As the use of forensic DNA continues to advance, policymakers and criminal justice leaders need accurate, accessible information to support policy development and implementation. The NCJA Center for Forensic DNA Policy and Practice serves as a national hub for advancing, assessing and connecting critical areas of forensic DNA system improvement. This work will maximize the potential of forensic DNA technology nationwide.

At the heart of the website are two resources: 

• State DNA Legislation Database – Search and compare forensic DNA legislation across all 56 states and territories, covering topics including DNA collection, Rapid DNA, forensic genetic genealogy, lawfully owed DNA, privacy issues, and more.
• Interactive State Policy Map – Explore forensic DNA laws and policies through an easy to use visual map which allows users to compare states, identify legislative trends and inform policy development.

You can also explore the Center’s broader work on the expansion of offender collection, implementation of Rapid DNA, lawfully owed DNA sample audits, and system partner communication and hit follow-up. These sections are designed to connect agencies with the Center’s ongoing efforts in tracking legislation, policy analysis, technical assistance, education, and emerging forensic DNA topics, making it easier to find resources relevant to your work.

This recent launch is just the beginning of an effort to build a comprehensive repository of forensic DNA policy and practice resources. Over the coming months, the website will continue to be expanded with additional legislation; policy analyses; implementation guidance; best practices; state success stories; emerging technology updates; and other tools to help justice leaders make informed, evidence-based decisions.

Whether you’re developing legislation, implementing new technologies, supporting crime laboratories, or simply looking to stay informed on the latest developments in forensic DNA, the NCJA DNA Center is designed to be a trusted resource for your work.You can explore the new website at ncjadnacenter.org and see what’s available today.

The guide brings together federal resources covering risk management; suspicious behavior; emergency planning; active assailant preparedness; vehicle ramming threats; cybersecurity; unmanned aircraft systems (drones); and coordination with federal, state and local partners.

Among the resources highlighted are CISA’s Mass Gathering Security Planning Tool, Security Planning Workbook, Vehicle Ramming Self-Assessment Tool, active assailant emergency planning materials, Incident Management Review training, and more than 100 available tabletop exercise packages.

Separate sections address cybersecurity threats and mitigation, suspicious drone activity and UAS detection, as well as security considerations specifically for houses of worship. The complete Public Venue Security Resources Guide can be downloaded directly from CISA at https://tinyurl.com/49m3a8wk

Picture a patrol officer working a late shift when the phone rings. Caller ID appears to show the chief’s direct number. The voice on the other end sounds right; the cadence, inflection and manner of speaking are unmistakable. Then comes an urgent order.

Leave the scene. Provide credentials to an internal system. Transfer funds for a confidential operation. Send sensitive information to another officer immediately. Perhaps even disregard an instruction received minutes earlier.

The officer has every reason to believe the order is legitimate. After all, it sounds exactly like the chief – except it isn’t.

Advances in artificial intelligence have made it increasingly easy to clone a person’s voice or manipulate existing video and audio. For law enforcement agencies, that undermines an assumption which has existed for generations: Hearing a familiar voice is no longer proof that the person speaking is who he or she claims to be. And, the threat is no longer theoretical.

When the Chief Becomes the Impostor

In October 2024, the Salt Lake City Police Department warned residents about an unusually sophisticated impersonation scam involving Chief Mike Brown. A Woods Cross resident received an email from what appeared to be a police-related account. Attached was a video incorporating footage from an interview Brown had given to a television station several years earlier. The accompanying audio had been artificially generated to closely mimic the chief’s voice. The supposed chief told the recipient that a wire transfer had failed and claimed that nearly $100,000 was still owed to the federal government.

At first listen, the recording was convincing. Salt Lake City police said the audio closely impersonated Brown’s voice and could lead someone to believe the message was genuine.

Closer examination exposed the deception. Speech patterns were unnatural, certain words received unusual emphasis, the tone varied, and edits could be detected between sentences. There was another clue: The message came from a Google account incorporating the department’s name rather than an official slc.gov email address.

