Pillar 3

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