The document establishes 14 national standards – seven addressing training development and delivery and seven covering training content. Requirements include interactive and scenario-based instruction, use of scientific research and real-world examples, participation by crisis response subject matter experts, and trauma informed approaches.

Training content must address de-escalation techniques such as communication, active listening, rapport building, tactical repositioning, and use of time and distance. Other areas include recognizing and responding to people in crisis, relevant use-of-force and disability laws, community crisis resources, decision-making, preservation of human life, and first responder wellness.

Under LEDTA, DOJ funding for de-escalation and crisis response training following release of the standards must support LEDTA certified programs or courses. The standards are currently in a pilot phase and may be revised as guidance and policy considerations evolve. The guide can be downloaded free from the COPS Office Resource Center at https://tinyurl.com/5s7b4wcn

For more than two decades, acoustic gunshot detection has helped law enforcement respond faster to gunfire, but its value increasingly extends beyond the initial alert and into the investigation itself.

Properly utilized, acoustic gunshot detection can provide investigators and prosecutors with essential forensic evidence of when a shooting occurred; where it occurred; and, in some cases, how it unfolded.

As gunshot detection technology becomes more common in criminal investigations, courts and practitioners must understand the legal principles governing its admissibility. The legal analysis varies depending on whether the evidence consists of audio recordings and business records or expert forensic analysis.

 Gunshot Detection Technology Overview 

Gunshot detection systems operate through a network of acoustic sensors positioned throughout a coverage area. When gunfire occurs, multiple sensors capture the sound and transmit recordings and timing data to a central processing system.

The most advanced systems determine the location of gunfire using the same basic scientific principle seismologists use to locate earthquake epicenters. Using a process known as multilateration, the system compares the slight differences in the time the impulsive sounds reach each sensor to estimate where the sounds originated.

Proprietary algorithms serve as an initial screening mechanism, filtering out sounds inconsistent with gunfire. Potential events are then reviewed by trained human analysts who make the final determination on whether to issue a gunfire alert – a process used by systems such as ShotSpotter^®. Once confirmed, gunfire alerts are transmitted to law enforcement in near real time, typically within 30-60 seconds of the shooting.

 Part I: When the Audio and General Timeline Are Enough 

In many criminal cases, the investigative value of acoustic gunshot detection is relatively straightforward. There, investigators and prosecutors simply want to establish that gunfire occurred at a particular time and place, or they want the judge or jury to hear the recorded gunfire because the number and cadence of the shots is relevant to intent and premeditation.

The recordings can establish a timeline, corroborate witness testimony or physical evidence, and help understand the sequence of events.

A recent homicide prosecution in St. Louis County illustrates the point. In a domestic violence incident, the defendant confronted his former girlfriend outside her mother’s home. The mother intervened in the heated argument. The defendant pulled out his gun and fired 16 rounds, striking both women multiple times, killing his former girlfriend.

The recorded gunfire revealed three distinct volleys separated by pauses of up to two seconds – details which could not have been fully appreciated from witness testimony alone. Prosecutors relied on the audio to argue that the breaks between volleys provided the defendant with time to reflect before resuming fire, supporting a finding of deliberation and premeditation. The jury returned a first-degree murder conviction.

From an evidentiary perspective, cases seeking to admit audio recordings generally involve traditional authentication principles. The technology provider should be able to provide the audio recordings along with an affidavit verifying that they were recorded and maintained in the ordinary course of business.

At SoundThinking (the company where I oversee the team of ShotSpotter forensic experts), we have seen courts routinely admit recorded gunfire once a proper foundation has been established. The relevant principles are similar to those which govern the admission of surveillance video, body-worn camera footage, and automated license plate reader data.

In the St. Louis example, the audio recording was admitted into evidence using a certified business record. But, if needed in other cases, a custodian of records can testify to authenticity and explain the general operation of the gunshot detection system. When gunshot detection technology is used primarily for the value of the audio recording, the focus is not on complex scientific analysis, but on establishing the reliability of the recording process and the integrity of the evidence.

Used in this manner, acoustic gunshot detection evidence rarely presents controversy akin to novel scientific methods.

 Part II: When Forensic Analysis Becomes Critical 

Some shootings, however, are far more complicated.

Investigations may involve multiple shooters, competing claims of self-defense, or conflicting evidence about who fired first. In these cases, acoustic gunshot detection data can provide insights well beyond timeline, shot count and cadence.

In advanced gunshot detection systems, forensic analysis can help determine whether multiple firearms were used; distinguish gunshots from echoes; identify shots not automatically classified by software; and clarify the sequence of fire. This analysis is performed by forensic experts – including in-house specialists at the technology provider – who examine waveforms, spectrograms, timing data, and other acoustic characteristics to evaluate the evidence.

A case I charged in Oakland a few years ago illustrates the value of forensic analysis in cases involving competing self-defense claims.

Two men exchanged gunfire from their vehicles while positioned driver-side to driver-side, resulting in the death of an innocent passenger. Both defendants claimed self-defense, so the timing of shots became a critical issue at trial. Forensic analysis of the recordings showed that gunfire from two firearms was simultaneous, supporting the prosecution’s theory that the defendants were engaged in mutual combat. The jury convicted both defendants of homicide.

Unlike the mere authentication of audio recordings, forensic analysis can place the reliability of the underlying scientific methods at issue.

By example, federal courts and numerous state courts have subjected (ShotSpotter) recorded gunfire evidence to Daubert scrutiny and determined that the underlying science is well-established and the technology reliable. The Daubert test is flexible and focuses on overall reliability rather than rigid criteria.

A smaller number of jurisdictions continue to apply the older Frye standard which asks whether the scientific methodology has achieved general acceptance within the relevant scientific community. State courts in California, Illinois, New York, and Pennsylvania have concluded that this technology is generally accepted and thus admissible in court.

When forensic conclusions are central to the issues in dispute, courts may examine the underlying science and methodology through Daubert or Frye hearings. Gunshot detection technology providers should have expert witnesses to explain the relevant scientific principles and the methodologies employed during forensic analysis. Agencies which have access to qualified forensic experts through their technology provider are generally better positioned to address these evidentiary challenges.

 Targeting Violence, Not Communities 

Despite its proven investigative and evidentiary value, acoustic gunshot detection technology faces criticism from some advocacy groups and commentators who allege its deployment is discriminatory because it is often concentrated in nonaffluent urban neighborhoods.

That argument confuses the location of the technology with the location of the violence. Shootings are disproportionately concentrated in a relatively small number of communities. Deploying lifesaving technology where gun violence is most prevalent is not discrimination – it is a targeted, data-driven response to a documented public safety problem.

Residents of violence plagued neighborhoods deserve the same access to public safety resources and rapid emergency response as any other citizens.

 Conclusion 

As its use becomes more widespread, acoustic gunshot detection is increasingly serving not only as a rapid response tool, but also as a reliable source of evidence in criminal investigations. Understanding both its investigative and legal dimensions is essential for effective use in the field and the courtroom.

