Core_Assessmen

Advancements in Modern Police Technology Christopher L. Kiah Park University Abstract This paper briefly explores some of the various advancements in modern police technology. With the many advancements pertaining to law enforcement technologies and tactics, life as a police officer has become much safer, and extremely more efficient. This paper explores some of the advancements in Deoxyribonucleic Acid or DNA, non-lethal and less then lethal weapons and munitions, fingerprint processing and the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS), as well as crime mapping and case management tools and programs. This paper will also briefly highlight brand new and experimental technology called License Plate Reading Systems (LPRS), some of which have already been implemented throughout the United States. Although this paper examines the technologies which have made policing a more efficient process, it does not and cannot contain every law enforcement technological advancement, as there are many. This paper will shed light on key law enforcement technological advancements that have changed law enforcement forever and also provide basic insight on the respective technologies. Advancements in Modern Police Technology Since the early 20th century, there have been a variety of pivotal technological advancements in law enforcement that have reshaped how law enforcement officers conduct everything from their overall mission to their daily duties. The technological advancements made in law enforcement also came with a trial and error timeframe, possible legal issues, the related impact on the public, and associated costs with research, implementation, and sustainment. Although there are many issues that need to be analyzed and resolved prior to the implementation of a new police technologies, each comes with the sole mission of making policing more efficient and protecting the lives of citizens and officers alike. Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) has had an unimaginable impact on the criminal justice system and law enforcement. After Dr. Alec Jeffreys discovery in 1985, which proved that DNA is effectively different in each person, and his development of a way to interpret the differences in DNA (Butler, 2005), the criminal justice system quickly took notice. Due to the fact that DNA research was a relatively new idea, previous DNA research was taken lightly. DNA is contained in everything from a skin cell to a drop of blood and with the development of the aforementioned system; identifying suspects and proving their involvement beyond a reasonable doubt became possible. There are various legal aspects that arose from the development and use of DNA testing in the criminal justice system. DNA provides evidence which can sometimes overturn a verdict which has already been decided, often years before. There have been a numerous incidents where post conviction DNA testing proved the defendant was without a doubt, not the perpetrator of a particular crime. Advancements in DNA have also allowed police detectives and federal agents the opportunity to test and compare DNA during criminal investigations. There have been a variety of legal issues surrounding the involuntary extraction of DNA, most of which argue to what degree involuntary extraction is protected under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which covers unreasonable search and seizure. A recent issue up for discussion surrounds the particular trigger granting the government the right to force an involuntary extraction of DNA from an individual for testing and storage, and what requirements must be met prior to extraction. DNA is a cost effective solution and tool to combating serious crime and has been a major development. In 1996, the National Academy of Sciences accepted DNA evidence as unquestionable evidence. Another important technological advancement which has helped the law enforcement mission drastically is the development of non-lethal and less then lethal weapons. Non-lethal and less then lethal weapons provide law enforcement with other options when dealing with uncooperative subjects vice using firearms and deadly force. One of the most common non-lethal munitions used today is Oleoresin Capsicum (OC), which is also known as pepper spray. When applied to the facial area the spray causes temporary impairment and provides law enforcement the opportunity to apprehend the suspect. Since its widespread use started by law enforcement and corrections officials throughout the United States in 1982, OC has been proven effective in its application and uses. A study by the National Institute of Justice reviewed a 2-year North Carolina Study which concluded that the use of pepper spray significantly reduced officer and subject injuries respectively (Bowling, Gaines, & Petty, 2003). The legal issues surrounding the use of OC have been associated with positional asphyxiation, OC related deaths, and on what actions by a suspect call for the use of OC. Despite the legal issues which were associated with the use OC during its early stages, there have been numerous studies conducted by various law enforcement agencies and educational institutions that show OC is an effective, safe, and a cheap non-lethal resource for officers to use. The Taser is another important non-lethal option for law enforcement and corrections throughout the United States. Since its widespread use by law enforcement started in 1993, the taser has seen many enhancements. In recent years the outfitting of law enforcement agencies has greatly increased, and the taser is considered an invaluable tool available to law enforcement for the de-escalation of force. The taser uses a nitrogen propelled electric shock system to deliver a shock to individuals, leaving them temporarily impaired and unable to move. Applications of the typical taser last anywhere from five to ten seconds and can deliver a range of voltage, depending on application. There have been numerous incidents where use of the taser has helped quickly defuse violent and otherwise deadly situations. The use of the taser has allowed law enforcement personnel the opportunity to deescalate situations where they may have had to otherwise use deadly force or other means of force. Although there are many good things about the taser, there has been scrutiny over the possible health risks associated with the use of the taser on both the public and legal playgrounds. In 2005, Taser International published information which advised that multiple applications of the taser device on a subject within a short time period could “impair breathing, respiration , and contribute to significant and potentially fatal health risks in people in a state of excited delirium” (Chasnoff, 