The case demonstrated how easily television interviews, press conferences, social media videos, and other recordings already in the public domain can provide the raw material for an impersonation attempt. For police executives, it raises an even more troubling question: What happens when the target is not a citizen, but an employee accustomed to acting on orders from that official?

 A Familiar Scam Gets More Convincing

Law enforcement impersonation scams are not new. What is changing is the technology available to make them more believable.

In 2024, the Merrimack County Sheriff’s Office in New Hampshire received dozens of reports of scam calls involving people pretending to be law enforcement officers or relatives. Sheriff David Croft said scammers were manipulating voices with artificial intelligence while also spoofing caller ID information so calls appeared to originate from his office. Some victims were told there was a warrant for their arrest and that money, sometimes cryptocurrency, had to be paid to resolve it.

The problem has also expanded well beyond individual police departments. In May 2025, the FBI warned of a malicious messaging campaign in which attackers used text messages and AI-generated voice messages to impersonate senior US officials. Significantly, many of those targeted were themselves current or former senior federal or state government officials or people within their contact networks.

Then, in July 2026, the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center issued another warning. Criminals were creating AI-generated videos depicting a senior FBI leader and using them to encourage victims to submit information through a fraudulent website masquerading as the FBI’s IC3 complaint portal.

The combination is particularly concerning. Artificial intelligence helps establish trust, while familiar government branding, spoofed websites, phone numbers, and email identities reinforce the deception.

 From Spoofed Sheriff Calls to AI Kidnappings

Traditional impersonation scams continue to evolve alongside their AI-powered counterparts. In August 2026, Pennsylvania Attorney General Dave Sunday warned of an increase in calls impersonating local county sheriff’s offices. Scammers spoofed telephone numbers so the calls appeared legitimate, then claimed recipients had missed federal grand jury duty or a court hearing and faced arrest unless they paid “bail” or a “bond.”

The problem was evident in York County, Pennsylvania, where the sheriff’s office reported numerous calls from scammers posing as department employees. The callers used the names of real personnel and, in some instances, spoofed the sheriff’s office telephone number.

Victims were told they had an active warrant, had missed jury duty, or had a relative in prison or the hospital. They were then pressured to make an immediate payment to resolve the supposed problem.

A July 2026 incident in Boone County, Missouri, showed how much more convincing the same strategy can become when artificial intelligence is added. A resident received a call displaying the contact name and telephone number of the person’s daughter. A voice sounding like the daughter said she had been kidnapped at gunpoint. Another voice then demanded ransom money.

Authorities later located the daughter safely in Jefferson City, unaware that the call had even occurred. The Boone County Sheriff’s Office said the daughter’s voice had been generated with AI. The technology may change, but the underlying strategy remains remarkably consistent: establish authority or familiarity, manufacture urgency and discourage the target from taking time to verify what is happening.

 When a Police Captain Gets the Call

Lorain Police Captain Jacob Morris saw that playbook firsthand. Morris, a 16 year veteran of the Ohio department, received a call from a man identifying himself as “Captain Michael” with the Medina County Sheriff’s Department warrant division.

The caller said Morris had failed to report for jury duty and that a warrant was about to be issued for his arrest. There was, however, supposedly a way to resolve the matter: Pay $2,400.

The scammer had chosen the wrong target. Morris quickly recognized red flags, including the caller’s mispronunciation of Medina and a story that did not fit his understanding of court procedures. Rather than hang up, he began recording the conversation on his personal phone and allowed the caller to continue.

After roughly 20 minutes, Morris revealed that he was a police officer and had recorded the exchange. The recording was subsequently shared to help the public recognize similar scams.

There was no sophisticated AI clone involved in the Morris call. That is precisely what makes the incident useful.

The caller relied on the same elements which make technologically advanced scams effective: authority, fear, urgency, and the assumption that the person on the other end of the line is legitimate. Add a cloned voice, a spoofed agency number or a manipulated video and recognizing the deception becomes considerably more difficult.