Melissa Krum Dooher retired from the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office in Oakland, California, after 25 years of service as an Assistant District Attorney. She now serves as the Senior Director of Forensics & Litigation Support at SoundThinking, where she manages the team of forensic experts who produce the ShotSpotter forensic reports and testify in court. For ShotSpotter-related forensics questions, contact the team at forensics@soundthinking.com

Robotaxis are evolving into RoboCops… A self-driving Waymo taxi reported two teens to the police in San Mateo, California, after they were found drinking alcohol and shooting toy guns in the back of the vehicle. The San Mateo Police Department detained two 15-year-olds after the Waymo they were riding in contacted the department and stopped in a parking lot until law enforcement arrived. Officers removed both teens from the vehicle and determined they were using toy guns to shoot Orbeez water beads (similar to the BBs) at objects from inside the vehicle. A video posted on social media shows at least five officers and a police dog responding to the scene and approaching the Waymo with their weapons raised. Waymo vehicles have internal cameras and microphones. (They got Waymo than they bargained for…)

“Holy guacamole, Batman!”… A Mexican vigilante, who locals call “Batman,” is being hunted by police after he allegedly chased down suspected thieves and taped them to lampposts. At least five men were found taped and unable to move from lampposts over ten days in the area of Lagos de Moreno in Jalisco in western Mexico. Many of them had “ratero,” the Spanish word for “thief,” scribbled on their faces by the anonymous crime hunter. Some of them also appeared to have been beaten up, with bloody faces and visible cuts. The men were eventually cut free and released by local emergency services. Local police confirmed they are now in search of a suspect after they had recorded five such incidents. A Jalisco prosecutor said they are investigating alleged thefts by the men, but that “at this moment they are victims” because they had been unlawfully assaulted and restrained. (The Tape Crusader strikes again!)

Talk about junk in your trunk… A 30-year-old Florida woman who denied ownership of the bag of cocaine which fell from her buttocks while being booked denied it was hers and told jailers that the drug must have been placed there during an “intimate encounter.” According to an arrest report, a car she was driving was spotted veering across a highway. Upon being pulled over, she refused to exit her Nissan Altima which smelled of “burnt marijuana.” Officers say she was “slow and lethargic” and was pulled from the vehicle after she refused to remove her seat belt and tried to lock the car. During the jail intake process, she passed through an X-ray scanner which is used to spot contraband. When jailers detected an anomaly in her “lower region,” she was brought to a room where she was subsequently seen “trying to cover her buttocks area with her hand.” Upon moving her hand, a baggie containing 3.8 grams of cocaine fell from her butt. With the coke at her feet, she denied knowing anything about the drug. She speculated that somebody must have placed the narcotics inside her during a sexual encounter. (I’m sure that story has worked before.)

 That must be a great neighborhood… A 29-year-old Odenton, Maryland, man managed to have his own car stolen while he was busy allegedly burglarizing a business across the street. Police were responding to a stolen vehicle report when a burglary was reported just minutes later at a Verizon store. Officers began to connect the dots after noticing blood on the store’s window, as well as blood on the glasses of the man who reported his vehicle was stolen. When asked to show his hands, officers discovered blood on his hand and shirt and placed him in handcuffs. Bodycam footage posted by the department shows the man repeatedly denying being at the Verizon store, while surveillance footage allegedly shows him burglarizing it. Police have yet to release details about the suspect who stole the alleged burglar’s vehicle. (The irony would be if he wound up in the same cell as the person who stole his truck!)

I just play one on TV… A 30-year-old Palm Bay, Florida, man was arrested for obstruction and practicing law without a license. Officers in Brevard County pulled over a woman during a traffic stop and discovered a controlled substance in her car. The woman immediately lawyered up and called a friend of a friend who claimed to have all the right credentials for practicing law. The friend of a friend soon showed up at the scene in a suit and tie, claiming to be certified to practice law in both Georgia and Florida. The “practitioner” then set about trying to negotiate a deal for his “client.” But, when officers insisted that he produce said credentials, he was unable to do so. Further investigation revealed that man was, in fact, not a lawyer and he was placed under arrest. (In all fairness, he DID stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.)

Th-Th-That’s All Folks!… A 43-year-old man whose actual name is Loony Toon was sentenced to prison after leading a police chase and shooting at Oregon police officers. Mr. Toon pleaded guilty to several felony charges stemming from a traffic stop and was sentenced to 20 years in prison. The Milwaukee police had stopped his vehicle just before 3:00 a.m. and found Toon and a female passenger inside. After discovering Toon had an outstanding felony warrant, another officer responded, placing spike strips under the back tires to prevent his escape. Police said he then reversed the car, backed into a police vehicle, ran over the spike strips, and sped away along Highway 224. During the police chase, Toon fired a pistol out of the window in the direction of Milwaukee police officers following behind. His criminal history involves 25 criminal convictions, including 16 felonies. (His brother, Spit, chews tobacco.)

Active shooter incidents continue to claim lives and devastate individuals, families and communities across the United States. In 2025, the FBI designated 34 active shooter incidents, representing a 42% increase from 24 incidents in 2024; however, 2025 still remains below the five year average of 43 incidents per year. Active shooter incidents occurred in 21 states and Washington, DC, and represent five categories, including commerce, open space, government, education, and houses of worship. Nearly 68% of incidents involved planning and preparation by the shooter, an increase from 58% in 2024.

This year’s report includes a new section on potentially averted active shooter incidents which were a result of law enforcement observations, tips to the FBI and/or local law enforcement, or information provided to School Resource Officers (SROs) or campus police. This section offers several examples where methods such as “see something, say something” likely prevented an attack and saved lives.

The FBI encourages safety and security through its options-based Active Shooter Attack Prevention and Preparedness (ASAPP) training and the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training (ALERRT) training.For more information on the 2025 Active Shooter Incidents report, as well as the FBI’s Active Shooter Safety Resources, visit https://tinyurl.com/536hk7d6

New technology, smarter strategies and practical solutions are reshaping traffic enforcement and roadway safety.

Although traffic fatalities have declined from their pandemic-era peak, tens of thousands of people continue to die on America’s streets, roads and highways each year. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that 36,640 people died in motor vehicle traffic crashes in 2025, a 6.7 percent decrease from 2024. The US Department of Transportation continues to seek comprehensive and effective approaches to reducing traffic deaths, including safer vehicles, safer speeds and road conditions, improved driver behavior, and higher standards of post-crash care. With law enforcement playing a key role in preventing and reducing traffic-related fatalities, injuries and property damage, both public education and upholding safety laws come to the fore. Among the recent measures focusing on this are combating impaired and distracted driving, speeding, and determining solutions to safety challenges in a jurisdiction’s streets and highways. These measures also include the law enforcement collected data which identifies and deters unsafe conditions. That information leads to media campaigns; countermeasures to deter unsafe driving; testing programs for laboratory and technical improvements; and initiatives to reduce high-risk situations.

 Grappling with Safe Pursuits 

When something is bothersome and interferes with sleep, it might be the moment in time when a new and unique solution occurs. Such was the case for Leonard Stock who had seen a disturbing traffic accident account in the news. His creativity was jogged and he developed the idea of the “Grappler,” a device which could avoid the dangers associated with pit maneuvers and spike strips and, instead, bring a fleeing vehicle and driver to a slower and safer stop.

