An Overview of Surveillance in Law Enforcement
Surveillance has become an integral part of modern law enforcement practices, with a wide array of surveillance equipment and technologies being deployed to help maintain law and order, deter crime, and provide critical evidence in investigations. From the small, unobtrusive cameras affixed to police officers’ uniforms to complex deployment systems that relay live information in real-time , these tools are all part of policing work as it is done today. Law enforcement agencies recognize the advantages and effectiveness of surveillance technology, many of which can be integrated seamlessly with communications and information management programs. As technologies evolve and improve, so do the capabilities of police and security professionals on the job.
Different Types of Surveillance Equipment in Use by Police
The use of surveillance equipment by law enforcement is nothing new. The relationship between the two goes back further than most people understand, and it likely will continue to evolve into the future. For instance, according to a 2012 article from The Atlantic, police have been using closed circuit television (CCTV) since the 1960s in certain big cities, and police in Baltimore have been using CCTV since at least the mid-1980s. Expansions into areas outside of the city have come as technology has improved, but the basic premise of the technology remains the same—using cameras to effectively deter and/or capture criminal activity.
That being said, CCTV is just one piece of the constantly-expanding scope of crime fighting tools that law enforcement personnel have at their disposal. Here are some of the others:
The first use of body-worn cameras in the U.S. occurred during a two-day conference in July of 2001. Two officers in Rialto (a city in California) volunteered to wear the cameras. They then recorded 99 total incidents and captured 28 instances in which force was utilized. By 2014, the Rialto Police Department had reported a reduction in use of force by officers by 60 percent and an overall reduction in citizen complaints (from above 24 complaints in 2013 to only three complaints in 2014). By 2015, there were 800 law enforcement agencies in the U.S. using body cameras, with the number expected to continue to rise in the coming years.
Surveillance drones have become an increasing presence in the law enforcement realm, with recent activity in jurisdictions in Texas, New York, and New Mexico. Texas authorities have implemented a policy that requires police obtain a warrant before flying drones over private property or using the devices for criminal investigations. In some areas, however, such a requirement does not exist, leading to some significant debates in the state legislature over whether rules should be put in place to limit the aerial monitoring by police. Proponents say they provide great benefits to overall cost efficiency, as they can get ahead of crime before it takes place, but some are concerned about the privacy implications of the technology. In 2013, the Federal Aviation Administration estimates implied that police and military drone programs alone would increase from 326 in 2013 to a whopping 1,043 by 2020.
While there are different laws in place governing what is "reasonable" under the Fourth Amendment, wiretap devices are especially controversial due to the potential for widespread implications. Federal law requires law enforcement to get the swipe of a judge’s pen before it can monitor phone calls and other communications. This requirement generally extends to both state and federal bodies, but not every state needs a court order.
Tracking systems come in many forms, but generally they allow police to monitor a person’s location in real time. Many different issues must be taken into account before these systems can be effectively used, and issues can arise regarding interpretation of so-called "exigent circumstances" and what can and cannot be monitored.
The Growth of Surveillance Technology
Advancements in surveillance technology have seen dramatic improvements over the years, ranging from early surveillance tools such as the Morrison Portable Duplicating Camera, KIRK Radios, and the Cross Field Strength Meter, to newer innovations like Eagle Eye cameras, geolocating tools and Stingrays. While many of the earlier surveillance tools came through the work of police officers or private sector engineers often working at the behest of local law enforcement agencies, more recent incarnations of surveillance technology come from companies like Taser (which now sells Axon body-worn video systems) and other tech-centric firms.
The PC-1060 was a 16mm still film camera that could take up to 96 pictures in a single roll of film. This camera was used by law enforcement, the military, and government security agencies well into the 1990s. VHS-C video cameras popularized the use of technology in field operations, allowing law enforcement agencies to develop "Mission Cars" outfitted with VHS-C cameras, a VCR for videotaping and a field monitor. Although VHS-C cameras were not digital, they paved the way for later digital video cameras.
The "tailgate" radio is often referred to as the precursor to the modern-day KIRK radio, used primarily for intercepting radio frequencies. Often deployed in a van with a radio amplifier, a KIRK radio allowed officers to listen in on conversations happening in private. KIRK radios are now obsolete, but remain popular among hackers and other tinkerers, as they fall under the category of "software defined radios," which are capable of intercepting a wide range of frequencies through software programming alone.
A Vector Elettronica Cross Field Strength Meter is a frequency analyzation device that can receive any RF frequency between 27Mhz – 1000Mhz and 300Mhz in the VHF band. This device works by providing an audible alarm when the frequency of any radio signal in the air matches the critical frequency contained within a pre-programmed list. Vector Elettronica is credited as the first company to create such a device for law enforcement — back in 1988 and then again in 2006.
Entry level devices like Eagle Eye and ‘Cell Hawk’ are some of the newer innovations available to law enforcement. Eagle Eye is a fixed mounted, wide area camera that helps law enforcement agencies capture and store video data that was previously difficult to acquire. The Eagle Eye cameras are installed on light poles, buildings, or various permanent fixtures throughout a municipality. The cameras are controlled through a networked computer system that may belong to the local municipality or the local law enforcement agency Eagle Eye is marketed to the public as a home security camera, however this multi-use technology is also a substantial benefit to law enforcement agencies across the country.
