How Has Law Enforcement Technology Evolved?

How Has Law Enforcement Technology Evolved
2. Better Electronic Monitoring Systems – The concept of house arrest is nothing new, but technological advances are making it a more workable option. When criminals are prosecuted for minor offenses, and they present little to no risk to the community, using electronic monitoring systems to allow them to serve their punishment at home has some benefits.

What technology is used by law enforcement?

Emerging technologies are helping police officers do more with less, but concerns about privacy and discrimination are complicating matters – Eliot Wyatt/for The Washington Post (Eliot Wyatt/For The Washington Post) Last year, police in Mountain View, Calif., knew they had a potentially dangerous situation on their hands when a man barricaded himself inside an unlocked three-story townhouse along with the homeowners.

Police received a call from the homeowners, who said the man was armed with a knife.
They didn’t know whether they could safely enter the home or where to post up inside.
And they didn’t know the man’s intentions.
So instead of taking any risk, police called in their trusty sidekick: A camera-equipped drone.

Officers on the ground used the drone to live stream video from the second- and third-floor windows, giving them the opportunity to assess the gravity of the situation and the location of the suspect. They quickly learned the man did not have any visible weapons on him.

“There was no risk to life, so we let him sit in there and did our best to communicate with him,” said Lt. Scott Nelson of the Mountain View Police Department. “No use of force was needed.” The situation ended peacefully when after four hours, the man, who was experiencing delusions, exited the home voluntarily, police said.

Police across the United States are increasingly relying on emerging technologies to make their jobs more efficient. In their daily work, they are using drones, license plate readers, body cameras and gunshot detection systems to reduce injury and bodily harm.

The move comes as some law enforcement agencies are struggling with retention and hiring during the pandemic, when hundreds of cops in cities including Los Angeles and New York were sidelined because of the spread of the coronavirus, As police departments determine which technologies to adopt, they are also grappling with growing concerns about privacy that these technologies bring and potential complications they could create for officers on the job.

See how technology is revolutionizing modern policing

“Tech can be a great tool for law enforcement to use,” said Sgt. James Smallwood, Nashville-based treasurer of the national Fraternal Order of Police. But “as with anything else, we have to balance the line of privacy and meeting the expectation to promote public safety.” Enter the two drones that Mountain View police say cost $16,000 to begin operating and that they’ve used about a dozen times in the past two years.

They’ve helped in potentially dangerous situations, search efforts and finding weapons. As a result, the department is looking to expand the program to include more drones with more features such as longer flight time, higher video quality and infrared capabilities, which help detect body heat. DJI, the Chinese tech company that makes many of the drones adopted by police departments, said more than 1,000 police departments across the country use some type of drone.

But most departments that purchase DJI’s drones do so through American suppliers, DJI’s North American spokesman Adam Lisberg said. Drones are proving to be a police force multiplier across the nation, aiding with everything from lost children to dangerous suspects to crash reconstruction.

But Lisberg doesn’t think they’ll ever replace police officers.
You need a sense of humanity at work in policing,” he said.
A drone is a tool that helps accomplish the goals already have.
Do it better, safely and more efficiently.” In terms of privacy, Lisberg says DJI advises departments to be upfront with the community on how and when the tech will and won’t be used.

Drones aren’t the only tech tools that police say have made them more efficient. More than 120 cities are using gunshot detection systems, which alert police to gunfire within the devices’ coverage area. The tech is provided by Fremont, Calif.-based ShotSpotter, which has been partnering with cities and police for 25 years.

The systems use sensors and algorithms that can identify and determine which loud bangs are probably gunshots.
Within about 60 seconds, they can alert police to the precise location in which the gunshots were heard.
That allows police to better deploy their resources, especially in cases where they may have had to cut back on neighborhood patrols, said Ron Teachman, ShotSpotter director of public safety solutions.

“Police chiefs are looking for innovative ways to deal with the responsibilities they have,” he said. “They’re finding ways to provide them even in areas where budgets are tight.” “Tech can be a great tool for law enforcement to use as with anything else, we have to balance the line of privacy and meeting the expectation to promote public safety.” — Sgt.

James Smallwood, treasurer of the Fraternal Order of Police working from Nashville Douglas Griffith, president of the Houston Police Officers’ Union, said ShotSpotter has helped the Houston Police Department make more than 70 arrests as well as respond to gunshot victims faster.
The department has 400 fewer officers than it did 24 years ago, yet they are still responsible for covering 671 square miles.

“We have to rely on tech because we don’t have the manpower sometimes,” Griffith said. Police also have to consider what tech might be helpful to carry with them. Over the years that has evolved to include body cameras — which not only provide a video record of altercations but in some cases can provide automated reporting — license plate readers and laptops that help them document from the field, and less-lethal restraining devices.

Nelson said Mountain View is one of the first police departments in the Bay Area to start using a restraining device called the BolaWrap. The device, which discharges two lasso-like tethers to temporarily wrap up a person’s arms or legs, is expected to be a less harmful restraining device than a Taser.

The department has about 25 of the devices, which have aided in situations like mental health crises when people may harm themselves, Nelson said. And in some cases, tech that police adopt has the ability to integrate with personal technology that residents own.

The Seattle Police Department, for example, uses tech and body cameras from Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Axon. Through Axon’s Citizen app, officers can send a resident a link to upload their own video or pictures, which then get tagged with the case number. Similarly, some departments have turned to Coplogic, incident-reporting software developed by New York-based LexisNexis.

Coplogic allows community members to submit their own crime reports for minor incidents, which helps free up police officers’ time. Seattle police Sgt. Randy Huserik says it helps officers “streamline the process” of creating incident reports. “We have to do the same amount of work with less bodies,” he said.

So obviously the integration of technology has the potential to enhance that.” To be sure, not all of the technology is proving to be positive, says Griffith of Houston’s police union.
He noted that while tech can add a level of efficiency, it also can increase stress levels for officers, who have been experiencing increased scrutiny for excessive use of force and discriminatory practices in recent years.

Body cameras, for example, can help police and the community better understand the details around an incident in which an officer resorted to use of force. But the cameras also can catch small, sometimes minor policy violations from police that don’t affect the overall outcome of any situation, such as whether a police officer buckled his seat belt before pressing the gas, Griffith said.