The risks are not merely theoretical. In August 2026, an Arkansas State Police pursuit provided a dramatic example of how quickly a PIT maneuver can produce unintended consequences. During a pursuit on Interstate 555 near Trumann, a fleeing Hyundai Sonata had reportedly reached approximately 130 mph when a trooper performed a Tactical Vehicle Intervention, Arkansas’ term for a PIT maneuver. The Hyundai lost control and struck an uninvolved Toyota SUV occupied by a 68-year-old woman and a 73-year-old man. Their SUV left the highway and overturned several times, leaving both occupants seriously injured and requiring emergency extrication and hospitalization. You can watch the dash cam video on YouTube: Arkansas State Police pursuit ends in rollover crash involving an uninvolved vehicle (https://tinyurl.com/yrcvcx65).

The incident illustrates one of the inherent risks of PIT maneuvers: Deliberately causing a fleeing vehicle to lose directional control can produce unpredictable consequences, particularly at high speeds or when other motorists are nearby. It is precisely this type of risk which Leonard Stock sought to address.

His invention,  the Grappler , activates with an in-vehicle switch which releases a heavy-duty nylon net from an assembly mounted on the front of the pursuing vehicle. The net is designed to entangle a rear tire or other rotating component of the fleeing vehicle, while a tether allows the pursuing officer to help slow and bring the vehicle to a controlled stop. Unlike a PIT maneuver, the Grappler does not rely on intentionally striking the fleeing vehicle and causing it to spin. When successfully deployed, it can bring a pursuit to an end within seconds. Among the agencies which have added the Grappler system to their fleets is the Riverside County (CA) Sheriff’s Office (RSO). Lt. Jason Santistevan reports that Grappler systems are installed on the K-9 Unit’s Chevrolet Tahoe patrol vehicles.  Additional Grappler systems are scheduled to be installed on select K-9 Unit Chevrolet Silverado patrol vehicles.

At present, only the Sheriff’s K-9 Unit is authorized to operate vehicles equipped with the Grappler system and this is intentional, not only because their vehicles are the right strength and size, but also because the RSO K-9 handlers receive extensive, specialized training in multiple law enforcement disciplines. Among these are high-risk vehicle stops, pursuits, tactical operations, and critical incident response situations. Assigning the Grappler system only to the K-9 Unit ensures it is deployed by personnel with the training, experience and judgment necessary to use the device safely and effectively. This promotes consistent oversight, accountability and operational control of the Grappler program while maximizing the system’s effectiveness in the field, says Lt. Santistevan.

The Grappler Certification Course itself is an eight hour training program consisting of both classroom instruction and practical application. Participants receive instruction on the capabilities, limitations, deployment considerations, safety protocols, and operational use of the Grappler. Each participant must successfully complete both portions of the course and then demonstrate proficiency in the safe and effective deploying of the Grappler system. Only then is the person authorized to operate a vehicle equipped with the Grappler.

The Grappler’s manufacturer does not establish a single minimum or maximum deployment speed applicable to every situation. According to Lt. Santistevan, Riverside County deputies are instructed not to deploy the Grappler at speeds below five mph or above 70 mph. “As with any vehicle intervention technique, deputies shall continually evaluate the totality of the circumstances including vehicle speed, roadway conditions, traffic volume, weather, and public safety” when determining whether deployment of the Grappler is appropriate.

As a onetime use item, after the Grappler has been deployed, a new net must be installed, but can be done so within about five minutes. Reloading a new service net is a simplified process so that the Grappler system can be quickly returned to operational status.       

After deployment, the used service net is returned to the Grappler manufacturer and a credit can be issued toward the future purchases of replacement service nets. That exchange program helps reduce replacement costs while ensuring that the Grappler system remains ready for continued field operations, notes Lt. Santistevan.

A Grappler system is only approved for installation on specific vehicle makes and models which are approved by Grappler. A comprehensive list of vehicles which are compatible with the Grappler system can be obtained from the manufacturer at policebumper.com

The Riverside County Sheriff’s Office is planning to add ten more Grappler systems to its K-9 fleet to bring the total in use to 20.

 “Nobody’s At the Wheel!” 

  Fully driverless vehicles continue to provoke debate about their safety and effectiveness. While it might appear that vehicles operating without a human driver would pose greater hazards, Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA) Chief Executive Officer Jonathan Adkins recently responded to an Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) study which found that Waymo’s driverless vehicles were involved in 68 percent fewer police-reportable crashes per vehicle mile traveled than human-driven vehicles in the same cities. Adkins states, “Progress, not perfection, must be the standard for AVs, just as it has been for seat belts, airbags, automatic emergency braking, and every other safety technology that eventually earned the public’s trust.” The new research by IIHS indicates why these technologies should be judged by consistent data over millions of miles, but not by overreactions to a single video or incident not supported by data. Waymo’s AVs crashed far less often than the people driving around them, Adkins noted, adding, “Safety officials must have the tools and information they need to monitor performance, identify emerging safety issues and respond effectively.”  

The GHSA and Waymo have partnered to develop virtual, self-paced training to help first responders learn how to interact safely with Waymo’s driverless vehicles.   The training consists of three modules which take approximately 30 minutes or less to complete (https://tinyurl.com/mwucb4bx).

 Impaired Driving 

The GHSA, Responsibility.org and the National Alliance to Stop Impaired Driving (NASID), a coalition established and led by Responsibility.org, have partnered to support efforts addressing alcohol, cannabis and polysubstance impaired driving. One-year grants of $40,000 each were awarded to Kansas, Oregon and Pennsylvania to improve their ability to identify impaired drivers and remove them from the road through enhanced toxicology testing, mobile breath-testing tools and specialized officer training.

The Kansas Department of Transportation has partnered with the Sedgwick County Regional Forensic Science Center to expand the laboratory’s ability to detect the full range of drugs which appear in impaired driving cases. Toxicology scientists will train in advanced mass spectrometry technology to support faster and comprehensive substance identification and accurate detection of polysubstance use referrals for screening and assessment.

In Oregon, the Department of Transportation has partnered with the Oregon State Police to enhance the scope of a high visibility enforcement unit with mobile evidentiary breath testing instruments. These instruments will allow law enforcement to collect roadside breath samples and will reduce investigation time to improve identification of polysubstance impaired drivers.  

In Pennsylvania, the State Highway Safety Office and the Center for Forensic Science Research and Education will address the problem that more than a third of all DUI arrests now involve multiple drugs rather than alcohol alone. Complex toxicology data will be transferred into practical, field-ready guidance resources to give access to the most current information.  

 Are You a Distracted Driver? 

Distracted driving poses dangers to self, other drivers and pedestrians, but might an officer also be distracted? Technology in the patrol car, texting, calling coworkers, or looking at information on the MDC can each cause distracted driving.

Recognizing this problem is the US Department of Justice-supported VALOR Officer Safety and Wellness Program (valorforblue.org). VALOR stands for Preventing Violence Against Law Enforcement Officers and Ensuring Officer Resilience and Survivability. The program focuses on a wide range of officer safety and wellness issues, including tactical safety, resilience, decision-making and vehicle safety. Among the less obvious risks addressed is distracted driving. Officers, like other motorists, can become distracted behind the wheel and those distractions can contribute to crashes, injuries, fatalities, property damage, and “close calls.”