 The Risk Inside the Agency

For police agencies, the danger extends far beyond fraudulent requests for money. A convincing impersonation of a chief, sheriff, commander, or supervisor could potentially be used to obtain credentials, request sensitive files, authorize financial transactions, or persuade an employee to take an action which would never normally be approved through an informal communication.

That makes impersonation a cybersecurity issue as much as an awareness and training issue. Agencies should begin with one simple principle: No high-risk request should be authenticated solely by a familiar voice, video image, email address, or caller ID.

Verification procedures should be established before an incident occurs. Sensitive or unusual orders may require a callback to a known telephone number, confirmation through a separate communications channel or another predetermined authentication method.

The objective is not to make routine communication cumbersome. It is to ensure that consequential decisions cannot be authorized simply because a phone screen, email address, face, or voice appears familiar.

 Building a Layered Technical Defense

Departments should also examine the technical safeguards surrounding their communications and information systems. Email systems should be configured to identify spoofing and impersonation attempts, with properly implemented SPF, DKIM and DMARC protections for agency domains. Advanced email security systems can also flag suspicious sender behavior, unusual links and look-alike domains.

DNS layer security remains valuable for blocking connections to known malicious domains, phishing infrastructure and command and control systems. However, it should be part of a layered defense rather than treated as a complete solution.

Security Information and Event Management, or SIEM, technology can help agencies correlate activity across email, endpoints, servers, identity systems, and other network resources. A Security Operations Center (https://tinyurl.com/3bbb6k6w) can then monitor those alerts and investigate unusual behavior, such as abnormal login attempts, suspicious account activity or access from unexpected locations.

For agencies without the personnel or resources to operate those capabilities internally, a qualified managed service or managed security provider can supply some or all of that monitoring and response capability. Multifactor authentication, preferably phishing-resistant MFA (https://tinyurl.com/4vvwankw) where technically feasible, should also be required for accounts providing access to records systems, dispatch applications, administrative networks, and financial functions. A scammer may be able to clone a chief’s voice. That alone should never be enough to gain access to an agency’s systems.

 Build the Policy Before the Call Comes

Technology alone will not solve the problem. Departments need policies which recognize the changing definition of identity in the AI era. Officers and civilian employees should understand that caller ID can be spoofed; email addresses can be imitated; video can be manipulated; and even the unmistakable voice of a trusted supervisor can now be reproduced. High-risk requests deserve verification regardless of who appears to be making them.

Jacob Morris recognized his scam because he understood the warrant process well enough to know that the caller’s story did not make sense. The recipient of the Salt Lake City video had enough doubts to alert police.

Future attempts may provide fewer obvious warning signs. That is the larger lesson. The next impersonator may not mispronounce the name of a county or send a poorly written email. The next request may arrive from what appears to be the right telephone number, accompanied by the right face and delivered in the right voice.

Law enforcement agencies cannot prevent criminals from creating those deceptions. They can, however, make certain that a voice, even the chief’s voice, is never enough by itself to authorize a consequential action.

Carl Mazzanti is president of eMazzanti Technologies (emazzanti.net) in Hoboken, New Jersey, providing IT consulting services for organizations ranging from home offices to multinational corporations, municipalities and police departments.  

Free Resources for Fighting AI Impersonation

Law enforcement agencies do not have to build their defenses against AI-enabled impersonation from scratch. Several federal resources are available at no cost and can help agencies recognize synthetic media, strengthen cybersecurity, train personnel, and prepare for impersonation attempts.

FBI Artificial Intelligence/Deepfake Guidance

The FBI identifies warning signs associated with AI-generated audio, images and video, including unnatural pauses, unusual inflections, abnormal phrasing, inconsistent background noise, visual distortions, and unnatural movement. The Bureau also cautions that synthetic media has become sophisticated enough that visual or auditory clues alone should not be relied upon.

Official link: https://tinyurl.com/3834xa88
Easy search: FBI AI deepfake guidance

NSA/FBI/CISA Deepfake Threat Guidance

Contextualizing Deepfake Threats to Organizations addresses synthetic media impersonation, organizational preparedness, authentication procedures, employee training, and responses to deepfake exploitation attempts. The guidance also encourages organizations to rehearse how personnel should respond before an actual incident occurs.