We know that there will be more tech coming,” he said.
But we pray it’s something that will help and not make it to where they have to be perfect every minute of every day.” Police also have to walk a fine line when it comes to implementing new technology, taking into account the community’s comfort level and privacy concerns, they say.

The New York Police Department learned that very quickly when it started using a robotic dog to help with surveillance and dangerous situations at the end of 2020. The 70-pound robot named Spot can climb stairs, traverse loose gravel and carry up to 30 pounds of equipment while using its built-in cameras to survey the area.

After backlash over additional surveillance and use of police funds, the department ultimately moved to scrap its $94,000 contract with the device maker Boston Dynamics just a few months later. Boston Dynamics said the cancellation of the program in New York “reinforced the importance of education and dialogue when introducing new technologies” and that the company continues to work on explaining Spot’s capabilities.

Spot most recently has been adopted by the St. Petersburg Police Department in Florida, which last month said it plans to use the robot dog for de-escalation efforts, to avoid the use of force, or in dangerous situations. The department also said the dog will only be deployed under the supervision of the Special Weapons and Tactics team or for fire rescue efforts.

Bernie Escalante, interim chief of the Santa Cruz Police Department in California, said that in communities like his, a human police officer will provide help when needed — a consideration the department takes into account when considering adopting tech. “There’s definitely a role for, but I also believe the community wants interaction and engagement with someone in uniform,” he said.

Some communities are actively trying to find the right balance. After first adopting the technology, Santa Cruz banned the use of predictive policing software, which uses algorithms to predict where crimes will most likely occur. Lawmakers in Boston, Alameda, Calif., and the state of Virginia are among those who took steps to limit the use of facial recognition by law enforcement agencies.

Several California cities including Pasadena and San Jose have opted for more license plate readers to curb crime even amid pushback from organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union. And San Francisco is considering broadening government access to private cameras, which it curtailed in 2019.

Farhang Heydari, executive director of the nonprofit Policing Project at New York University School of Law, said he’s mostly concerned with increasing access to private cameras and third-party databases and the ability to tie them together, which could create a new kind of surveillance, he said.

That has the potential to magnify some of the harms of policing, like the overenforcement of low-level crime or the exacerbation of racial disparities.
Ultimately, Heydari says, police shouldn’t be charged with deciding on their own what technology to use.
Regulators and communities should, he said.
But as it stands, police departments are navigating tech through research, community input and via discussions with the cities they serve.

Mountain View police say that in some respects, their location in the heart of Silicon Valley serves as an advantage to evaluating tech for the department. “We have a sworn staff here with high-tech backgrounds,” said Sgt. Fernando Maldonado. “Just because someone comes in with tech doesn’t mean it applies to us or that it’s going to work.

How has technology improved the criminal justice system?

Legal Technology Advancements for the Criminal Justice System Technology is present in every aspect of our lives, and it has The criminal justice system is not immune. Legal technology for the criminal justice system involves GPS systems, robots, and advanced cameras.

High-performance computer systems and Internet technologies are also involved. All these technologies improve surveillance and investigation while making analysis procedures easier. Today, many police officers have some kind of mobile data terminal in their cars. This in-car device serves them to be in touch with a central dispatch office.

A mobile data terminal can also display mapping, CAD drawings, and safety information. Some police dispatchers even use advanced mobile phone technologies. Those involve Computer Aided Dispatch software among others. The custodians and evidence technicians use inventory management software.

Those systems help them keep track of the property rooms and other secure areas. Computer programs have incorporated themselves into almost every facet of law enforcement. They are associated with different jobs, ranging from robotic cameras to DNA testing. The number of electronics and new technologies in criminal justice is rapidly growing.

And they all have the same goal – to make the jobs more effective. But this is a two-edged sword, as criminals also make use of these technologies. They abuse technology for illicit usage. There are more and more tech-savvy criminals these days. That’s why experts in criminal justice have to keep a step further in this “technology combat,” Despite all these advanced technologies, It happens that someone is unjustly accused.

How was technology used in the professional era of policing?

The Political Era – Scholars divide the history of U.S. policing into three eras. The first, from 1840 to about 1920, is called the Political Era, so named because of the cozy, mutually beneficial ties police and politicians had in many urban areas. During this era, the police came to be armed with two forms of technology – the gun and the nightstick – that, with some modernizing, they continue to use today when called upon to use force.

What is the most significant technology demand in law enforcement?

The future of crime fighting is being defined by much of the same technology that is revolutionizing business and other areas of life. Artificial intelligence (AI), automation, big data, extended reality, and all the most important trends we identify across other sectors are equally making their mark in policing.

The 5 Biggest Tech Trends In Policing And Law Enforcement Adobe Stock These technologies give police officers and intelligence agencies unprecedented powers to crack down on criminal activity as they attempt to keep us safe. They also help to tackle the new forms of crime that are emerging as criminals become ever-more inventive in their own use of technology and data.

So here’s a look at some of the latest developments in technology that will be playing a key role in policing today and in the near future. Smart device data The volume of data being generated is exploding, and lots of that data can potentially be useful when it comes to fighting crime.

Internet of things (IoT) devices such as video doorbells and voice assistants, with their ability to capture incidental goings-on in their environment, are increasingly becoming valuable sources of intelligence for officers and detectives searching for evidence.
Data from an Alexa smart speaker has been used by a court in the US to assist in a double murder case.

And data from Fitbit fitness trackers have been used in several cases, including recently in the case of a man accused of killing his wife. More than 400 police forces have partnered with video doorbell manufacturer Ring to access data captured from their devices (with permission from the device owners).

Additionally, smart city infrastructure will increasingly be built with functionality to assist with crime prevention and detection, such as controlling traffic lights to assist police and ambulance crews to quickly reach the scene of crimes or accidents.
One network of devices that are specifically built to help tackle crime is ShotSpotter,

This consists of an array of microphones attached to city infrastructure, such as street lights, that detect the sound of gunfire. It then issues real-time alerts to law enforcement officers who can react more quickly than if they have to wait for reports from witnesses to come in.

The technology has been around for a while but is becoming increasingly common.
Computer vision Computer vision has several significant use cases in policing.
Perhaps most frequently, it is used for automatic license plate recognition (ALPR) to enable cameras to identify vehicles and their drivers.
A more recent application is facial recognition, which has also proven controversial, with one police force in the UK having been found to be using it unlawfully.