Staying safe, attentive and focused on driving is the goal. Chat messages need to be audited regularly. Technology might be needed to stop the in-vehicle computer at a certain speed. Policy must be set to enforce adherence to staying attentive. With most agencies, technology is regarded as a keen addition to officer and vehicle capability, but, often, that same technology keeps adding more gadgets, screens and distractions which can cause an officer to lose focus on the road and driving attentively. And, there may be a problem with having a ride-along, or worse, that prisoner in the back who might also be a “distraction.” Visual and cognitive distractions just might require stopping and pulling over to read or acknowledge a message, rather than doing so while driving.

So, Field Training Officers might want to consider – or reconsider – what might be necessary for better officer safety. Ask about those “near misses” and “close calls” which were caused by distractions like an officer using the phone while driving. Officers must lead by example and be standard bearers against inattentive or distracted driving.

“Commentary driving” is a tool some agencies have borrowed from Europe. It involves talking about everything you see as you drive. That can point out problems in attention – or lack thereof. And, now, there is technology which can focus on a driver’s eyes to see where they are looking and announce what needs to be done to “come back” to attentive driving. The National Law Enforcement Roadway Safety Program and VALOR offer similar safety and wellness concerns with no cost training, technical assistance and resources to prevent officer injuries and fatalities from officer-involved collisions and “struck-by” incidents. Log on to policinginstitute.org for courses ranging from mid- and executive-level officers, patrol officers and “train the trainer” resources and skills. The courses are self-paced in commentary driving, managing distractions, peer-to-peer accountability, mitigating struck-by incidents, and vehicle pursuits. The website’s program catalog details the courses available.  

 And It’s Not Just on Roadways 

Public safety might bring to mind patrols, roadside signage, media reports, and traffic officer training, but another often overlooked “traffic control” is that involving waterways. While many agencies have personnel or volunteers who can assist with specific enforcement on lakes and rivers, there is also a “road” component in some situations in which traffic law enforcement may need to take a role.

One example is preventing unauthorized access to areas where water hazards exist, including those short-term events when a roadway has standing or flowing water impeding safe usage of the road. Turn Around Don’t Drown^® signage and large, lighted barriers might prevent most unauthorized access, but some drivers want to dare the water or believe their vehicle will be able to go around or through standing or moving water.

Public education efforts are needed to remind drivers that even relatively shallow moving water can be dangerous. According to the National Weather Service, six inches of fast-moving water can knock an adult off his or her feet, while approximately 12 inches can carry away a small car. Eighteen to 24 inches of fast-moving water can carry away many larger SUVs, vans and trucks. Drivers should never attempt to determine the depth or strength of floodwater by driving through it. Drownings can occur, along with property damage and the additional hazards involved in recovering stranded or swept-away vehicles.

Monitoring conditions during heavy rains and flash floods must be done to patrol and block potentially dangerous areas. Plans must be in place for quick deploying of assistance to victims and also to secure the area to prevent further problems in both roadways and waterways. Coordination with local media keeps the public informed of closures and potential problems.  

The Road Ahead            

As traffic enforcement continues to evolve, new technology alone will not determine success. The most effective approaches will combine useful tools, accurate data, sound policy, proper training, and good judgment to improve safety for officers and the public alike.

Stephenie Slahor, Ph.D., J.D., is a writer in the fields of law enforcement and security. She can be reached at drss12@msn.com.

 Free Traffic Safety Resources for Law Enforcement

National Law Enforcement Roadway Safety Program

The National Policing Institute offers no cost training and a downloadable resource toolkit designed to reduce officer injuries and fatalities on the road. Resources address distracted driving, vehicle pursuits, commentary driving, struck-by incidents, emergency vehicle technology, peer accountability, and agency policy development.
Resource: National Policing Institute – National Law Enforcement Roadway Safety Program

2025 MADD Impaired Driving Toolkit

Impaired Driving Toolkit: A Law Enforcement Leader’s Guide to Saving Lives provides practical information on high visibility enforcement, impaired driving task forces, ARIDE and DRE training, impaired driving investigations and reports, search warrants, prosecution, community engagement, and funding resources.
Download: MADD Impaired Driving Toolkit

IACP Distracted Driving Toolkit

Designed for police executives, supervisors and patrol officers, the IACP toolkit addresses distracted driving education and enforcement, as well as distraction inside patrol vehicles. Downloadable materials include promising practices, talking points, a press release template, resource lists, and officer safety posters.
Resource: IACP Distracted Driving Toolkit

New $20 Million for Traffic Enforcement Innovation

In August 2026, the NHTSA announced $20 million for its new Innovative Traffic Safety Enforcement (ITSE) Grant Program to develop, test and validate new approaches to impaired and distracted driving, speeding, reckless driving, and seat belt enforcement. Potential projects can include new safety technologies, predictive and data-driven analytics, specialized training, and other scalable enforcement strategies. The NHTSA anticipates making up to ten awards, with individual awards starting at approximately $300,000. No matching funds are required and applications are due September 1, 2027.
Program information and application: Grants.gov – Funding Opportunity NHTSA-693JJ926R000024-FY26

 All Traffic Solutions Offers Foldable InstAlert Message Sign

All Traffic Solutions’ InstAlert is a portable variable message sign designed for law enforcement, traffic management and public safety applications. According to the company, InstAlert is the only foldable variable message sign currently on the market.

The sign folds in half for transport and can be carried in the trunk of a patrol vehicle. It can be deployed on a portable post, vehicle hitch, mobile trailer, or pole, providing agencies with a flexible way to communicate traffic guidance, roadway incident information, special event notices, and other public safety messages.

InstAlert can be remotely managed and monitored through a secure online portal using a computer, smartphone or tablet. Messages can be scheduled in advance for specific dates and times. A tamper detection feature can also capture a photo and send a real-time alert if the sign is disturbed.

The full-matrix LED display supports multiple rotating screens with customized text and graphics. The unit is designed for all-weather use and is manufactured in the United States.A video demonstrating InstAlert is available on YouTube at https://youtu.be/kvCjYMahmR0

Sponsored by CISA’s Office for Bombing Prevention, BMAP focuses on restricting access to explosive precursor chemicals, powders, target materials, and associated components. The program concentrates largely on the planning phase of a potential attack, particularly the acquisition of materials and bomb-building stages.

BMAP also works to improve recognition and reporting of suspicious purchasing behavior and reduce the theft or diversion of materials which could be misused. Outreach efforts bring together law enforcement, emergency services, businesses, and other public and private sector partners to create a broader network capable of identifying potentially suspicious activity.

Among its resources are free awareness materials, videos and online training. CISA and the FBI also operate Operation Flashpoint, an outreach initiative encouraging businesses which sell potentially exploitable materials to recognize and voluntarily report suspicious activity.Additional information, training resources and a downloadable BMAP fact sheet are available at cisa.gov/bmap

©2026. A.R.R.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is reshaping public safety work and nowhere is that shift more visible than in AI-assisted Body-Worn Camera (BWC) report writing.

