By Robert W. Vetter
Introduction
Law enforcement agencies are not created equal. Most use different technologies with varying entry costs, accessibility, and training requirements. Current, up-to-date technology for Law Enforcement Officers (“LEOs”) can enhance public and officer safety through body cameras, gunshot detection, and improved communication systems. These technologies support safe, efficient policing and benefit society. Inadequacies persist, however, in how and why different technologies are procured and implemented.
LEOs and public safety are at risk due to outdated technology employed by different agencies. Law enforcement relies on technology to ensure public safety, analyze crime scenes, and present evidence in court. As crime and technology have evolved, agencies have struggled to keep pace because of varying sizes, budgets, and training levels. This blog examines the advantages of different technologies used in the criminal justice system and highlights the areas where law enforcement technology has failed to advance.
Part I examines the background and evolution of law enforcement technology. Part II analyzes the benefits of current technology, and the limitations agencies have when implementing these methods. Part III proposes potential solutions.
I. Evolution of Law Enforcement Technology
Using modern technology in patrol cars remains a relatively new development, with in-car computers first being available as early as 1979.[1] This advancement allowed LEOs to search records in real-time while making traffic stops.[2] These elementary systems were limited, but opened a world of possibilities for law enforcement technology in modern society. By 2024, GPS tracking, instant messaging, cloud computing, computer-aided dispatch, management systems, body and dash cameras, drones, facial recognition, biometrics, thermal imaging, artificial intelligence, and gunshot detection systems are available in handheld devices or attached to patrol cars.[3] Despite this rapid technological advancement, LEOs struggle to keep pace.[4]
Police agencies face challenges when selecting and implementing technology.[5] Issues arise from the different sizes, needs, and budgets of municipal, city, state, and federal agencies.[6] Unfortunately, these decisions are often negatively impacted by bureaucratic red tape and varying policing styles across states and jurisdictions.[7] Because of these barriers to entry, the technologies eventually selected typically result from inadequate planning, creating issues with long-term funding, training, and maintenance.[8]
According to a 2017 study funded by the Department of Justice, three factors affect LEO technology selection, adoption, and implementation: community, agency, and the technology itself. These factors are influenced by different priorities of local to federal agencies, the “organizational climate,” and “factors intrinsic” to different technologies.[9] When developing a model for selecting and implementing LEO technology, agencies should use “evidence-based research,” “strategic planning,” collaboration between “decision makers” and “technology experts,” and previous experience.[10] Utilizing these can help ensure agencies work efficiently while securing appropriate purpose, funding, and necessary training. In an era of rapid technological advancement, it is crucial for agencies to stay ahead of the curve.
II. Downfalls of Law Enforcement Technology
Law enforcement technology lacks in many areas, most prominently in communications, investigatory tools, case management, and courtroom applications. These shortcomings can result in line-of-duty deaths, less time protecting communities, inefficient policing, and a slower criminal justice system.[11]
A. Communications
Law enforcement agencies frequently use outdated communication systems. The inability to properly communicate within an agency, and especially across agencies and jurisdictions, often leads to tragic outcomes that could have been prevented with better information sharing systems and protocols. Lack of coordination between agencies can result in a local agency knowing about a threat while leaving another state or federal agencies unaware.[12] This unawareness has led to officers unknowingly walking into life-threatening situations.[13] If cross-jurisdictional communications systems existed, lives could be saved. Additionally, inefficient communication systems force LEOs to spend more time working on cases and less time serving the community.
Some LEO communication companies have attempted to address these issues but have failed due to implementation costs and poor management.[14] The expense of implementing newer, better-connected systems is prohibitive, and successful implementations are rare because of financing difficulties. Outdated communications systems can lead to officer deaths, increased case processing time, and reduced community protection. Unfortunately, no clear solution exists for improving intra-agency and cross-jurisdictional communications.
B. Investigation
Many modern technological tools aid police investigations. Mobile devices like tablets, laptops, and smartphones allow LEOs to instantly log case materials and receive feedback from peers.[15] This quick data exchange reduces the margin of error for evidence collection and supports the trustworthiness of police reports. Drones and robots assist in apprehending suspects, providing light in dark situations, reconstructing crime scenes, and conducting search and rescue missions.[16] Some agencies use handheld lasers that instantly test narcotic chemical compounds, aiding in more reliable field tests.[17]
These tools are often expensive, causing smaller or rural agencies to be among the last to receive them. Even larger metropolitan agencies struggle to obtain proper funding and lack the ability to plan and train efficiently. Modern investigatory tools are also limited by societal pushes to adjust agency budgets. Not everyone understands the need for LEOs to access modern technology and the implications of outdated or inadequate systems.
C. Case Management
Effective case management allows for more efficient collaboration and streamlined policing.[18] These systems are used daily to coordinate operations across different ranks. Due to fear of inadequacy, agency employees and LEOs are often reluctant to learn new systems. Once this hurdle is overcome, however, improved systems can allow for more thorough planning, easier chain-of-custody tracking, and better officer communications.[19]
Some case management systems incorporate artificial intelligence to assist with automated forms, making repetitive investigative reports quicker to complete.[20] Reducing information-silos allows for more efficient policing and helps law enforcement agencies advance their technology use.[21] Efficient policing improves inter-agency relations, which promotes accountability and public trust.[22] With modern policing still affected by traditional mindsets and an aging workforce, implementing new technologies is difficult due to the lack of training and acceptance by LEOs themselves.
