Implementing new technologies can give police departments an opportunity to fully engage and educate communities in a dialogue about their expectations for transparency, accountability, and privacy. We live in a time when technology and its many uses are advancing far more quickly than are policies and laws. “Technology” available to law enforcement today includes everything from body-worn cameras (BWC) to unmanned aircraft to social media and a myriad of products in between. The use of technology can improve policing practices and build community trust and legitimacy, but its implementation must be built on a defined policy framework with its purposes and goals clearly delineated. Implementing new technologies can give police departments an opportunity to fully engage and educate communities in a dialogue about their expectations for transparency, accountability, and privacy. But technology changes quickly in terms of new hardware, software, and other options. Law enforcement agencies and leaders need to be able to identify, assess, and evaluate new technology for adoption and do so in ways that improve their effectiveness, efficiency, and evolution without infringing on individual rights. Thus, despite (and because of) the centrality of technology in policing, law enforcement agencies face major challenges including determining the effects of implementing various technologies; identifying costs and benefits; examining unintended consequences; and exploring the best practices by which technology can be evaluated, acquired, maintained, and managed. Addressing these technology challenges by using research, accumulated knowledge, and practical experiences can help agencies reach their goals,54 but law enforcement agencies and personnel also need to recognize that technology is only a tool for doing their jobs: just because you have access to technology does not necessarily mean you should always use it.55 54. Elizabeth Groff and Tom McEwen, Identifying and Measuring the Effects of Information Technologies on Law Enforcement Agencies: The Making Officer Redeployment Effective Program (Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2008), http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/Publications/e08084156-IT.pdf; Christopher S. Koper, Cynthia Lum, James J. Willis, Daniel J. Woods, and Julie Hibdon, Realizing the Potential of Technology in Policing: A Multi-Site Study of the Social, Organizational, and Behavioral Aspects of Implementing Police Technologies (Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, 2015), http://cebcp.org/wpcontent/evidence-based-policing/ImpactTechnologyFinalReport. 55. IACP Technology Policy Framework (Alexandria, VA: International Association of Chiefs of Police, 2014), http://www.theiacp.org/Portals/0/documents/pdfs/ IACP%20Technology%20Policy%20Framework%20January%202014%20Final.pdf. BWCs are a case in point. An increasing number of law enforcement agencies are adopting BWC programs as a means to improve evidence collection, to strengthen officer performance and accountability, and to enhance agency transparency. By documenting encounters between police and the public, BWCs can also be used to investigate and resolve complaints about officer-involved incidents. Jim Bueermann, retired chief of the Redlands (California) Police Department and President of the Police Foundation, told the task force about a seminal piece of research that demonstrated a positive impact of BWCs in policing. The researchers used the gold standard of research models, a randomized control trial, in which the people F i n a l R e p o r t o f t h e P r e s i d e n t ’ s T a s k F o r c e o n 2 1 s t C e n t u r y P o l i c i n g 3 2 being studied are randomly assigned either to a control group that does not receive the treatment being studied or to a treatment group that does. The results of this 12-month study strongly suggest that the use of BWCs by the police can significantly reduce both officer use of force and complaints against officers. The study found that the officers wearing the cameras had 87.5 percent fewer incidents of use of force and 59 percent fewer complaints than the officers not wearing the cameras. One of the important findings of the study was the impact BWCs might have on the self-awareness of officers and citizens alike. When police officers are acutely aware that their behavior is being monitored (because they turn on the cameras) and when officers tell citizens that the cameras are recording their behavior, everyone behaves better. The results of this study strongly suggest that this increase in selfawareness contributes to more positive outcomes in police-citizen interaction.56 56. Listening Session on Technology and Social Media: Body Cameras-Research and Legal Considerations (oral testimony of Jim Bueermann, president, Police Foundation, for the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Cincinnati, OH, January 31, 2015); Ariel Barak, William A. Farrar, and Alex Sutherland, “The Effect of Police Body-Worn Cameras on Use of Force and Citizens’ Complaints Against the Police: A Randomized Controlled Trial,” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 2014. But other considerations make the issue of BWCs more complex. A 2014 Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) publication, funded