The term “artificial intelligence” was introduced by John McCarthy and colleagues in a 1955 proposal for the 1956 Dartmouth Summer Research Project on Artificial Intelligence. AI still has no universally accepted definition; Ian McCulloh, Ph.D., of Johns Hopkins University, offers a working one: “a machine that can sense, reason and act” (personal communication). What began as an academic research field seven decades ago is now a rapidly evolving technology which agencies and researchers are working to understand and evaluate.

Law enforcement agencies are exploring AI across a wide range of technologies and tasks, including AI-enabled drones and robotic systems, analytics, transcription, and report writing. In report writing and investigative settings, AI-assisted tools can generate transcripts, organize recorded information, flag possible inconsistencies for human review, and help users reconstruct events from recorded information.

 Human in the Loop 

That growing reliance comes with an important requirement: human review. AI generated content can contain errors, omissions or misleading information, and someone must remain responsible for verifying its accuracy. In AI-assisted BWC reporting, the officer remains responsible for reviewing and approving the report, while supervisors may conduct additional review as part of their normal responsibilities. That review can add to existing workloads and, where job duties materially change, may also raise labor management issues requiring discussion or bargaining.

 A Need for Scientific Study 

Despite this rapid adoption and the operational and labor questions it raises, little scientific research has examined how well AI-assisted BWC reporting actually works and its use in the workplace. Does it save employees time? What concerns do they have about using it? Do agencies have written policies governing their use? And what training, if any, is given before employees rely on it?

To begin answering these questions, the Institute for the Prevention of In-custody Deaths, Inc. (IPICD), through its Center of Excellence for Artificial Intelligence (AI Center), conducted a national survey distributed independently by E-mail through the California Force Instructors Association, Police1, Xiphos, and other professional interest channels.

The 18 question survey was reviewed for content relevance prior to being E-mailed to individual law enforcement personnel across the United States. Select descriptive statistical findings are presented in this article. Space constraints prohibit listing and discussing each finding. A complete finding report with both quantitative (descriptive and inferential statistics) and qualitative analyses is forthcoming and will be published by the IPICD.

 Survey Methodology 

The survey was developed using SurveyMonkey and peer reviewed before being distributed through law enforcement professional interest channels with an estimated combined audience of approximately 225,000 individuals. A total of 214 usable survey responses were received from 34 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Not every respondent answered every question, so the number of responses (n) varies by survey item. All responses were anonymous and are reported in aggregate. The survey was conducted for research and educational purposes.

Using the estimated distribution audience of 225,000 as the denominator, the 214 usable responses represent approximately 0.1 percent of that audience. Because the survey was distributed through multiple professional interest channels and respondents opted in rather than being randomly selected, the findings describe this self-selected group and should not be interpreted as representative of American law enforcement as a whole.

 Respondent Characteristics 

The largest single age group, 43 to 54, comprised 48 percent of respondents; another 33 percent were 55 and older, and only 1.9 percent were 25 to 30 years old (n=214). Supervisors – including sergeants, lieutenants, captains, and higher ranking personnel – accounted for 49 percent of respondents, while patrol officers and deputies accounted for 13 percent (n=212). The specific subgroup size (n) varies throughout the survey because not every respondent answered every question.

 AI-assisted Report Writing Platforms 

Among the 73 respondents who answered the question about AI-assisted report writing platforms, 40 percent reported using Axon Draft One and 38 percent reported using another AI-assisted report writing platform. In a separate question about agency authorization, 34 percent said their agency authorized the use of an AI-assisted report writing tool, 57 percent said their agency did not and nine percent were unsure (n=191).

 Policy and Training 

When asked whether their agency had a written policy governing the use of AI to assist with report writing, 62 percent replied “yes,” 31 percent replied “no” and seven percent were unsure (n=96). Among the 78 respondents who answered the training question, 47 percent said their agency had trained them to use AI-assisted report writing tools.

Among respondents for whom both policy and training information were available, agencies reporting having a written AI policy also reported training at a rate of roughly 60 percent, compared with about 15 percent among agencies reporting no policy. This was a strong association within the survey sample, but it does not establish that having a policy causes training; that training leads to policy adoption; or that either is responsible for the other. Other factors, such as agency size, available resources or leadership priorities, may influence both. The forthcoming full report will examine this relationship in greater detail.

 Using AI at Work 

Among the 77 respondents who answered the question about frequency of use, ten percent said they used an agency authorized AI report writing platform daily; 12 percent used one two to three times per week; 25 percent used one occasionally – a few times per month or less – and 53 percent said they never used one. Open-ended responses also indicated that some respondents used AI tools at work even when those tools were not agency approved, a practice often referred to as “shadow AI.”

In a separate item (n=210), 21 percent of respondents reported using an agency approved AI platform, while 22 percent said they did not use one. Thirty-one percent reported that their agency did not have an approved AI platform and 15 percent reported that their agency did not have a specific policy identifying approved AI platforms.

When usage frequency responses (n=77) were compared with respondents’ reported training status, trained respondents did not report regular use at a clearly higher rate than untrained respondents. The descriptive results suggest that training alone may not explain adoption. Other factors, such as trust in the technology, workload or ease of use, may also play a role, but this survey cannot establish which factors, if any, cause employees to use an AI tool regularly.

 How Respondents Use AI at Work 

Respondents identified a variety of reasons for using AI at work. Among respondents to this item (n=42), frequently cited benefits included saving time (22 percent); improving report clarity (18 percent); improving spelling, grammar and readability (21 percent); and capturing information the user may have overlooked (13 percent).

 AI Use Concerns 

Sixty percent of respondents to the report writing concern question (21 of 35) expressed concern about accuracy errors; 51 percent (18 of 35) cited incomplete information; and 46 percent (16 of 35) expressed concern about legal liability if errors went undetected before a report was submitted. Separately, 11 percent of respondents to the time-saving question said AI-assisted report writing did not save them time.

Independent research has also questioned whether AI-assisted report writing necessarily produces the expected time savings. Adams, Barter, McLean, Boehme, and Geary conducted a preregistered randomized controlled trial involving 85 officers and 755 reports in a single police department. The researchers found no statistically significant reduction in report writing time attributable to Axon Draft One in that setting. The finding does not establish that AI-assisted report writing can never save time, but it cautions against assuming that time savings will occur in every agency or application.

Other reporting has raised similar concerns while also illustrating the importance of distinguishing between different AI tools. In July 2026, Forbes reported that officers in Lafayette, Indiana, testing Axon’s Form One – an AI tool designed to help populate administrative report fields – said correcting errors sometimes caused the process to take longer. Form One performs a different function from Draft One’s narrative generation capability, so those experiences should not be treated as a replication of the Draft One study. An ACLU review published in May 2026 cited the Adams study as finding no time savings from Draft One and also cited a separate 2025 evaluation of another AI tool that found increased time per incident.

Legal and prosecutorial responses are also developing. The King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office in Washington has told area law enforcement agencies that it will not accept police report narratives produced with AI assistance. California requires disclosure when covered AI is used to generate police reports, verification by the report’s author, retention of the original AI generated first draft, and an audit trail. Utah requires an AI disclosure and certification by the author that the AI-assisted report or record was read and reviewed for accuracy.