This was because it was used “indiscriminately” and with no consideration given to limiting racial or gender bias. Nevertheless, it is becoming increasingly common for police to use this technology – recent deployments in the US include identifying those involved in the January 6 capitol attacks and Black Lives Matter riots in 2020.

Computer vision is also being used in a new generation of lie detector devices, which work by analyzing microscopic movements in the eyes and face of the subject.
One such system called EyeDetect has been used voluntarily on suspects, as well as being used by employers in job interviews.
Computer vision could soon even be used for Minority Report-style pre-emptive detection of crimes before they happen.

Research is ongoing into applying machine learning to video data in order to create predictive algorithms that can suggest where crimes are likely to take place, based on the build-up of people in the environment, traffic, weather, and objects that can be detected in the environment.

This could involve data captured from CCTV cameras or even drone footage.
Robotics Robots are clearly useful in law enforcement due to their ability to go into dangerous situations.
While society and technology probably aren’t quite ready for a general-purpose Robocop, autonomous, mobile units will play an increasingly important part in a number of specialist roles in coming years.

One of the most important is disposing of bombs, suspect packages, and other suspicious and potentially dangerous items. These have been around since the 1970s, but the latest generation is controllable via VR-style headsets, as well as being capable of operating with a far greater degree of autonomy than earlier models.

Robots have also been developed that can climb stairs and even jump over walls in order to avoid the need for human operators to manually place them close to the suspected bomb before they can get to work.
Robots are also used by security services and law enforcement for surveillance.
The robodog created by Boston Dynamics navigates using LIDAR and is equipped with thermal cameras to spot intruders even in the dark.

Plans have also been put in place to potentially enable them to be used in hostage negotiation scenarios. The market for robots in law enforcement is forecast to reach $5.7 billion this year, so we can be sure that many more interesting use cases are likely to emerge.

Digital twins A digital twin is a computer model of any real-world object, system, or process. It is informed by data – thanks to IoT technology and sensors – allowing it to accurately simulate whatever it is a twin of. In Guangdong, China, the provisional police department has worked with city authorities to create a real-time map of the city, showing where incidents are happening, as well as mapping public interactions, calls, use of police resources, and suspected or potential threats.

Feeds from 10 separate government departments are consolidated in the model, giving the police force a complete and real-time overview through a visual data analytics platform. This means the police can simulate and assess their response to anything from city-wide emergencies to the distribution of resources in order to deal with day-to-day issues such as street robbery and community nuisance.

Virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR).
VR and AR have a lot of exciting potential, which we are already seeing being put to use to make training and the day-to-day work of police officers easier.
One system developed by Axom is designed to train police in a range of skills, including de-escalation of potentially violent situations and dealing with members of the public when there may be complicating factors such as hearing impairment or Alzheimer’s.

In the US, police officers in Oklahoma use a different system called Apex Officer, which helps to train to respond to calls where mental health is an issue. Other systems use 360-degree video walls that surround the trainee, rather than requiring them to wear a headset.

Away from training and in the field, AR is useful as it allows officers to remain aware of what is going on in their vicinity while augmenting their understanding of a situation with overlaid computer graphics. In China, police officers have been using AR glasses that can identify suspects and those who are wanted for questioning.

The glasses, created by startup Xloong Technology, allow police to access facial and license plate recognition functions in real-time. While privacy concerns mean that this technology is unlikely to be adopted by western police forces any time soon, it’s an interesting glimpse into where the future of law enforcement technology may be heading.

When did law enforcement start using technology?

Computers have been used in law enforcement since the 1960s and some police departments had adapted them for record keeping and 911 purposes, but it was not until the 1990s, that they were being used by the majority of police departments, with the large departments like New York City and Chicago using the computers to

How has new technology helped solve crimes?

How technology is solving crimes How Has Law Enforcement Technology Evolved Crimes that could not be solved decades ago are being solved today. Photo: Shutterstock

Thanks to advances in technology, solving crimes has come a long way from dusting off finger prints to find a criminal.
Claude Roux, UTS professor and director of the Centre for Forensic Science, has seen a lot of changes in his time.
The technology advances range from sophisticated fingermark detection methods to rapid in-field testing, for example, a portable forensics lab (‘lab-on-a-chip’), forensic genetic genealogy, and use of artificial intelligence in different aspects of the forensic work.
He gives a few examples.
Where fingermarks are detected at the crime scene of a break and enter, digital technology allows the crime scene examiner to take photo of the fingermarks and search the fingerprints database remotely.

“An individual is identified in minutes and a police patrol is sent to their home address soon after. The police apprehend the person of interest with the stolen goods in the car when they come home.”

Previously, film photos or physical lifts were taken to the laboratory and an investigator would manually search physical files or physically attend a central computer database.
“This used to take days,” he adds.
In the case of alleged illicit drug possession, an in-field portable instrumentation can identify the drugs and sometimes their purity in a matter of minutes.
“This information can be compiled and shared with other similar cases and locations to identify hot spots or provide intelligence products.”
In other circumstances, the seizure would be sent to the laboratory and analysed using bench instrumentation following a time-consuming procedure.”
This frees up the laboratory from high volume and low importance cases to focus on complex or more important ones.
“We shouldn’t forget that technology is only a tool, an extension of the scientific process forensic practitioners use to help address relevant questions.”
Forensic scientist Jae Gerhard from Independent Forensic Services said almost all areas of laboratory sciences have seen significant technology advancements.
“I work in the field of DNA, and I’ve seen big changes; from the sensitivity of DNA testing kits that test more areas of the DNA, to more advanced instrumentation capable of detecting the smallest amounts.”
One significant advance is the introduction of robotic testing platforms for DNA analysis.
“The two main benefits are firstly, robots are reliable and they minimise the risk of human error; and secondly, they free up staff that would have been performing these tests to undertake other duties.”
Gerhard said that when DNA testing was first introduced, a sample of blood around the size of a 20 cent piece was needed to generate a result, along with a direct sample to match it.
Now the amount required is minute.
“Today, we can generate DNA profiles from just a few tiny cells.”

Crime DNA profile can be uploaded to the national DNA database to search for offenders, and suspects. Interpol can also facilitate the searching of DNA profiles internationally.