by the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office), reporting on extensive research exploring the policy and implementation questions surrounding BWCs noted: Although body-worn cameras can offer many benefits, they also raise serious questions about how technology is changing the relationship between police and the community. Body-worn cameras not only create concerns about the public’s privacy rights but also can affect how officers relate to people in the community, the community’s perception of the police, and expectations about how police agencies should share information with the public.57 Now that agencies operate in a world in which anyone with a cell phone camera can record video footage of a police encounter, BWCs help police departments ensure that events are also captured from an officer’s perspective.58 But when the public does not believe its privacy is being protected by law enforcement, a breakdown in community trust can occur. Agencies need to consider ways to involve the public in discussions related to the protection of their privacy and civil liberties prior to implementing new technology, as well work with the public and other partners in the justice system to develop appropriate policies and procedures for use. Another technology relatively new to law enforcement is social media. Social media is a communication tool the police can use to engage the community on issues of importance to both and to gauge community sentiment regarding agency policies and practices. Social media can also help police identify the potential nature and location of gang and other criminal or disorderly activity such as spontaneous crowd gatherings.59 57. Lindsay Miller and Jessica Toliver, Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and Lessons Learned (Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2014), vii, http://ric-zai-inc.com/ Publications/cops-p296-pub.pdf. 58. Ibid., 1. 59. Police Executive Research Forum, Social Media and Tactical Considerations for Law Enforcement (Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2013), http://ric-zai-inc.com/Publications/cops-p261-pub.pdf. The Boston Police Department (BPD), for example, has long embraced both community policing and the use of social media. The department put its experience to good and highly visible use in April 2013 during the rapidly developing investigation that followed the deadly explosion of two bombs at the finish line of the Boston Marathon. The 3 3 P i l l a r 3 . T e c h n o l o g y & S o c i a l M e d i a BPD successfully used Twitter to keep the public informed about the status of the investigation, to calm nerves and request assistance, to correct mistaken information reported by the press, and to ask for public restraint in the tweeting of information from police scanners. This demonstrated the level of trust and interaction that a department and a community can attain online.60 While technology is crucial to law enforcement, it is never a panacea. Its acquisition and use can have unintended consequences for both the organization and the community it serves, which may limit its potential. Thus, agencies need clearly defined policies related to implementation of technology, and must pay close attention to community concerns about its use. 60. Edward F. Davis III, Alejandro A. Alves, and David Alan Sklansky, “Social Media and Police Leadership: Lessons from Boston,” New Perspectives in Policing (Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, March 2014), http://www.hks.harvard.edu/content/download/67536/1242954/version/1/file/ SocialMediaandPoliceLeadership-03-14.pdf. 3.1 recOmmendatiOn: The U.S. Department of Justice, in consultation with the law enforcement field, should broaden the efforts of the National Institute of Justice to establish national standards for the research and development of new technology. These standards should also address compatibility and interoperability needs both within law enforcement agencies and across agencies and jurisdictions and maintain civil and human rights protections. The lack of consistent standards leads to a constantly spiraling increase in technology costs. Law enforcement often has to invest in new layers of technology to enable their systems to operate with different systems and sometimes must also make expensive modifications or additions to legacy systems to support interoperability with newer technology. And these costs do not include the additional funds needed for training. Agencies are often unprepared for the unintended consequences that may accompany the acquisition of new technologies. Implementation of new technologies can cause disruptions to daily routines, lack of buy-in, and lack of understanding of the purpose and appropriate uses of the technologies. It also often raises questions regarding how the new technologies will impact the officer’s expectations, discretion, decision making, and accountability.61 Inconsistent or nonexistent standards also lead to isolated and fractured information systems that cannot effectively manage, store, analyze, or share their data with other systems. As a result, much information is lost or unavailable—which allows vital information to go unused and have no impact on crime reduction efforts. As one witness noted, the development of mature crime analysis and CompStat processes allows law enforcement to effectively develop policy and deploy resources for crime prevention, but there is a lack of uniformity in data collection throughout law enforcement, and only patchwork methods of near real-time information sharing exist.62 These problems are especially critical in light of the threats from terrorism and cybercrime. 