Technology has also changed in response to concerns about preserving the original AI-generated draft. Axon now provides agencies with the ability to retain original Draft One narratives and records audit events associated with their generation, access and retention. The original draft retention setting is off by default; however, allowing agencies to determine whether and how retained drafts fit their policies and records retention requirements.

When asked more generally about AI use, 72 percent of respondents expressed concern about AI accuracy, while 59 percent were concerned about AI generated reports being submitted without adequate human review (n=212). Respondents also raised concerns involving vendor data security, public trust and employee discipline. An exploratory analysis of these responses suggested two broad patterns: concerns about the accuracy of the work product itself and concerns involving institutional trust and accountability. Because this analysis is preliminary and will be detailed in the Center’s forthcoming full report, the findings should be treated as hypothesis generating rather than conclusive.

 Beyond the Percentages: What a Deeper Look Is Beginning to Show 

The percentages above tell only part of the story. A deeper statistical review of the same survey responses, now underway as part of the Center’s forthcoming full report, is identifying patterns which warrant additional study. One involves years of service. Respondents with fewer than ten years on the job reported avoiding workplace AI at a rate of approximately 35 percent, or eight of 23 respondents, compared with approximately 13 percent, or 21 of 160 respondents, among those with 17 or more years of service. This descriptive difference should not be generalized beyond the survey sample, but it raises a useful question for future research about whether years of service are associated with willingness to use workplace AI.

A second early finding may be particularly relevant to policy writers. Among respondents for whom both policy and training information were available, agencies reporting a written AI policy also reported training at a rate of roughly 60 percent, compared with about 15 percent among agencies reporting no policy. The relationship does not establish that policy adoption causes training, but it suggests that policy and training frequently occur together. For agency leaders, the practical question is whether implementing an AI policy without accompanying education and training could leave employees uncertain about how the technology should be used.

Leadership and line personnel also reported different perspectives. Supervisors and higher ranking respondents were more likely than line personnel to report knowing their agency’s AI authorization status – approximately 41 percent versus 24 percent (n=111, leadership; n=79, line). Leadership respondents were also more likely to express concern about AI-generated content being submitted without adequate review, approximately 67 percent versus 49 percent among line personnel (n=212). These descriptive differences may reflect different job responsibilities or experiences, but the survey does not establish why the groups responded differently.

Another early result may be relevant to command staff. Among the 77 respondents who answered the usage frequency question, receiving training was not clearly associated with more regular use of an AI tool. Training may expose personnel to the technology, but these survey results do not show that training alone leads to adoption. Other factors – including trust in the tool, workload, perceived usefulness, and ease of use – may also influence whether personnel use AI regularly. Additional analysis will be needed to determine which factors are most closely associated with adoption.            

When respondents were grouped according to the concerns they reported about AI – including accuracy, unreviewed content, vendor data security, public trust, and discipline – an exploratory analysis suggested two broad patterns. One centered primarily on institutional trust and accountability, while the other centered primarily on the accuracy of the work product. This preliminary finding will be examined in greater detail in the Center’s forthcoming report and should not yet be interpreted as establishing two definitive categories of law enforcement personnel.

Respondents were asked separately what AI training they wanted for themselves and what training they believed their agencies needed (n=127 and n=119 open-ended responses, respectively). The response patterns differed depending on the question. Responses about personal training tended to emphasize skills and uses extending beyond report writing, while responses about agency needs more often emphasized governance issues such as policy clarity, data security and accountability. Because not every respondent answered both questions, these findings are best understood as differences between the two sets of responses unless a matched response analysis confirms that the comparison involves the same individuals.

A caution belongs here, too: When we broke respondents into smaller groups by rank or job title, some categories were thin, a handful of respondents in certain title categories, for instance, and raw percentages in those small groups should be read as suggestive, not conclusive, until a larger sample confirms them.

There is a broader point worth naming here about method, not just findings. Percentages alone establish that concerns exist and roughly how often. It was only by reading respondents’ own words, not counting checkbox answers, that a distinction emerged: The same people asked for noticeably different things depending on whether the question was about themselves or about their agency. A closed-ended survey question would have missed that shift entirely. Understanding AI adoption in policing, in other words, is not only a technology question; it is also a question about the tacit, on-the-job judgment officers bring to it which shows up in their words long before it shows up in a percentage.

 Summary 

This survey offers an evidence-based snapshot of how this self-selected group of law enforcement personnel is experiencing AI-assisted report writing, where respondents say policy and training are keeping pace with adoption, where gaps may exist, and what kinds of assistance personnel say they want. It also raises questions for further study: why respondents with fewer years of service reported more AI avoidance than longer-serving respondents; why training status was not clearly associated with regular use in this sample; and whether line personnel and command staff view AI-related risks differently. The AI Center views these findings as starting points for additional research rather than final conclusions.

Readers should therefore treat the findings as descriptive of this survey sample, not as national estimates of law enforcement attitudes or practices. The results identify issues worthy of further discussion and study and provide a foundation for the Center’s forthcoming quantitative and qualitative analyses.

 John G. Peters, Jr., Ph.D., serves as President and Chief Learning Officer of the IPICD. He is a graduate of several AI programs from leading institutions including the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sloan School and Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, University of Las Vegas, and the Whiting School of Engineering, Johns Hopkins University. A former law enforcement administrator and officer, he has been judicially qualified as an expert witness in international, federal, and state courts.

John R. Black, D.B.A., is Director of the IPICD Center of Excellence for Artificial Intelligence. He is a graduate of AI programs, including the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and his post-doctoral graduate research and studies include metacognition, sensemaking, and decision-making; subjects on which he presents routinely to a range of audiences nationally and internationally. He is a certified thinking leader (CTL) from the Cabrera Research Labs. A retired law enforcement officer (patrol, corrections, investigations, training, and command rank) and a retired US Army Sergeant Major (Special Forces, Psychological Operations, and Civil Affairs), Dr. Black has been judicially qualified as an expert witness in international, federal, and state courts.

The terrorist attacks claimed 2,977 lives at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and aboard Flight 93. For America’s public safety community, September 11 also demonstrated what the oath to protect others can require.

 Law Enforcement’s Sacrifice 

Police officers were among the first to respond to the World Trade Center and among those who paid the highest price. The FBI recorded 72 law enforcement officers killed as a result of the attacks. Twenty-three were members of the New York City Police Department. Another 37 were members of the Port Authority Police Department – the largest loss of personnel by a single American police force in one event.

Yet, statistics tell only part of the story.

Officers evacuated buildings, cleared streets, helped the injured, and tried to establish order as conditions changed by the minute. Some had been dispatched. Others simply saw what was happening and responded.

FBI Special Agent Leonard W. Hatton was traveling to work when he saw smoke and fire coming from the North Tower. He went directly to the World Trade Center and joined FDNY firefighters evacuating people. He was still inside when the towers collapsed. His actions were extraordinary, but the instinct behind them was repeated throughout that morning.

 A Public Safety Loss without Precedent 

Nearly 1,000 FDNY firefighters deployed to the World Trade Center and 343 died that day. Firefighters, EMS personnel, police officers, communications personnel, medical personnel, and others responded in New York, at the Pentagon and near Shanksville.