Official link: https://tinyurl.com/y4w7xpm2
Easy search: NSA deepfake threats organizations

FBI Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3)

A July 2026 FBI warning describes criminals using AI-generated videos of FBI personnel along with fraudulent websites and other impersonation techniques. The advisory provides practical indicators for identifying suspicious videos, messages, URLs, telephone numbers, and contacts, as well as information victims should preserve when reporting an incident.

Official link: https://tinyurl.com/zf3th5mz
Easy search: IC3 PSA260720

CISA Cyber Hygiene Services

CISA provides no cost vulnerability scanning and web application scanning to eligible US federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government organizations, including qualifying police and sheriff’s agencies. These services can help identify weaknesses which attackers may attempt to exploit during credential stealing or impersonation campaigns.

Official link: https://tinyurl.com/3d6xx6dz
Easy search: CISA Cyber Hygiene

CISA Cyber Security Evaluation Tool (CSET^®)

CISA’s free CSET software helps organizations evaluate their IT and operational technology cybersecurity posture. Agencies can use it to identify potential weaknesses involving authentication, network configuration, access controls, and other areas which may become targets during social engineering or impersonation attacks.

Official link: https://tinyurl.com/mr5wvjr3
Easy search: CISA CSET

CISA Tabletop Exercise Packages

CISA provides downloadable tabletop exercise materials covering phishing, ransomware, insider threats, and other cyber incidents. Although there is not a specific “deepfake police chief” exercise, agencies can readily adapt social engineering scenarios for roll call or command training. For example: A lieutenant receives an urgent voice call apparently from the chief ordering credentials released or a financial transaction approved. What happens next?

Official link: https://tinyurl.com/bdhjpp26
Easy search: CISA tabletop exercises

DOJ COPS Office CRI-TAC

The Collaborative Reform Initiative Technical Assistance Center provides no cost, individualized technical assistance to state, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement agencies. Assistance can include consultation; training; policy development; strategic planning; and resource referrals in areas including technology, intelligence and information sharing, leadership, management, and supervision.

Official link: https://tinyurl.com/2fbf4m42 
Easy search: COPS CRI-TAC

Conducted via Zoom from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Pacific Time, the forum will consist of four separate four hour sessions addressing current issues affecting law enforcement training, operations and supervision. The virtual format allows agencies to participate without the travel, hotel and per diem expenses normally associated with an in-person conference. Individual sessions may be attended separately.

Topics will include emerging public safety technologies, restraint practices and human performance research, legal developments, and advances in human factors science. The program will also examine a restraint system intended to reduce the need for prone positioning.

Presenters will include public safety practitioners, attorneys, researchers, and other subject matter specialists. Each session will also feature a demonstration of a new public safety product.

Attendees will receive access through the end of 2026 to IPICD’s AI-powered Public Safety Lesson Plan Generator.Program information and registration are available at ipicd.com

What It Takes to Make a Case Stick

Have you ever gotten pissed off at the prosecutor?

My guess is that, if you have been in law enforcement for more than three years – and especially if you’ve worked in an investigative capacity – you’ve had your share of frustration with them. They are, after all, the people whose job is to vigorously pursue a conviction of the people we worked hard to put in handcuffs. Our work is stressful, grueling and often life-threatening. And, more often than we like, that prosecutor drops the charges or tells you, “There isn’t enough here to go to trial.”

This issue’s column is probably aimed more at newer officers, but not exclusively. Cops of all levels of experience grumble and gripe about this issue, so it’s worth exploring. Let’s look first at what the broader responsibilities of a prosecutor’s job are and then let’s look at the way our own law enforcement agencies might have fallen short in preparing us for these interactions.