Digital forensics
During his ten years in digital forensics, David Kerstjens, head of forensics and data analytics at Law In Order, has seen a shift from law enforcement and government, who were the main users of digital forensics, to individual civil matters.
“Intellectual property theft has also seen a huge rise over recent years due to our data being kept in digital repositories, therefore easily accessed by criminals.”
The most significant tech advance in digital forensics is the growth of data.
“It was once restricted to within a building or a workplace but now individuals have shifted to a more remote workforce and can access their machines or files from anywhere in the world.”
The data sources have grown bigger.
Digital forensic experts now have to be prepared to gather digital evidence from a growing number of sources, such as mobile phones, laptops, ipads, and smart watches, rather than just company-issued devices.
“These technological advances produce a new set of challenges in utilising digital forensics to combat the growing number of cybercrimes and IP theft.”
With analogue phone logs, paper-based records would be used to investigate crimes and establish a timeline which was a slow process and only showed a point in time.
“Now people use mobile phones for everything – they are no longer just used for calls and SMSs, they hold a massive amount of data and are never far away from us.”
He adds, forensic software is used to acquire and analyse a mobile phone, to ascertain who a person was messaging around specific times.
“Mobile phone tower data or GPS data help to identify where they’re located, what they’re googling at the time through to their activity levels which could include step count, heart rates and distance covered.”
Everything is now stored in the cloud and every movement is tracked.
“Forensics software now relies on AI and machine learning to keep up with the data volumes to ensure experts analyse this data quickly or eliminate irrelevant data, and produce data that’s outside normal behaviour to help an investigation.”

: How technology is solving crimes

How has technology helped prevent crime?

Technological innovation has been one of the main driving forces leading to the continuous improvement of crime control and crime prevention strategies (e.g. GPS tracking and tagging, video surveillance, etc.).

How has technology helped crime?

Technology Versus Crime Unfortunately, technology has also allowed for individuals to carry out the act of committing crimes right from their homes under anonymity. This is known as cybercrime and can be defined as any online criminal act while using a computer or other electronic devices to cause harm to others.

Has technology changed law enforcement?

3. Pre-Crime Technology – The best way to fight crime is to keep it from happening in the first place, and technology is on the forefront of crime prevention. Again, AI tools and predictive analytics using big data are key to making connections that can stop crime before it starts, but law enforcement is using other tools in their work as well.

In Chicago, police officers are using technology called ShotSpotter, which triangulates information to determine the exact location of gunshots. Combining that information with license plate detection technology makes it easier for police to manage patrols in high-crime areas and investigate shootings.

Facial recognition technology is also proving instrumental to fighting crime. Law enforcement has used facial recognition at large events, for example, to identify individuals who are wanted for crimes by comparing their faces to a database of hundreds of thousands of known offenders.

How did modern day police develop?

Slave patrols – The origins of modern-day policing can be traced back to the “Slave Patrol.” The earliest formal slave patrol was created in the Carolinas in the early 1700s with one mission: to establish a system of terror and squash slave uprisings with the capacity to pursue, apprehend, and return runaway slaves to their owners.

Tactics included the use of excessive force to control and produce desired slave behavior.
I, do swear, that I will as searcher for guns, swords, and other weapons among the slaves in my district, faithfully, and as privately as I can, discharge the trust reposed in me as the law directs, to the best of my power.

So help me, God.” North Carolina Slave Patrol Oath Slave Patrols continued until the end of the Civil War and the passage of the 13th Amendment. Following the Civil War, during Reconstruction, slave patrols were replaced by militia-style groups who were empowered to control and deny access to equal rights to freed slaves. In 1868, ratification of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution technically granted equal protections to African Americans — essentially abolishing Black Codes. Jim Crow laws and state and local statutes that legalized racial segregation swiftly took their place.

By the 1900s, local municipalities began to establish police departments to enforce local laws in the East and Midwest, including Jim Crow laws.
Local municipalities leaned on police to enforce and exert excessive brutality on African Americans who violated any Jim Crow law.
Jim Crow Laws continued through the end of the 1960s.

“The crisis in policing is the culmination of a thousand other failures — failures of education, social services, public health, gun regulation, criminal justice, and economic development.” The New Yorker, July 13, 2020

Which of the following is an example of hard technology used in law enforcement?

There are several other hard technology applications in policing that can be identified, including new gunshot location devices, cameras to detect speeders and red light violations, the use of biometrics/ improved fingerprint identification and the hands-free communications systems being tested in patrol cars.

What are the 3 biggest challenges in law enforcement today?

1. Police Recruitment and Retention – One of the biggest challenges facing law enforcement is retention and recruitment within police departments. In a 2021 survey by the Police Executive Research Forum, law enforcement agencies reported an 18% increase in resignations and a 45% increase in retirements compared to the previous year.

Officers seeking jobs outside of law enforcement.
Negativity surrounding law enforcement in general.
Pandemic fatigue.
Pressure from family to change careers.

Many of these issues started before the COVID-19 pandemic and the protests of 2020, Consider these results from a 2019 report published by the International Association of Chiefs of Police in which agencies from federal, state, local and tribal levels were surveyed:

78% of agencies reported having difficulty recruiting eligible candidates.
65% of agencies reported having too few candidates applying for positions.
75% of agencies reported that recruiting was more difficult than in the past.
50% of agencies reported having to change their policies to increase the number of qualified candidates.
25% of agencies reported having to reduce or eliminate services, units or positions due to staffing difficulties.

Police departments are left with many questions. What are their officers’ needs? What issues are reported at exit interviews? Do departments need to offer better compensation packages? Should they focus on recruiting candidates with more education ? Are they offering enough incentives to stay with the force? Police recruitment and retention is a complicated issue, and it’s one that leaders in criminal justice will be working on for years to come.

What is the biggest barrier in implementing new technology in law enforcement?

Data compliance – Data management and compliance continue to be the biggest technology challenges facing police leaders today. Outdated technology amplifies barriers to better, more informed police response and is just one of the mounting challenges facing law enforcement in 2022.

Ensuring that agencies are federally compliant regarding data collection is imperative to best serve communities.
Databases like the FBI’s National Use-of-Force Data Collection program can help police leaders understand best practices to support those communities.
However, federal guidance is disrupted by a gap in employee training and outdated technology that prevents agencies from being able to be compliant and capture the right data.

Both police leaders and the federal government need to honestly assess what technology supports public safety and decide if that technology is effective. The key to solving the challenges facing our criminal justice system and modernizing policing is leveraging data on a massive scale.