Many remained long after the cameras were gone. Rescue became recovery. Personnel searched debris, collected evidence, recovered remains, and assisted victims’ families.

For law enforcement, an enormous investigative responsibility was also beginning. The FBI launched PENTTBOM, the largest investigation in Bureau history. More than 4,000 special agents and 3,000 professional employees participated, pursuing more than half a million leads and conducting more than 167,000 interviews.

 The Toll Did Not End in 2001 

The National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund recognizes 535 additional law enforcement officers who later died from illnesses associated with their 9/11 response. Together with the original 72, the number of officers honored for 9/11-related deaths stands at 607.

The FDNY has likewise reported more than 400 members lost to World Trade Center-related illnesses since the attacks. The federal World Trade Center Health Program now serves nearly 150,000 responders and survivors nationwide.

 How 9/11 Changed Policing 

September 11 reshaped American law enforcement. The attacks underscored the need for stronger communication and intelligence sharing among local, state and federal agencies. Counterterrorism became a responsibility extending far beyond Washington and New York.

Today, approximately 200 FBI Joint Terrorism Task Forces operate around the country, while fusion centers provide state and local hubs for sharing threat information. Training, communications, emergency planning, and interagency relationships have evolved. The underlying responsibility has not.

Law enforcement must prepare for dangers not yet visible, recognize warning signs, share information, and respond when prevention fails, while continuing to protect the constitutional rights and freedoms the profession exists to defend.

 They Reported for Duty 

There is now an entire generation of public safety personnel with no personal memory of September 11. That makes remembrance more important, not less.

Those entering the profession today should understand not only what happened, but what their predecessors did when confronted by it.

They established evacuation routes and perimeters. They carried the injured. They searched rubble. They guarded critical infrastructure. They worked crime scenes of unprecedented size and investigated hundreds of thousands of leads. Many continued serving while carrying illnesses caused by their work at the attack sites.

Some never returned home. Others returned home, but ultimately surrendered their lives years later.

On this 25th anniversary, we remember all 2,977 people murdered on September 11, 2001, and the families who have lived with that loss for a quarter century.

Within the public safety community, we offer particular remembrance to the police officers, federal agents, firefighters, EMS personnel, and emergency workers who answered when their nation needed them.Their legacy lives in every officer who reports for duty and every public safety professional who accepts a simple, but profound, responsibility: When others need help, we go.

The Guide features a variety of on demand training; resources to request live training; tools; where to find free elder abuse multidisciplinary team consultations; public outreach materials; and more.

To download a copy of the “Law Enforcement Elder Justice Resource Guide,” visit https://tinyurl.com/2x5zm2xd

The ballistic protection industry has seen steady advancements over the past year, with new upgrades and design enhancements improving armor effectiveness. Here’s a look at some of the latest developments.

Adept Armor

Adept’s new Nova Titanium is a high cut titanium combat helmet designed to deliver steel helmet toughness at polyethylene (PE) helmet weight, with low backface deformation and an indefinite shell service life.

Weighing approximately 2.02 pounds in size L/XL, including shell, pads, retention, and hardware, Nova Titanium is rated to stop 9mm FMJ at 1,312 ft/s with low backface deformation. Its continuous 260LC titanium armor shell provides edge-to-edge protection without the resin matrix used in composite helmets, meaning it will not delaminate; degrade from UV exposure; or corrode from salt air, sweat, rain, oils, fuels, or most solvents.

Adept positions Nova Titanium as a lighter, tougher, longer lasting alternative to premium PE helmets which can be expensive, thicker, softer shelled, and limited by finite service life. The titanium shell offers visible impact damage, strong multihit tolerance, a closer fit, smaller silhouette, and long-term durability.

Available in M and L/XL sizes and Black, Green, and Raw Titanium, Nova Titanium uses Adept’s NovaSteel retention and pad system. (ade.pt)

Armored Devices Corporation

Armored Devices has introduced the RAPA (Rifleman’s Armored Protective Apparatus), a new protective system designed to provide rifle-rated coverage for upper body areas not protected by standard SAPI plates, including portions of the face, head and neck.

A key feature of the RAPA is its patented rifle support arm which supports the rifle from beneath the barrel and replaces the shooter’s support hand. This allows rifle carrying personnel to maintain weapon control while gaining added ballistic protection in high-risk environments.

The RAPA is recommended for close quarters combat and SWAT applications, particularly for rifle operators positioned behind a lead ballistic shield. Standard protection is RF2-rated and designed to stop 5.56 x 45mm M855 at 3250 feet per second.

Armored Devices also offers full-size ballistic shields equipped with the same rifle support arm technology. (armoreddevices.com)

ArmorSource

ArmorSource is expanding production after receiving a $17.6 million contract to manufacture and deliver 25,000 Advanced Combat Helmet Gen II (ACH Gen II) systems for the US Army. The ACH Gen II is engineered to provide advanced ballistic protection while reducing overall helmet weight and improving comfort for the warfighter.

The contract award comes as ArmorSource continues to invest in helmet innovation and user comfort. The company recently introduced its AireLink Prime retention system, featuring independent left side and right side micro-adjustments for improved fit and stability. ArmorSource has also expanded its suspension offerings with the AireSupport Max 3D platform, designed to help reduce blunt impact forces while improving comfort during extended wear. (armorsource.com)

BlueRidge Armor

BlueRidge Armor is advancing its protective equipment lineup for law enforcement with the TRIBUTE Series soft body armor system and an updated standard feature package for its VENGEANCE X8 hard armor ballistic shield line.

Developed exclusively for law enforcement, the TRIBUTE Series is a lightweight, flexible personal protection system designed to provide dependable everyday ballistic coverage for officers serving in patrol, border security and other public safety assignments. The armor combines durable technical composites and specialty fabrics with an emphasis on comfort, flexibility and high ballistic performance.

The TRIBUTE Series is tested under the latest NIJ 0101.07 certification process and is available in HG1 and HG2 ballistic threat protection levels. BlueRidge Armor positions the system as a tribute to the men and women of law enforcement who wear the badge and place themselves in harm’s way to protect their communities.

BlueRidge Armor has also updated the standard feature package for its VENGEANCE X8 hard armor ballistic shield platform, expanding its protection, handling and carry capabilities for law enforcement and tactical users. The VENGEANCE X8 is available in XLR (Xtra-Lite Rifle) and SLR (Standard Lite Rifle) composite ballistic configurations.

Standard X8 features include the company’s weapon mount shield platform, VENGEANCE Viewport, high-performance ballistic composite construction, ultralight composite bezel protection, rifle-rated ballistic hardware, and 360 degree edge protection with slide rack indicators. Handling features include a ten inch carbon fiber ambidextrous handle, a high-density impact absorbing forearm pad and an adjustable lower forearm strap.

Each shield includes black polyurea coated ballistic components, a custom ID placard, a single point sling with shield hook, and an X8 zippered carry bag with a shoulder strap. The VENGEANCE X8 is offered in 18 inch by 30 inch and 20 inch by 34 inch sizes, with weights ranging from approximately 17 to 23 pounds depending on shield size, ballistic configuration and lighting options.