61. Koper et al., Potential of Technology in Policing (see note 54). 62. Listening Session on Technology and Social Media (oral testimony of Elliot Cohen, Maryland State Police, for the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Cincinnati, OH, January 31, 2015). F i n a l R e p o r t o f t h e P r e s i d e n t ’ s T a s k F o r c e o n 2 1 s t C e n t u r y P o l i c i n g 3 4 3.1.1 actiOn item: The Federal Government should support the development and delivery of training to help law enforcement agencies learn, acquire, and implement technology tools and tactics that are consistent with the best practices of 21st century policing. 3.1.2 actiOn item: As part of national standards, the issue of technology’s impact on privacy concerns should be addressed in accordance with protections provided by constitutional law. Though all constitutional guidelines must be maintained in the performance of law enforcement duties, the legal framework (warrants, etc.) should continue to protect law enforcement access to data obtained from cell phones, social media, GPS, and other sources, allowing officers to detect, prevent, or respond to crime. 3.1.3 actiOn item: Law enforcement agencies should deploy smart technology that is designed to prevent the tampering with or manipulating of evidence in violation of policy. All of the task force listening sessions were streamed live and can still be viewed at the task force website. PHOTO: DEBORAH SPENCE 3.2 Recommendation: The implementation of appropriate technology by law enforcement agencies should be designed considering local needs and aligned with national standards. 3 5 P i l l a r 3 . T e c h n o l o g y & S o c i a l M e d i a While standards should be created for development and research of technology at the national level, implementation of developed technologies should remain a local decision to address the needs and resources of the community. In addition to the expense of acquiring technology, implementation and training also requires funds, as well as time, personnel, and physical capacity. A case in point is the Phoenix Police Department’s adoption of BWCs mentioned by witness Michael White, who said that the real costs came on the back end for managing the vast amount of data generated by the cameras. He quoted the Chief of the Phoenix Police Department as saying that it would cost their department $3.5 million to not only outfit all of their officers with the cameras but also successfully manage the program. 3.2.1 Action Item: Law enforcement agencies should encourage public engagement and collaboration, including the use of community advisory bodies, when developing a policy for the use of a new technology. Local residents will be more accepting of and respond more positively to technology when they have been informed of new developments and their input has been encouraged. How police use technology and how they share that information with the public is critical. Task force witness Jim Bueermann, president of the Police Foundation, addressed this issue, noting that concerns about BWCs include potential compromises to the privacy of both officers and citizens, who are reluctant to speak to police if they think they are being recorded. And as the task force co-chair, Charles Ramsey, noted, “Just having the conversation can increase trust and legitimacy and help departments make better decisions.” 3.2.2 Action Item: Law enforcement agencies should include an evaluation or assessment process to gauge the effectiveness of any new technology, soliciting input from all levels of the agency, from line officer to leadership, as well as assessment from members of the community.63 Witnesses suggested that law enforcement agencies create an advisory group when adopting a new technology.64 Ideally, it would include line officers, union representatives, and members from other departmental units, such as research and planning, technology, and internal affairs. External stakeholders, such as representatives from the prosecutor’s office, the defense bar, advocacy groups, and citizens should also be included, giving each group the opportunity to ask questions, express their concerns, and offer suggestions on policy and training. 3.2.3 Action Item: Law enforcement agencies should adopt the use of new technologies that will help them better serve people with special needs or disabilities. 63. Sharon Stolting, Shawn Barrett, and David Kurz, Best Practices Guide for Acquisition of New Technology (Alexandria, VA: International Association of Chiefs of Police, n.d.), http://www.theiacp.org/portals/0/pdfs/BP-NewTechnology.pdf. 64. Listening Session on Technology and Social Media: Body Cameras—Research and Legal Considerations (oral testimony of Michael White, professor, Arizona State University, for the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Cincinnati, OH, January 31, 2015). 