To make this a possibility, we first need to implement the tools necessary to view and report data both at the state and local levels.
Then, police leaders must integrate data-informed decision-making into the culture and operations of their agencies.
Matthew Polega is head of communications and public policy for Mark43,

Data interpretation With so many emerging technologies on the market aimed at streamlining police operations, the main challenge for police leaders will be keeping up with these potential tools. When adopting a new solution, it’s important to have a specific use case in mind, otherwise, you’re just deploying technology for the sake of it, running the risk of making workflows more challenging and time-consuming for officers than they were beforehand.

Adopting a challenge-solution mindset when considering technology is key to ensuring leaders achieve maximum ROI from their deployments.
In my opinion, the need for data interpretation will pose the greatest opportunity to deploy emerging technologies.
Departments are set to collect much more data in the years ahead as 5G will support much faster real-time information sharing between officers and Next-Generation 911 will enable them to collect photos and video from civilians at the scene of an incident.

Having data is one thing; turning it into actionable insights is another. While this data can help lead to greater situational awareness and a more informed response, officers do not have time to sort through all of this information when driving to a scene.

That’s where the development of AI-based analytic tools will be key to helping departments quickly analyze and interpret this new abundance of information.
Ultimately, while emerging technologies can significantly enhance police operations, the deployment process should revolve around your department’s unique needs.

For many, those needs will likely center on data interpretation as data collection grows. — Marcus Claycomb is a business development manager at Panasonic,

How has Internet helped law enforcement?

Role of technology in law enforcement and investigation – As crime has changed over time and has become increasingly sophisticated and difficult to solve, technology today plays a significant role in enabling law enforcement agencies. The main role of technology in law enforcement is as follows:

Crime Detection and Crime Prevention.
Surveillance and Monitoring.

What are the 4 eras of law enforcement?

Abstract. The history of the police in the United States can be separated into four eras: the Political Era, the Reform Era, the Community Problem-Solving Era, and the Homeland Security Era. The police began as the night watch in colonial America and evolved to become paramilitary and professional.

Why do the police use technology?

Digital policing From browsing the internet, to accessing social media, banking and shopping online, it is fair to say our world has gone digital. Public expectations of how they interact with policing are changing. The public now expect us to have a significant online presence, with a similar level of functionality and ease of use to other services they access on a daily basis. How Has Law Enforcement Technology Evolved

The Policing Vision 2025
The sets out how digital policing will:

Make it easier for the police and public to communicate with each other
Improve digital investigations and intelligence
Transfer all information with the Criminal Justice System (CJS) digitally.

Digital Policing Portfolio (DPP) The DPP is a national delivery organisation that will support the evolution of policing, enabling forces to respond and adapt to the increasingly digital world we live in. It is responsible for delivering the Policing Vision 2025 by developing nationally consistent services and capabilities enabled by technology.

The solutions developed will enable forces to meet the changing demands of the public, more effectively prevent and investigate crime and better handle digital evidence. The services and capabilities will be developed by three key national programmes: Digital Public Contact (DPC) – will provide a simple, well known and reliable digital contact service between the public and the police that ensures the public are informed and digitally enabled.

DPC will allow for:

Reporting and tracking online – helping to improve the police response and quality of victim support
Enabling the public to undertake financial transactions online such as firearms licensing or penalty fines.

Digital Intelligence and Investigation (DII) – enabling policing to protect the public through preventing and detecting crime in a society that is becoming increasingly digital:

Improving the knowledge and skills of frontline officers and staff to address digital crime
Ensuring the specialist capability to respond to cyber-crime
Building and maintaining capabilities in the fast moving digital environment

Digital First (DF) – integrating digitised policing into the reformed Criminal Justice System, delivering the best service to the public by:

Providing all case file information and evidence, including multimedia, relevant to a criminal prosecution, digitally captured, stored and secured once in a chain of evidential integrity.
Accessibility on demand to all criminal justice partners.

Digital Policing Board (DPB) The DPB sets the strategy for digital policing and defines, prioritises, and co-ordinates digital capability development nationally, regionally, and locally. The DPB reports to the Police Reform & Transformation Board (PRTB) and is chaired by Essex Police’s Chief Constable Stephen Kavanagh.

The DPP Team
Essex Police’s Chief Constable Steven Kavanagh is the senior responsible officer (SRO) for the portfolio. Reporting to Stephen are three SROs for the programmes:
DPC – Leicestershire Police’s Chief Constable Simon Cole
DII – Hertfordshire Constabulary’s Deputy Chief Constable Michelle Dunn
DF – Sussex Police’s Chief Constable Giles York.
Assistant Chief Officer Hacer Evans is the Director of the DPP.
Programme Leads:
DPC – Superintendent Michael Loebenberg
DII – Detective Chief Superintendent Paul Keasey
DF – Siobhan Nolan
Follow the DPP on Twitter @UKDigitalPol

: Digital policing

Why do the police use technology to fight crime?

4. Law enforcement reporting and analytics lead to better insights – In any investigation, reporting and analytics are crucial. There is no room in law enforcement to allow information to slip through the cracks, as this may lead to outcomes that could be fatal.

This is why the FBI has instituted NIBRS (National Incident Based Reporting System), which requires law enforcement to provide specific fields of information which is then reported to the Department of Justice. Having a comprehensive source of criminal data supports trend analysis and monitoring of certain criminal activities.

It also helps to alert authorities if a specific crime occurs. For example, if an unauthorized person tries to buy weapons of any kind, then better insights lead to better decisions and better policing.

What are three types of technologies used by police to fight crime?

Police use many types of technologies to fight crime such as facial recognition systems, automatic license plate scanners, and satellite imaging. Facial recognition systems allow police to identify people that may be wanted by the law. License plate scanners help police fight crime by allowing them to recover stolen vehicles from car thieves.

Another technology is satellite imaging, which enables specially trained officers to locate sites where people grow marijuana.
Law enforcement agencies use facial recognition systems to fight crime.
Facial recognition utilizes computer technology to compare a photograph with a database of images of known persons to find a match.

