key factor in deciding which technologies to use. In the book the Technology of Policing, Peter Manning (2008) notes that when considering policing technology, one must:

situate the police organization in the context of a larger field (Bordiue 1977) of political pressures, objective and subjective, in which the police operate and that affect the developing police capacity to map crime or analyze it in a useful fashion. The field is generally that of social control, informal and formal, and it sits in a surround, the larger political forces in a city or a nation (Manning 2008, p. 87).

The most prominent of these political pressures is a public, at least in the United States, that is ostensibly averse to constant monitoring as well as the continued militarization of the police force though the deployment of technologies such as those used in special operations. In their editorial regarding intersection cameras and automatic license plate scanners, the editors of McClatchy propose that, "somehow there has to be a way to take into consideration the uncomfortable feeling people get when they believe they are being spied on with the justifiable methods of making law enforcement more efficient" (McClatchy 2010). They suggest the place to start is the database where recorded video and license plate data is kept anywhere from a week to six months. The editorial suggests that a limit of a week would be sufficient to allow for the apprehension of suspects without unduly recording or tracking innocent civilians, but this number seems arbitrary, because the system could still be abused to wrongfully surveil someone over the course of a week, and only keeping information for that long offers the very real possibility that criminals could exploit this limitations for their advantage. A more reasonable solution would be to keep the recorded information indefinitely, but give the public access to it. This has the effect of keeping this information available for law enforcement while assuaging fears of undue surveillance, and further, it exponentially expands the number of eyes capable of catching suspicious behavior, thus integrating the public more closely into their own policing.