2008) . With the safety issues surrounding the use of the taser many states have enacted legislation requiring the completion of a regimented training program by officers prior to being allowed to carry a taser, as well as providing strict guidelines in the application and use of the taser. New Jersey does not allow the use of a taser by law enforcement and other states which have passed legislation concerning taser use include Hawaii, Massachusetts, and Florida (Seals, 2007). The cost of the taser is still somewhat high due to the various upgrades and packages available to law enforcement, but as evidenced by widespread use, is not a deterrent to many agencies. While there are some who say the health risks associated with the use of the taser are too high, the lack of scientific evidence to show a correlation has allowed law enforcement agencies around the world to use the taser effectively in day to day operations. With continued development and advancements, the taser will without a doubt become a safer technology and is here to stay. The use of fingerprints to catch criminals is an age old tactic that once required the use of a variety of time consuming techniques. With the development of the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS) by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in 1999, IAFIS provided the law enforcement community with a substantially faster resource for fighting crime. IAFIS was developed by the FBI and is comprised of fingerprints and criminal history data for an estimated 55 million individuals (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2008). The system is made up of submissions from law enforcement agencies across the country and submissions are generated from individuals whom were arrested and processed by that particular agency. The idea behind IAFIS is that a respective agency can scan subject’s fingerprints into the system and have them queried against others in hopes of a match. A query can take as little as a few hours instead of taking months sending fingerprint cards across the country. The initial start up cost for an agency to get the system online is minimal and only requires the purchase of a fingerprint scanner, printer, and a special computer terminal. Every agency should have access to IAFIS as it provides a fast and more comprehensive way for law enforcement to identify and catch criminals. Crime Mapping has long since been a part of the law enforcement mission. Crime mapping involves taking incidents of crime and analyzing the “who, what, where, when, why, and how” aspects involved in a particular area or place. Using the information gathered by crime mapping, departments can identify trends and problem areas within their jurisdictions, as well as connect related incidents. There are a variety of crime mapping programs in use by law enforcement agencies across the United States to include CompuStat, which is used by the New York Police Department and is considered a leader in crime mapping software. Other programs like Home Office Large Major Enquiry System (HOLMES) which gained notoriety while in use by British Law Enforcement, include complete case management capabilities. HOLMES allows detectives to review and analyze complete case data to include reports, pictures, trends, etc (Dempsey, & Frost, 2008). The use of crime mapping and case management software can be expensive when integrating the system into a citywide network, but the benefits outweigh the cost for most departments. Technology has allowed for the development and use of the software and its implementation has certainly helped the law enforcement effort worldwide. License Plate Reading Systems (LPRS) are a newer technology that law enforcement has recently started to explore and implement throughout the United States. LPRS call for the placement of multiple cameras atop a vehicle and while the vehicle is on patrol, the LPRS views and collects license plate numbers along the patrol route. After collection, the LPRS then queries the collected data with respective state and local systems in search of any discrepancy or wanted person. The LPRS allows officers to only monitor an onboard computer, vice having to enter the license plate numbers in manually. LPRS allow for a more sophisticated and efficient process of policing as they even alert officers to stolen vehicles on a respective patrol route. There are a variety of legal issues that have arisen from the use of LPRS as some feel that it is an invasion of public privacy. Skeptics also feel that the continual supervision and monitoring by LPRS and the advanced law enforcement information sharing technologies raise concern over how the information will be used and stored, and may pose a privacy invasion by the government (International Association of Chiefs of Police, 2009). Additionally, the cost of LPRS remains high, as the technology is still new and experimental. There are a variety of technologies that have made the law enforcement community a safer and extremely more efficient place. Officers have a wide range of new and efficient technologies that allow them to do their job quicker and encompass a wide array of tactics and ideas. With the use of the various technological advancements, law enforcement is bound to become even more efficient. The International Association of Chiefs of Police and the Federal Bureau of Investigation are two great organizations that have a lead on the different technologies available and currently under research. References Bowling, M., Gaines, M., & Petty, C.S. (2003). Research for practice. The effectiveness and safety of pepper spray, 195739. Retrieved November 19, 2009, from http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/195739.pdf Butler, J.M. (2005). History of forensic DNA analysis. Retrieved November 19, 2009, from http://dna.gov/basics/analysishistory Chasnoff, B. (2008, October 5). How much taser is too much' The San Antonio Express News, p. A1. Retrieved from Proquest database. (1568108961) Dempsey, J.S., & Frost, L.S. (2008). An introduction to policing (Fourth Edition). (pp 409-410) Belmont, CA: Thomson and Wadsworth. Federal Bureau of Investigation (2008, March 13). Integrated automated fingerprint identification system or IAFIS. Retrieved November 19, 2009, from http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/iafis.htm International Association of Chiefs of Police. (2009, September) Privacy impact assessment report for the utilization of license plate readers. Retrieved November 20, 2009, from http://www.theiacp.org/LinkClick.aspx'fileticket=N%2bE2wvY%2f1QU%3d&tabid=8 Seals, E. (2007). Police use of tasers: the truth is "shocking". 38 Golden Gate U.L. Rev. 109, Golden Gate University Legal Review, Retrieved from LexisNexis database.