It does this by measuring key points on a person’s face such as distance between eyes. The more points that match may mean that the police have located a suspect. This allows police to fight crime by helping them discover the real identities of those who use false identification to avoid capture. How Has Law Enforcement Technology Evolved A police car. Some police agencies make use of handheld facial recognition devices. Officers take a photograph of a suspect and the device compares it with photos of wanted criminals on a nationwide level. Cities are also placing these devices in public locations to secretly take photos of anyone who walks past the lens. How Has Law Enforcement Technology Evolved Facial recognition systems can be used to help police fight crime. Police also use automatic license plate recognition systems or license plate scanners to fight crime. This device takes a photograph of a vehicle’s license plate and then automatically compares the plate number with records at a motor vehicle registry or with other databases. How Has Law Enforcement Technology Evolved Satellite imaging allows trained eyes to locate marijuana growing sites. Some police departments install a license plate scanner on each side of a police vehicle. The devices automatically photograph license plates as the officer is on patrol and stores the information.

When an officer drives to a crime scene or an accident scene, the device is snapping images of passing vehicles.
This helps police fight crime by allowing detectives to identify possible suspects fleeing a crime scene or identify possible witnesses that were in the area.
Law enforcement agencies are also using satellite images to fight crime.

Officers specially trained with satellite imaging can identify sites where people are growing marijuana. Once they identify a location, police obtain a warrant, if needed, to enter the property. This allows them to confiscate the plants, thereby prevent drugs from reaching the streets.

What technology does the FBI use?

Statement for the Record Good afternoon Chairman Cummings, Ranking Member Jordan, and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today and update the committee on the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) use of facial recognition technology.

Facial recognition is a tool that, if used properly, can greatly enhance law enforcement capabilities and protect public safety, but if used carelessly and improperly, may negatively impact privacy and civil liberties.
The FBI is committed to the protection of privacy and civil liberties when it develops new law enforcement technologies.

At the FBI trust is mission critical. If we lose trust, it may diminish our ability to deploy potentially life-saving technologies, and everyone will suffer. For the FBI, protecting the privacy and civil liberties of the American people is part of our culture.

This is why when the FBI developed the use of facial recognition technologies, it also pioneered a set of best practices, so that effective deployment of these technologies to promote public safety can take place without interfering with our fundamental values.
I welcome the opportunity to correct misconceptions regarding the FBI’s use of this important technology.

Key points of the FBI’s use of facial recognition include the following:

FBI policy strictly governs the circumstances in which facial recognition tools may be utilized, including what probe images may be used.FBI uses facial recognition technology for law enforcement purposes with human review and additional investigation. The FBI’s use of facial recognition produces a potential investigative lead and requires investigative follow-up to corroborate the lead before any action is taken.Every face query—including results received from our partners—is reviewed and evaluated by trained examiners at the FBI to ensure the results are consistent with FBI standards.The FBI is committed to ensuring that FBI facial recognition capabilities are regularly tested, evaluated, and improved. In addition to system testing, the FBI has partnered with NIST to ensure algorithm performance is evaluated.

I would like to open with a description of the FBI Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division programs that use facial recognition technology to perform “one to many” searches for law enforcement purposes. They are (1) the FBI’s Next Generation Identification (NGI) System located at the FBI’s CJIS” Division, and (2) the Facial Analysis, Comparison, and Evaluation (FACE) Services Unit located at the FBI CJIS Division.

It is important to mention that from a technical and information security perspective, facial recognition services operate as a subsystem within the NGI system.
All NGI subsystems must follow federal security protocols and receive the appropriate security testing and authorization to operate (ATO) within NGI’s ATO boundary.

All NGI and NGI subsystem data is encrypted at rest and in transit. The NGI received its ATO prior to initial deployment and has maintained authority to operate via multiple re-accreditation actions since initial deployment.1. The NGI System maintains a photograph repository that is known as the Interstate Photo System (IPS).

In the NGI-IPS, all criminal mugshots are associated with criminal tenprint fingerprints and a criminal history record.
The NGI-IPS allows automated FR searches by authorized local, state, tribal, and federal law enforcement agencies.
The law enforcement agency submits a “probe” photo that is obtained pursuant to an authorized law enforcement investigation, to be searched against the mugshot repository.

The NGI-IPS returns a gallery of “candidate” photos of 2-50 individuals (the default is 20). During the second step of the process, the law enforcement agencies then manually review the candidate photos and perform further investigation to determine if any of the candidate photos are the same person as the probe photo.

The NGI-IPS Policy Implementation Guide has been made available to authorized law enforcement users who receive candidate photos from the Next Generation Identification-Interstate Photo System. The policy prohibits photos being provided as positive identification and photos cannot serve as the sole basis for law enforcement action.

In addition, the FBI has promulgated policies and procedures that place legal, policy, training, and security requirements on the law enforcement users of the NGI-IPS, including a prohibition against submitting probe photos that were obtained in violation of the First or Fourth Amendments.

It is important to note that the FBI does not retain the probe photos; the probes are searched and deleted. Therefore, the FBI uses the NGI-IPS solely as a repository of criminal mugshots that are submitted by law enforcement partners with fingerprints pursuant to arrest. The FBI manages the CJIS Division Advisory Policy Board (APB) Process, which holds meetings twice a year.

The APB is comprised of members of local, state, tribal, and federal criminal justice agencies that contribute to and use CJIS systems and information. It is responsible for reviewing policy issues and appropriate technical and operational issues related to FBI CJIS programs, such as the NGI System, administered by the FBI’s CJIS Division, and thereafter, making appropriate recommendations.

In December 2017, the FBI Director approved the APB recommendation that requires law enforcement users to have completed training prior to conducting facial recognition searches of the NGI-IPS. The training must be consistent with the Guidelines and Recommendations for Facial Comparison Training to Competency, as outlined by the Facial Identification Scientific Working Group (FISWG).1 This document provides the recommended elements of training to achieve competency in facial comparisons.

I would like to point out that from fiscal year 2017 through April 2019, the FBI CJIS Division received 152,565 Facial Recognition Search (FSR) requests of the NGI-IPS repository from authorized law enforcement users. During that time, there have been no findings of civil liberties violations or evidence of system misuse.2.

The FACE Services Unit provides investigative lead support to the FBI field offices, operational divisions, and legal attachés by comparing the face images of persons associated with open assessments 2 and active FBI investigations 3 against face images available in state and federal facial recognition systems.

In limited instances, the FACE Services Unit provides facial recognition support for closed FBI cases (e.g., missing and wanted persons) and may offer recognition support to federal partners. The FACE Services Unit only accepts probe photos that have been collected pursuant to applicable legal authorities as part of an authorized FBI investigation.