In Florida, we have the State Attorney’s Office, not “District” Attorney, but they are one in the same: Their job is to prosecute criminal cases. The first step in that job, however, is to carefully vet those cases. They have to meticulously look at all of the evidence you bring them – physical as well as testimonial – and make a crucial assessment: Can they prove this case to every one of six (or 12) jurors beyond a reasonable doubt? We cops sometimes get tunnel vision; our arrests are the most important things we have going on. And, they are important, but keep a few things in mind. Prosecutors work for an office headed by an elected official and, if they start taking any old case which comes their way, they’ll start losing more of them in trial. Acquittals look bad and too many of them causes the public to lose faith and trust in the process and the people responsible for it.

I spent 22 years of my career as a homicide investigator during a period when our jurisdiction’s homicide rate ranked among the five highest in the nation from 1980 through 1988.

We were lucky that our State Attorney’s Office was one of the most well trained, highly respected prosecutorial entities anywhere. More importantly, we had, at that time, an excellent working relationship with them. When a homicide case came to their office, they wasted little time in getting us in for a “pre-filing conference,” a meeting in which they could discuss the case in detail, face-to-face, rather than just rely on what was in the reports, photos and witness statements. They wanted to hear the complete story from us and that meant everyone on the case, not just the lead investigator. They knew that the defense would soon file for discovery (if they hadn’t already) and that the defense counsel was going to dissect every word of the case file to find inaccuracies, discrepancies and contradictions. It wasn’t a game of chess as much as it was a match of wits: How do I fix things so you can’t break them? This could be a long, arduous process with many meetings and we would repeat the process again, this time in pre-trial conferences to make sure our game plan was tight, we were all on the same page and we knew what the other team was going to try and capitalize on. I never went to trial thinking we weren’t ready.

That doesn’t mean we didn’t have disagreements. Oh, my, we sure did! And they could be intense. I can remember more than one time when voices were raised and curses could be heard coming from a prosecutor’s office.  But, that was actually a good thing. It meant both sides were passionate about getting the job done and equally committed to making sure it was done the right way. 

This brings me to police training. I learned a lot about the law during the hundreds of conversations I had with prosecutors, whether we were sitting in their offices or grabbing lunch at a place near the justice building. These were people who went to law school and they understood the nuances of the law the police academy didn’t have time to teach us. Our academy was 22 weeks long when I attended from July 1979 to December. I was fascinated by the constitutional law part. They taught us about Terry v. Ohio and, of course, Miranda. But, beyond that, there wasn’t a ton of time for other legal principles. The rest of it we learned on the job and, often, in those cramped offices of the State Attorney. Some of those lessons shocked us.

One case we worked on for 17 years drove this point home in the most emphatic terms. We rejuvenated the case and got a DNA hit that identified our subject. We hadn’t quite gotten enough probable cause to charge him with the murder yet. We were close, but in the words of the prosecutor assigned to the case, “I’m not comfortable with this yet. If we go to trial, I would feel better with more. Keep working it.”

We did just that; we found an ex-girlfriend (oh, how we loved finding ex-girlfriends, especially when they had an ax to grind!) in Chicago and she told us on the phone she had information for us. We flew up to Chicago and had a great interview with her. She was with him during the time of the murder and she remembered him telling her that he once killed a man in Miami during a burglary. The times and circumstances he described to her all fit. Her story, plus DNA and some other circumstances, gave us the PC we needed. We hired a stenographer in Chicago and took a great sworn statement from her. The steno typed it up and we flew home on cloud nine, because now we could go to the prosecutor and charge him with the murder. The prosecutor was happy and said that her statement pushed it over the edge. Come trial time, we couldn’t get ahold of the woman. After numerous attempts, we had the Chicago PD detectives try to find her – and they did. She had been murdered in a domestic fight with her new boyfriend.

But, we said, we have her sworn statement, all typed up and signed by her. Sorry, the prosecutor said, we can’t use it in court. It’s an “out of court” statement and, courtesy of the Sixth Amendment’s confrontation clause, it would be a violation of the defendant’s “right to face his accuser.” The typed statement served only as a documented way to see what she said. It does not qualify as evidence. Defense counsel can’t cross-examine a stapled bunch of papers.