BlueRidge Armor plans to expand the VENGEANCE Series in the fourth quarter of 2026 with new X8-HG2 handgun-rated and X8-RF1 ASTM-rated ballistic shield models. (blueridgearmor.com)

Hardwire^® LLC

Hardwire has expanded its rifle protection line with two lightweight In-Conjunction-With (ICW) armor plates designed for law enforcement, corrections and tactical users.

The Hardwire Level III ICW Rifle Plate provides NIJ Level III rifle protection when worn with approved soft armor. Made with advanced polyethylene, the 10″ x 12″ shooter’s cut plate weighs just 1.98 pounds and measures 0.62 inches thick. It is available in shooter cut and SAPI sizes from X-Small through X-Large.

For enhanced protection, Hardwire also offers its Level III+ ICW Rifle Plate, NIJ Certified as model #IMPAC C1.4 ICW HW-2019-01-SB and available through Safariland^®. It is designed for use with Hardwire’s 0.68 psf Soft Armor Backer, model #HW-2019-01-SB.

Both plates work with the soft armor officers already wear, reducing weight and bulk while helping maintain mobility during patrol, active shooter response, warrant service, corrections, and tactical operations. (hardwirellc.com)

RMA Armament

RMA Armament has added Generation 2 upgrades to its Level IV armor line, making its plates lighter and thinner while maintaining multihit Level IV/RF3 protection.

The leading model, the 1165 Gen2, weighs 5.3 pounds in a 10″ x 12″ Shooter’s Cut and measures just 0.7 inches thick. It features a Hypure Alumina strike face, Dyneema^® UHMWPE, multicurve construction, and edge-to-edge ballistic coverage. A 9.5″ x 12.5″ SAPI version weighs 6.1 pounds, with an 11″ x 14″ size expected in summer 2026.

The upgraded 1155 Gen2 weighs 6.6 pounds in a 10″ x 12″ Shooter’s Cut and measures 0.9 inches thick. The 9.5″ x 12.5″ SAPI version weighs 7.4 pounds. It also offers multicurve comfort, edge-to-edge protection and multihit Level IV/RF3 performance. (rmadefense.com)

RTS Tactical

Although not brand-new for 2026, RTS Tactical has two recent rifle-rated shield offerings: the Tactical LEGION Ballistic Shield and the Tactical Centurion Ballistic Shield.

Each is rated to NIJ 0101.07 RF1, the rifle threat protection level which replaces NIJ 0101.06 Level III, and is tested against 7.62×51mm M80 Ball, 7.62×39mm MSC and 5.56mm M193 threats.

A key feature of both models is RTS Tactical’s patented boltless viewport design which eliminates bolts and adhesives through the glass to reduce traditional weak points and provide a zero gap protective barrier. Hardened RF1-rated ballistic bolts are designed to maintain structural integrity under impacts from multiple angles, while heavy-duty rubber corner bumpers help absorb shock and protect the shield during field use.

The LEGION Ballistic Shield RF1 is designed to deliver rifle-rated protection in a compact, lightweight platform. It is available in 18″ x 32″ at 16.8 pounds and 20″ x 36″ at 19.3 pounds, giving teams options for maneuverability and coverage.

The Centurion Ballistic Shield RF1 is also built for fast-moving tactical operations and close quarter environments. Its single curve architecture is designed for balance, control and easier movement through doorways and tight spaces. It is available in 18″ x 32″ at 17.5 pounds and 20″ x 36″ at 20 pounds. (rtstactical.com)

Southwest Armor Technologies

Southwest Armor Technologies (SWAT Armor) has developed a fully injection moldable rifle plate system designed to improve armor piercing protection, reduce blunt trauma and increase manufacturing efficiency. Its patented axial-displacement matrix uses aerospace-grade thermoplastics and engineered geometric structures to disrupt a projectile’s path without adding significant weight or thickness.

Unlike conventional ceramic-faced plates which can be fragile and labor intensive to produce, SWAT Armor’s multilayer thermoplastic solution can be molded on a single machine. The company says the process can produce approximately 10,500 plates in 30 days, compared with an estimated 3,000 to 4,000 conventional plates per month. (swatarmor.com)

Spartan Armor Systems^®

Spartan Armor Systems is highlighting two discreet Level IIIA soft armor solutions designed to fit into everyday routines. Its 11″ x 14″ Backpack Armor Panel uses Flex Fused Core^® technology and aramid fibers to provide handgun-rated protection in backpacks, laptop bags and school packs. The panel weighs approximately 1.45 pounds, measures 0.35 inches thick and is designed to fit most bag compartments without significantly reducing comfort or storage space.

The company’s Flex Fused Core Level IIIA Executive Protection Package combines a low profile, breathable protection shirt with 10″ x 12″ front and back panels plus 5″ x 7″ side panels for concealable 360 degree coverage. Available in sleeved and sleeveless versions, the machine washable system is intended for executives, security personnel, public officials, and other professionals seeking lightweight, flexible handgun protection which can be worn discreetly under everyday clothing. (spartanarmorsystems.com)

Super Seer Corporation

Defense in Motion (DIM) is the first lightweight ballistic motorcycle helmet platform engineered specifically for modern law enforcement operating in motion. Meeting both DOT vehicular impact standards and NIJ ballistic standards, DIM eliminates the long-standing choice between mobility and firearm protection.

Purpose-built (not modified), DIM integrates vehicular impact resistance, ballistic protection and all-day operational comfort into a single system. Its lightweight ballistic carbon fiber shell reduces fatigue while maintaining critical protection, supported by Super Seer’s Dynamic Impact Mitigation System (DIMS) to manage blunt and ballistic forces.

Designed for motorcycle, ATV and mobile tactical operations, the platform features dual-strap retention for stability at speed, modular mission configurations and full agency customization. American made and developed with direct law enforcement input, Defense in Motion sets a new benchmark in head protection for officers. (superseer.com)

United Shield International

United Shield International’s Viper ICW Insert Plate provides Level III+ (RF2) rifle protection when worn with the company’s certified Level II or IIIA soft armor. The polyethylene and ceramic, multicurve shooter’s cut plate is tested against M80 7.62x51mm, 7.62x39mm PS Ball, M855 5.56mm Green Tip, and M193 5.56mm threats.

At just 0.7 inches thick, the Viper is designed for patrol and tactical use, combining a streamlined profile with multi-strike protection. It is also tested as a stand-alone special threat plate against 5.56mm and 7.62x39mm ammunition. Sizes range from X-Small to X-Large, with weights from 2.2 to 4.5 pounds.

United Shield’s Phantom Ballistic Shield offers NIJ 0108.01 Level III (RF1) multi-strike protection in a lightweight, 0.5 inch thick design. Built with proprietary polyethylene-based technology, it is tested against M80 7.62x51mm, 7.62x39mm PS Ball and M193 5.56mm threats.

The flat profile shield includes a three inch by nine inch viewport and is available in 20 inch x 34 inch and 24 inch x 48 inch sizes. The smaller model provides 677.5 square inches of coverage and weighs from 18.8 to 20.95 pounds, depending on handle configuration. Standard finish is a black CORDURA^® wrap with a velour rear surface. (us.unitedshield.com)