‘Cell Hawk’ is a more recent entrant into the U.S. policing industry — Cell Hawk is a geolocating tool touted as the next best thing for locating missing persons or tracking hotspot locations of drugs or crime. The tool comes from a Canadian company called CellHawk Inc., and utilizes cell phone signal mapping technology to create a heat map of cell phone signal activity — the kind of data law enforcement agencies have limited access to in the past. Despite so-called limitations, several courts have held that cellphone users have not have expectation of privacy in the cell phone signals they emit, thus enabling police agencies to acquire cellphone signal data without a search warrant.
The Legal and Ethical Implications
Law enforcement agencies are increasingly using video surveillance systems and other advanced technologies to combat illegal activity within their jurisdictions, but at what cost? The legal and ethical issues of using these tools by law enforcement touch on constitutional protections of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, while balancing the need for security, surveillance and the freedoms of the citizens. Law enforcement agencies must thread this needle when controlling and deploying these powerful tools.
Privacy protections are vital to the administration of justice. Justice requires that the government respect and protect individual privacy, and that information solely related to individuals’ personal lives remain protected from unwarranted government intrusion. Obtaining a warrant prior to surveillance is the norm, and any monitoring or recording without a warrant is typically ill-advised. In some cases, the constitutionality of surveilling or recording without a warrant may be defensible, but legal challenges can be costly and time consuming. Moreover , there is as yet little guidance on legal limits and interpretations with respect to any of the new technologies widely used by law enforcement. Legal precedent has not yet kept up with advancements in technology. When in doubt, agencies should opt not to use any technologies that infringe on individual privacy interests in ways that could be deemed unreasonable based on current case law.
It is important to understand the law that applies to each technology to be used by law enforcement officers. Agencies must consider the use of the following in light of the law: Further complicating the matter is the fact that the public views many of the newer surveillance technologies as encroachments by law enforcement into the privacy of daily life. Even if the law does not prohibit the use of such surveillance, the perception of overreaching law enforcement activities can erode public support for law enforcement. As a result, agencies sometimes understandably choose to restrict or limit the use of certain technologies even if the law does not require it. However, limiting the use of technologies may come at a price in terms of investigations and arrests.
Examples of Successful Use of Surveillance
While technology is often married both to the big idea and the big result, it is also true that fair results can sometimes be found on a smaller scale as well. The following are notable case studies regarding successful use of law enforcement surveillance equipment:
Drones and Devices in the Borderlands: In July of 2016, the ACLU published an important report, Border Surveillance Technology, that studied the use of drones and devices in border security. Although the ACLU was critical of perhaps the overreach of federal agencies and their transparency about the programs, there were no stories of negative outcomes attributed to the technology itself. The ACLU did point out how the Border Patrol, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the U.S. Coast Guard report that "surveillance technologies in the borderlands significantly contributed to the majority of inspections and arrests."
License Plate Readers in New Jersey: The State of New Jersey was one of the early adopters of license plate readers. The state began using this surveillance technology in 2001, and, according to The Star Ledger, the technology will soon be expanded into Newark and Essex County (along with Camden and Mercer). In Essex Country, the technology has been used in over 13,000 vehicle stops, contributing in more than 500 arrests and the recovery of more than 200 vehicles. The Star Ledger also reports that the state has not just gotten good results in arrests but also those bad results, including perpetrators of rape, robbery, attempted murder and even a plane hijacking.
Over 4,066 Successful Warrant Service Operations: According to the United States Department of Justice, the State of Arkansas owns and operates state-of-the-art law enforcement surveillance technology. The Arkansas Information System (AIS) has collected, analyzed and disseminated criminal intelligence data since 1989. Since then, the state has reported 4,066 successful warrant service operations utilizing this technology. The bottom line: Arkansas credits its technology with helping its state and local law enforcement agencies serve and execute over 15,000 warrants.
The Issues and the Future of Law Enforcement Surveillance
Despite the numerous advancements in surveillance equipment, law enforcement agencies face a variety of ongoing challenges in maintaining these tools and technologies. Cybersecurity threats. One of the greatest challenges to law enforcement surveillance is the potential for cybersecurity threats. Some surveillance equipment is vulnerable to computer system attacks by hackers, especially as more IP-connected video surveillance systems are used. Since there is no global cybersecurity legislation, law enforcement agencies are left to deal with these vulnerabilities on their own. Public skepticism. While most Americans are in favor of police monitoring public areas, not everyone thinks that additional surveillance is a good idea for their own private spaces. Individuals resist the idea of law enforcement using surveillance technologies to monitor things such as their online activities, or to identify them by license plate number. Increased surveillance has led to some public pushback, which has led to a chilling effect on the popularity of certain technologies. Future trends. As surveillance equipment continues to advance, a pressing question remains: what’s next? When it comes to law enforcement equipment , there’s no denying that the future is bright. Surveillance cameras will become more compact, with smarter design. They will be able to recognize faces, plates and objects on their own, without the need for human intervention or oversight. GPS tracking will continue to evolve, with smaller units that are less invasive and more difficult to detect. Technology will allow police to be able to let GPS devices run their course for a certain period of time and report back to them, without the need for officers to retrieve them. Drones are becoming more popular with law enforcement, and like all other types of surveillance equipment, they are expected to become smaller and increasingly powerful. While many police departments have already adopted these technological tools into their law enforcement efforts, they may face additional budgetary challenges in the years to come. Newer technologies like robotic security guards are expected to eventually join the law enforcement mix, with built in facial recognition software and other advanced features. As always, with these newer technologies comes the threat of cybersecurity default, raising the importance of investing in adequate digital security measures to protect these items.