Frustrating? Sure. But, these are the types of legal principles it would be helpful for us cops to be more familiar with before we go and talk to prosecutors. The Supreme Court archives are replete with case after case in which police officers erred – or outright broke the law – for lack of knowledge and their cases were thrown out or the convictions were reversed. In the Sixth Amendment example you just read, the landmark confrontation clause case occurred as recently as 2004, in Crawford v. Washington. In that case, a witness’ tape-recorded statement (she could not testify because of marital privilege) was played for the jury and he was convicted. But, SCOTUS reversed the conviction: The recording was inadmissible and could not replace a live witness.

There are many, many other instances in which our police training could be better in these areas, so that we can avoid wasting time and energy arguing with prosecutors who are simply helping us stay within the boundaries of the law. Brady issues, search warrant guidelines – they all serve an important purpose. Mapp, Miranda, Brady, and others forced our profession to be better and work harder. Some prosecutors can be a pain in the ass, yes, but we don’t help matters by coming in blind to important legal decisions which are in place to create due process. In a way, that knowledge can be considered the ounce of prevention which is worth a pound of cure.

After all, if we end up sitting in that defendant’s chair, we would sure like these protections to work for us, wouldn’t we?

Ramesh Nyberg retired from law enforcement in November 2006 after 27 years of police work. He lives in Miami and teaches criminal justice at a local high school. He also teaches regional law enforcement courses through Training Force, USA. He enjoys getting feedback from readers and can be reached at ramesh.nyberg@gmail.com. Also, Ram has written a new book, Badge, Tie and Gun: Life and Death Journeys of a Miami Detective, which is available on Amazon in both Kindle eBook and paperback. You can find it by visiting amazon.com/dp/B0CTQQKQTV

What the Supreme Court’s geofence ruling could mean for ALPRs, pole cameras, drones, and the growing ability to reconstruct a person’s movements

On June 29, 2026, the Supreme Court decided Chatrie v. United States, holding that a geofence warrant used to obtain a person’s cell phone location history from Google is a search under the Fourth Amendment. The opinion does not specifically address Automatic License Plate Readers (ALPRs), pole cameras or drones, but its reasoning challenges some of the legal principles courts have traditionally relied upon to uphold the use of these technologies. In the Fourth Circuit, that conflict already has a name: Schmidt v. City of Norfolk, a pending appeal which could become the first circuit level test of what Chatrie means for camera systems departments have already deployed. This article traces that doctrinal line; explains the mosaic and time machine theories driving it; and offers guidance for building programs which can withstand the direction in which the law is moving.

From Katz to Chatrie: The Line Being Redrawn

Modern search doctrine begins with Katz v. United States which asks whether government conduct intrudes on an expectation of privacy which society recognizes as reasonable. For decades, Katz coexisted with the third-party doctrine: a person generally has no privacy interest in information voluntarily conveyed to a third party. United States v. Jones began to disrupt that balance. The Court held that attaching a GPS tracking device to a vehicle constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment because it involved a physical trespass. In separate concurring opinions, several justices went further, warning that continuously tracking a person’s public movements for an extended period — in this case, about a month — could also raise Fourth Amendment concerns because of the detailed picture of a person’s life such monitoring can create. Carpenter v. United States made that concern part of the Court’s holding. The Court concluded that 127 days of cell site records constituted a search because the records gave police an all-encompassing account of a person’s whereabouts, even though the defendant’s carrier possessed the data. Chatrie confirms that Carpenter was not an isolated decision. The government’s request reached back only about two hours, yet the Court found a protected privacy interest and declined to adopt a categorical duration rule. As the Court explained, where the Fourth Amendment applies, it applies regardless of the quality or quantity of information obtained. Duration is now a factor courts weigh, not a threshold on which a short program can rely to avoid the Fourth Amendment altogether.