3.3 Recommendation: The U.S. Department of Justice should develop best practices that can be adopted by state legislative bodies to govern the acquisition, use, retention, and dissemination of auditory, visual, and biometric data by law enforcement. F i n a l R e p o r t o f t h e P r e s i d e n t ’ s T a s k F o r c e o n 2 1 s t C e n t u r y P o l i c i n g 3 6 These model policies and practices should at minimum address technology usage and data and evidence acquisition and retention, as well as privacy issues, accountability and discipline. They must also consider the impact of data collection and use on public trust and police legitimacy. 3.3.1 Action Item: As part of the process for developing best practices, the U.S. Department of Justice should consult with civil rights and civil liberties organizations, as well as law enforcement research groups and other experts, concerning the constitutional issues that can arise as a result of the use of new technologies. 3.3.2 Action Item: The U.S. Department of Justice should create toolkits for the most effective and constitutional use of multiple forms of innovative technology that will provide state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies with a one-stop clearinghouse of information and resources. 3.3.3 Action Item: Law enforcement agencies should review and consider the Bureau of Justice Assistance’s (BJA) Body Worn Camera Toolkit to assist in implementing BWCs. A Body-Worn Camera Expert Panel of law enforcement leaders, recognized practitioners, national policy leaders, and community advocates convened a two-day workshop in February, 2015 to develop a toolkit and provide guidance and model policy for law enforcement agencies implementing BWC programs. Subject matter experts contributed ideas and content for the proposed toolkit while a panel composed of privacy and victim advocates contributed ideas and content for the toolkit to broaden input and ensure transparency. 3.4 recOmmendatiOn: Federal, state, local, and tribal legislative bodies should be encouraged to update public record laws. The quickly evolving nature of new technologies that collect video, audio, information, and biometric data on members of the community can cause unforeseen consequences. Public record laws, which allow public access to information held by government agencies, including law enforcement, should be modified to protect the privacy of the individuals whose records they hold and to maintain the trust of the community. Issues such as the accessibility of video captured through dashboard or body-worn cameras are especially complex. So too are the officer use of force events that will be captured by video camera systems and then broadcast by local media outlets. Use of force, even when lawful and appropriate, can negatively influence public perception and trust of police. Sean Smoot, task force member, addressed this by recalling the shooting of a Flagstaff, Arizona, police officer whose death was recorded by his BWC. Responding to public record requests by local media, the police department released the graphic footage, which was then shown on local TV and also on YouTube.65 This illustration also raises questions concerning the recording of police interactions with minors and the appropriateness of releasing those videos for public view given their inability to give informed consent for distribution. 65. Listening Session on Technology and Social Media(Sean Smoot, task force member, for the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Cincinnati, OH, January 31, 2015). 3.5 Recommendation: Law enforcement agencies should adopt model policies and best practices for technology-based community engagement that increases community trust and access. 3 7 P i l l a r 3 . T e c h n o l o g y & S o c i a l M e d i a These policies and practices should at a minimum increase transparency and accessibility, provide access to information (crime statistics, current calls for service), allow for public posting of policy and procedures, and enable access and usage for persons with disabilities. They should also address issues surrounding the use of new and social media, encouraging the use of social media as a means of community interaction and relationship building, which can result in stronger law enforcement. As witness Elliot Cohen noted, We have seen social media support policing efforts in gathering intelligence during active assailant incidents: the Columbia Mall shooting and the Boston Marathon bombing. Social media allowed for a greater volume of information to be collected in an electronic format, both audibly and visually.66 66. Listening Session on Technology and Social Media: Technology Policy (oral testimony of Elliot Cohen, lieutenant, Maryland State Police, for the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Cincinnati, OH, January 31, 2015). But to engage the community, social media must be responsive and current. Said Bill Schrier, “Regularly refresh the content to maintain and engage the audience, post content rapidly during incidents to dispel rumors, and use it for engagement, not just public information.”67 False or incorrect statements made via social media, mainstream media, and other means of technology deeply harm trust and