Upon receipt of the photo or photos, the FACE Services Unit searches them using facial recognition software against databases authorized for use by the FBI, which results in a photo gallery of potential candidates.
The FACE Services Unit performs manual comparisons of candidate photos against the probe photos to determine a candidate’s value as an investigative lead.

This service does not provide positive identification, but rather, an investigative lead and analysis results that are returned to the FBI agent in the form of a “most likely candidate.” The FBI agent must perform additional investigation to determine if the results provided by the FACE Services Unit is the same person as the probe photo.

The FBI FACE Services Unit has performed 390,186 searches on a variety of databases only in support of active FBI investigations with no findings of civil liberties violations or evidence of system misuse validated by the audit completed on December 17, 2018. In performing the facial recognition searches, the FACE Services Unit operates under the authority of 28 U.S.C.

§§ 533 and 534; 28 C.F.R. § 0.85; 42 U.S.C. § 3771; 18 U.S.C. Chapter 123, and the Driver Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2721(b)(1). The FACE Services Unit performs facial recognition searches of FBI databases (e.g., FBI’s NGI-IPS), other federal databases (e.g., Department of State’s Visa Photo File, Department of Defense’s Automated Biometric Identification System, Department of State’s Passport Photo File), and State photo repositories (e.g., select State Departments of Motor Vehicles, criminal mugshots, corrections photos, etc.).

Memoranda of Understanding and agreements have been established and are in place with all partners.
The trained specialists in the FBI FACE Services Unit conduct multiple layers of manual review to mitigate risks.
Privacy Impact Assessments (PIAs) for the FACE Services Unit and the NGI-IPS have been prepared by the FBI, approved by the Department of Justice (DOJ), and posted at https://www.fbi.gov/services/information-management/foipa/privacy-impact-assessments,

These PIAs provide to the public an accurate and complete explanation of how specific FBI components are using face recognition technology in support of the FBI’s mission to defend against terrorism and enforce criminal laws, while protecting civil liberties.

The PIAs also reflect many of the privacy and civil liberties choices made during the implementation of these programs.
The NGI System of Records Notice (SORN), FBI-009 – The Next Generation Identification (NGI) System, also discusses the use of FR technology and is posted in the Federal Register.
See 81 FR 27283 (5-5-2016) at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2017-05-25/pdf/2017-10781.pdf and 82 FR 24151, 156 (5-25-2017) at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2017-05-25/pdf/2017-10781.pdf,

The FBI has made significant accuracy advancements with our research partners. At the end of 2017, the FBI finished an internal test of the NGI-IPS algorithm to validate the quoted accuracy of 85%. In 2018, the FBI partnered with the NIST to perform the Facial Recognition Vendor Test (FRVT).

Results for algorithms submitted to NIST in February and June 2018 are published as NIST Interagency Report 8238; currently available online at www.NIST.gov, The report details recognition accuracy for 127 algorithms from 45 developers. From this test, the FBI determined a best-fit solution to upgrade its current NGI-IPS algorithm.

The selected vendor’s facial recognition algorithm boasted a Rank 1 accuracy of 99.12% and a Rank 50 accuracy of 99.72%. Exercising due diligence and leveraging NIST results, the FBI announced on February 25, 2019 that the CJIS Division received authorization to proceed with a facial recognition algorithm upgrade from the selected vendor as the best cost solution within the current FBI contract.

The new facial recognition algorithm will increase the existing NGI-IPS facial recognition accuracy rate substantially. Following receipt of this new algorithm, the NGI System engineering and architecture team began developing the necessary system changes to support the new facial recognition algorithm and are more than 60% complete on the development environment.

Following completion of the framework, the FBI CJIS Division will then perform software development updates, integration and testing, and recharacterization of current facial recognition algorithm templates into new NGI-IPS templates. The new facial recognition algorithm will be operational later towards the end of 2019 and is a high priority for the FBI CJIS Division.

Looking to the future, the FBI, in collaboration with the NIST, will be deploying FRVT Ongoing as early as summer 2019. FRVT Ongoing will enable the FBI to test its actual NGI-IPS facial recognition technology annually, as well as permit vendors to submit their facial recognition algorithms to NIST at least once a year.

Traditionally, benchmark testing (such as FRVT 2018) is performed approximately every three or four years. However, due to the speed at which technology advances, traditional methods no longer permit the level of technology awareness the FBI desires. Therefore FRVT Ongoing will enable the FBI to comply with the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and congressional recommendations to perform annual testing, while also remaining acutely aware of technological advances within the facial recognition industry.

The FBI has submitted APB staff papers annually through the CJIS APB process to solicit feedback from its users on whether the facial recognition searches of the NGI-IPS are meeting their needs, specifically requesting input regarding search accuracy. To date, no users have expressed any concern with any aspect of the NGI-IPS meeting their needs, to include its accuracy.

The APB is made up of 111 state, local, tribal, and territorial representatives, as well as a federal working group, comprised of 23 representatives of federal agencies. The members represent approximately 18,000 law enforcement agencies from the 50 states, the District of Columbia, U.S.

Territories, and Canada.
The FBI will continue to solicit input from the users regarding all FBI CJIS Systems including the NGI-IPS.
Additionally, in December 2017, the FBI Director approved the APB recommendation to require CJIS Systems Agency/State Identification Bureau to provide training for individuals of agencies/states prior to conducting facial recognition searches of the NGI-IPS.

Training must be consistent with the Guidelines and Recommendations for Facial Comparison Training to Competency, as outlined by the Facial Identification Scientific Working Group. The FBI FACE Services Unit performs “90-day call backs” to solicit feedback from FBI agents that use the services provided by the FACE Services Unit.

Their feedback enhances or improves the services offered by the FACE Services Unit and demonstrates a return on investment from the resulting stories and positive comments. To date, no FBI agents or staff have expressed concern regarding accuracy or performance issues. It is important to note that the FBI has no authority to set or enforce accuracy standards of separate facial recognition technology operated by other agencies.

The FBI CJIS Division agrees that accuracy and facial recognition system performance are important aspects of the overall management and efficacy of facial recognition technology. Based on its experience, the FBI CJIS Division believes that law enforcement and other government partners should also conduct reviews of their systems for accuracy and performance in order to protect privacy and civil liberties.