D. Courtroom
Law enforcement technology promotes an efficient criminal justice system by aiding courtroom processes. LEOs collect and store digital information, which prosecutors and defense attorneys later analyze to help convict or defend the accused.[23] This information can include camera footage (often used during trials to help juries asses a defendant’s behavior), gunshot detection data, fingerprint displays, and chemical analyses.[24] Methods like facial recognition, rapid identification, predictive policing, and social media monitoring can help exculpate defendants or ensure police prevent future crimes.[25] The only way to obtain these benefits is to ensure proper funding and training. Modern technologies not only aid in investigations but also promote efficient policing, crime prevention, and just outcomes for those accused.
III. Conclusion
Law enforcement technology has rapidly progressed over the last 40 years.[26] Utilizing cutting-edge technology ensures efficient policing and promotes officer and public safety.[27] Most agencies lack the necessary knowledge, funds, and training to properly select, implement, and maintain new systems.[28] These struggles are compounded by variations in agency size, needs, and bureaucracy, making it nearly impossible to stay current with technology.[29]
Communication systems that enable cross-jurisdictional cooperation can save officer lives and time but have proven difficult to implement.[30] Tools that help with investigating and storing evidence promote efficient policing but are limited by funding and training restraints. Similarly, case management systems enhance efficiency but suffer from inadequate funding and training. Finally, law enforcement technology encourages justice through better collection, analysis, and presentation of evidence in courtrooms. Keeping law enforcement technology current is unlikely to be resolved with a single solution and will likely remain criminally outdated.
[1] See When Computer-Equipped Cop Cars Hit the Streets in 1979, CBC Archives, https://www.cbc.ca/archives/when-computer-equipped-cop-cars-hit-the-streets-in-1979-1.4991484 (last updated Jan. 27, 2022).
[2] Or as in “real time” as allowed over 40 years ago. Id.
[3] See Erik Fritsvold, 17 Types of Innovative Police Technology, University of San Diego Online, https://onlinedegrees.sandiego.edu/10-innovative-police-technologies (last visited Nov. 20, 2024).
[4] Kevin Strom, Research on the Impact of Technology on Policing Strategy in the 21st Century, National Criminal Justice Reference Service, 2-1 (Sept. 2017), https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/251140.pdf.
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
[7] Id. at 2-2.
[8] Id. at 2-3.
[9] Id. at 2-4.
[10] Id.
[11] See Rabihah Butler, The Future of Law Enforcement Rests in its Technology Investment, Thomson Reuters (Oct. 16, 2023) https://www.thomsonreuters.com/en-us/posts/government/future-of-law-enforcement-technology/ (last visited Oct. 22, 2024); CBC Archives, supra note 1; Strom, supra note 4; Toni Rogers, Barriers to Law Enforcement Technology (Sept. 5, 2024) https://www.officer.com/command-hq/technology/article/55137865/barriers-to-law-enforcement-technology (last visited Oct. 22, 2024); James Thorpe, Outdated Systems, New Threats in Law Enforcement, Int. Sec. J. (April 22, 2024, 8:48 AM) https://internationalsecurityjournal.com/outdated-systems-new-threats-in-law-enforcement/ (last visited Oct. 22, 2024); The Legal Implications of New Technologies in Criminal Defense Cases, The National Trial Lawyers, https://thenationaltriallawyers.org/article/new-technologies-in-criminal-defense-cases/ (last visited Oct. 22, 2024); Lisa Myers, How Technology is Revolutionizing the Courtroom?, Northwest Career College (March 11, 2024), https://www.northwestcareercollege.edu/blog/how-technology-is-revolutionising-the-courtroom/ (last visited Oct. 22, 2024); The Role of Technology in Criminal Justice, Husson University Online (Sept. 28, 2024) https://www.husson.edu/online/blog/2023/09/technology-in-the-criminal-justice-field (last visited Oct. 22, 2024).
[12] Rogers, supra note 11.
[13] See Josh Hinkle, Texas Trooper’s Shooter Previously Threatened to Kill Police, KXAN News (May 16, 2017, 5:45 AM) https://www.kxan.com/news/texas-troopers-shooter-previously-threatened-to-kill-police/ (last updated Nov. 14, 2023, 9:08 AM).
[14] See Dave Lieber, Intelligent and Helpful COPsync Tool is Failing, and the Reason is Surprising, Government Technology (May 11, 2017) https://www.govtech.com/public-safety/intelligent-and-helpful-copsync-tool-is-failing-and-the-reason-is-surprising.html (last visited Oct. 22, 2024).
[15] See Fritsvold, supra note 3.
[16] See id.
[17] See id.
[18] Thorpe, supra note 11.
[19] Id.
[20] Id.
[21] See Samantha Ferguson, 9 Easy Ways to Break Down Silos in Your Organisation, Project.co (June 12, 2023) https://www.project.co/break-down-silos/ (last visited Oct. 22, 2024).
[22] See Rogers, supra note 11.
[23] The National Trial Lawyers, supra note 11; Myers, supra note 11.
[24] The National Trial Lawyers, supra note 11.
[25] Husson University Online, supra note 11.
[26] See CBC Archives, supra note 1.
[27] See Butler, supra note 11; CBC Archives, supra note 1; Strom, supra, note 4; Rogers, supra note 11; Thorpe, supra note 11; The National Trial Lawyers, supra note 1l; Myers, supra note 11; Husson University Online, supra note 11.
[28] Strom, supra note 4, at 2-3.
[29] Strom, supra note 4, at 2-4.
[30] Rogers, supra note 11.