legitimacy and can only be overcome with targeted and continuing community engagement and repeated positive interaction. Agencies need to unequivocally discourage falsities by underlining how harmful they are and how difficult they are to overcome. Agencies should also develop policies and practices on social media use that consider individual officer expression, professional representation, truthful communication, and other concerns that can impact trust and legitimacy. Table 2. What types of social media does your agency currently use, and what types of social media do you plan to begin using within the next 2 to 5 years? Social media type Percent of responding agencies currently using Percent of responding agencies planning to begin using in 2 to 5 years Agency website 100 — Facebook 82 14 Twitter 69 18 YouTube 48 20 LinkedIn 34 20 Note: PERF, with the support of the COPS Office and Target Corporation, disseminated a “Future of Policing” survey in 2012 to more than 500 police agencies; nearly 200 responded. Source: Police Executive Research Forum, Future Trends in Policing (Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2014), http://ric-zai-inc.com/Publications/cops-p282-pub.pdf. 3.6 Recommendation: The Federal Government should support the development of new “less than lethal” technology to help control combative suspects. The fatal shootings in Ferguson, Cleveland, and elsewhere have put the consequences of use of force front and center in the national news. 67. Listening Session on Technology and Social Media: Technology Policy (oral testimony of Bill Schrier, senior policy advisor, Office of the Chief Information Officer, State of Washington, for the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Cincinnati, OH, January 31, 2015). F i n a l R e p o r t o f t h e P r e s i d e n t ’ s T a s k F o r c e o n 2 1 s t C e n t u r y P o l i c i n g 3 8 Policies and procedures must change, but so should the weaponry. New technologies such as conductive energy devices (CED) have been developed and may be used and evaluated to decrease the number of fatal police interventions. Studies of CEDs have shown them to be effective at reducing both officer and civilian injuries. For example, in one study that compared seven law enforcement agencies that use CEDs with six agencies that do not, researchers found a 70 percent decrease in officer injuries and a 40 percent decrease in suspect injures.68 68. Bruce Taylor et al., Comparing Safety Outcomes in Police Use-Of-Force Cases for Law Enforcement Agencies That Have Deployed Conducted Energy Devices and A Matched Comparison Group That Have Not: A Quasi-Experimental Evaluation (Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum, 2009), https://www.ncjrs. gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/237965.pdf; John M. MacDonald, Robert J. Kaminski, and Michael R. Smith, “The Effect of Less-Lethal Weapons on Injuries in Police Useof-Force Events,” American Journal of Public Health 99, no. 12 (2009) 2268–2274, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2775771/pdf/2268.pdf; Bruce G. But new technologies should still be subject to the appropriate use of force continuum restrictions. And Vincent Talucci made the point in his testimony that over-reliance on technological weapons can also be dangerous.69 3.6.1 Action Item: Relevant federal agencies, including the U.S. Departments of Defense and Justice, should expand their efforts to study the development and use of new less than lethal technologies and evaluate their impact on public safety, reducing lethal violence against citizens, constitutionality, and officer safety. Taylor and Daniel J. Woods, “Injuries to Officers and Suspects in Police Use-ofForce Cases: A Quasi-Experimental Evaluation,” Police Quarterly 13, no. 3 (2010): 260–289, http://pqx.sagepub.com/content/13/3/260.full.pdf. 69. Listening Session on Technology and Social Media (oral testimony of Vincent Talucci, International Association of Chiefs of Police, for the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Cincinnati, OH, January 31, 2015). Rev. Jeff Brown speaks on restoring trust between police and communities, Phoenix, February 13, 2015. PHOTO: DEBORAH SPENCE 3 9 P i l l a r 3 . T e c h n o l o g y & S o c i a l M e d i a 3.7 Recommendation: The Federal Government should make the development and building of segregated radio spectrum and increased bandwidth by FirstNet for exclusive use by local, state, tribal, and federal public safety agencies a top priority.70 70. Listening Session on Technology and Social Media: Technology Policy (oral testimony of Bill Schrier, senior policy advisor, Office of the Chief Information Officer, State of Washington, for the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Cincinnati, OH, January 31, 2015). A national public safety broadband network which creates bandwidth for the exclusive use of law enforcement, the First Responder Network (FirstNet) is considered a game-changing public safety project, which would allow instantaneous communication in even the most remote areas whenever a disaster or incident occurs. It can also support many other technologies, including video transmission from BWCs. F i n a l R e p o r t o f t h e P r e s i d e n t ’ s T a s k F o r c e o n 2 1 s t C e n t u r y P