The FBI CJIS Division understands the importance of the entire facial recognition community continuing to do so. While the FBI cannot direct partner actions to improve external facial recognition technology, the FBI recognizes the need to ensure that external facial recognition system capabilities meet or exceed the FBI’s performance thresholds and works with partners to encourage performance enhancement wherever possible.

The FBI has implemented multiple layers of manual review by trained experts that mitigate risks associated with the use of automated facial recognition technology. Further, there is value in searching all available external databases, which have enabled the FBI to develop investigative leads, further investigations, and help solve crimes.

As with the NGI-IPS, results returned to searches of external facial recognition systems are used as investigative leads and are not considered positive identifications. FBI agents using the services provided by the FACE Services Unit must make the final determination on the value of the facial recognition system responses relative to their investigation.

These multiple levels of manual review minimize the risks associated with using automated facial recognition systems. As facial recognition technology use expands, it is necessary for law enforcement, fusion centers, and other public safety agencies to ensure that comprehensive policies are developed, adopted, and implemented in order to guide the entity and its personnel in the day-to-day access and use of facial recognition technology.

In 2017, the FBI went to the Criminal Intelligence Coordinating Council (CICC), a subcommittee of GLOBAL, an Attorney General Federal Advisory Committee on Justice Information, to address this issue. GLOBAL and the CICC are under the oversight of the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), a component of the Department of Justice.

The CICC, with approval of GLOBAL and BJA, identified a priority to create a Global Facial Recognition Policy Development Template. This priority fell under the purview of the CICC since it is a state, local, tribal, and territorial focused law enforcement council whose purpose is to develop guidance and deliverables to law enforcement entities.

To summarize, the NIST annual testing, in conjunction with the aforementioned training efforts, APB user feedback efforts, and collaboration opportunities are giving the FBI all the insight that it can reasonably attain in conducting an operational review of the NGI-IPS System on an annual basis. The FBI performs audits as they serve an important role in identifying and mitigating risks associated with users of information systems not meeting policy requirements.

In March 2017, the FBI developed the triennial National Identity Services (NIS) audit plan. Procedures for both external and internal NIS audits include review of NGI-IPS system transaction records and associated supporting documentation provided by audit participants.

The FBI continues to conduct NIS audits of states enrolling and/or searching photos in the NGI-IPS, in conjunction with pre-established NIS triennial audits at state Identification Bureaus and federal agencies, and may include reviews at a selection of local agencies that access the NGI-IPS. Additionally, the NIS audit plan provides for an internal audit of the FBI FACE Services Unit to be conducted in accordance with existing procedures for FBI internal audits associated with CJIS system access.

The FBI NIS established and provides the NIS Policy Reference Guide to each state for reference. This policy guide is a living document that includes all FBI CJIS policy and is revised and updated as necessary. In September 2018, the FBI performed an audit on the FACE Services Unit to determine the extent to which users of the NGI-IPS and Biometric Images Specialists in the FACE Services Unit are conducting face images searches in accordance with privacy laws and CJIS policies.

The audit evaluated processes and procedures implemented by the FACE Services Unit and included administrative review of a sample of NGI-IPS queries conducted by the FACE Services Unit to validate appropriate use of the system. The FBI concluded and documented in an FBI CJIS Internal FACE Services NIS Audit Report, dated December 17, 2018, that the FACE Services Unit is operating in accordance with privacy laws and FBI CJIS policies and made no recommendations.

As of May 2019, 14 states and the FACE Services Unit have connectivity with the NGI-IPS. To date, the FBI has conducted nine audits—there have been no findings of non-compliance, and no observations of unauthorized requests or misuse of the NGI-IPS identified during the NGI-IPS audits.

In closing, I would like to state that DOJ and the FBI CJIS Division have provided multiple and transparent status updates on all GAO and congressional inquiries relevant to the FBI’s facial recognition technology.
The FBI’s strength is directly attributable to the dedication of its people who work for and on behalf of their fellow citizens.

Our adversaries and the threats we face are relentless. The FBI must continue to identify and use new capabilities such as automated facial recognition technology to meet the high expectations for the FBI to preserve our nation’s freedoms, ensure our liberties are protected, and preserve our security.

Quite simply put, we at the FBI cannot fail to meet our assigned mission. We must continue to exceed expectations and never rest on past successes. Hence, we must embrace new technologies such as automated facial recognition and optimize allocated resources to achieve mission objectives. At the same time, trust is mission critical.

For this reason, the FBI has developed practices and procedures when it uses facial recognition technologies that constitute the state of the art in protecting privacy and civil liberties. I want to thank all of my colleagues for their support, and each employee at the FBI for their dedicated services.

I am pleased to answer any questions you might have.1 Facial Identification Scientific Working Group, https://fiswg.org/FISWG_Training_Guidelines_Recommendations_v1.1_2010_11_18.pdf.
The document provides guidance on the relevant subject matter to the individual so that upon the completion of training, they will be able to conduct comparisons at the basic level or at the advanced level.2 Per the Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide (DIOG), Section 5.4.1 Assessment Types and Section 5.5 Standards for Opening or Approving an Assessment, updated 12/28/18—Assessments may be opened to detect, obtain information about, or prevent or protect against federal crimes or threats to the national security.3 Per the DIOG, Section 6 Preliminary Investigations—Preliminary Investigations may be opened on the basis of “allegation or information” indicative of possible criminal activity or threats to national security.

Full investigations may be opened when there is “an articulable factual basis” of possible criminal or national security threat activity.

Is are an example of hard technology used by law enforcement?

What are three types of technologies used by police to fight crime?

Another technology is satellite imaging, which enables specially trained officers to locate sites where people grow marijuana. Law enforcement agencies use facial recognition systems to fight crime. Facial recognition utilizes computer technology to compare a photograph with a database of images of known persons to find a match.

When an officer drives to a crime scene or an accident scene, the device is snapping images of passing vehicles. This helps police fight crime by allowing detectives to identify possible suspects fleeing a crime scene or identify possible witnesses that were in the area. Law enforcement agencies are also using satellite images to fight crime.

What tools or equipment do police use?

On their duty belt, they carry a Glock firearm, pepper spray, a Taser, radio, surgical gloves, a baton, and handcuffs. Officers who work patrol also wear a body camera, which is activated and turned on when they respond to a call.