Commentators call this the mosaic theory. Individually innocuous data points, such as one ping, one plate read or one camera frame, can collectively reveal a portrait of a person’s movements and associations which no single observation could provide. In Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle v. Baltimore Police Department, the en banc Fourth Circuit struck down a citywide aerial monitoring program and emphasized that combining it with tools police already possessed, including ALPR, magnified the constitutional concern. A related time machine concern is that comprehensive and cheaply searchable records let police reconstruct a person’s past after an investigation makes that person relevant, even though officers had no reason to watch the person when the events occurred.

License Plate Readers: Where the Doctrine Stands

 Most courts which have considered ALPR directly have declined to find a search, but their reasoning is narrower than is often suggested. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld four bridge cameras in Commonwealth v. McCarthy, while leaving open the possibility that historic ALPR data collected by enough cameras in enough locations could invade a reasonable expectation of privacy. The Ninth Circuit resolved United States v. Yang on standing grounds, with a concurrence cautioning that a warrant might eventually be required if the technology developed toward Carpenter level comprehensiveness. In January 2026, the Eastern District of Virginia upheld Norfolk’s 175 camera network in Schmidt, reasoning that a rolling 21 day retention period kept the system from producing an all-encompassing record. The court nevertheless acknowledged that the system could become too intrusive as camera density increased and upheld it only under the circumstances then presented. This line of cases applies a scale and density analysis, not a categorical rule.  Schmidt is now before the Fourth Circuit, with the ACLU and Electronic Frontier Foundation participating as amici. The district court relied in part on a Fourth Circuit Chatrie panel opinion which was later vacated en banc and reversed by the Supreme Court. ALPR is not a cell phone case and stationary cameras trace to an older line of authority holding that drivers ordinarily lack a privacy interest in movements exposed to public view. Chatrie nevertheless weakens the argument that voluntary exposure and short retention alone defeat any privacy interest.

Pole Cameras: A Split Chatrie Has Complicated

Pole camera doctrine is older and the government prevails more often than is sometimes assumed. Eight federal circuits have upheld long-term, warrantless exterior monitoring as conventional technology comparable to a security camera. An older Fifth Circuit decision, United States v. Cuevas Sanchez, found a search where the defendant had fenced the observed area from public view. The First Circuit divided evenly en banc in United States v. Moore Bush over eight months of continuous footage. Three judges reasoned that duration transformed public moments into a comprehensive record which no one would expect to be perfectly preserved for future examination. Many government favorable decisions rely heavily on duration, treating shorter monitoring periods as conventional while expressing greater concern about many months of continuous observation. Chatrie does not resolve that division, but it removes a significant premise from any opinion that treats a shorter period as sufficient by itself.  Legal scholars commenting on Chatrie have noted that, because the Court declined to treat the length of surveillance as the deciding factor, it may now be harder to predict how courts will evaluate challenges involving pole cameras used continuously for several months.

Drones: An Already Skeptical Doctrine Meets a Fast-growing Program

Aerial observation doctrine dates to three Supreme Court cases from the 1980s holding that warrantless observation from public airspace generally is not a search because members of the public flying overhead could see the same area. Drones do not fit comfortably within that framework. In Long Lake Township v. Maxon, a Michigan appellate court required a warrant for low altitude, targeted drone observation of a home, reasoning that drones can reach altitudes and intimate spaces which conventional aircraft cannot. Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle remains controlling Fourth Circuit authority on persistent aerial monitoring and provides an important analytical framework for drone programs. According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Atlas of Surveillance and related public reporting, Drone as First Responder programs have expanded rapidly since 2018. Many platforms can be integrated with plate reader and identity linking data which presents the type of data combination the Fourth Circuit identified as a constitutional multiplier. The practical risk is less about one flight than about the record a program accumulates. A drone network with months of retained, searchable footage cross-referenced against an ALPR database begins to resemble the aggregated record which concerned the Court in Carpenter and Chatrie.

A Concrete Illustration: Leonardo’s SignalTrace and Multi-sensor Data Fusion

Leonardo S.p.A., through its ELSAG public safety technology business, offers SignalTrace as a capability designed to operate alongside automatic license plate reader systems. Rather than relying exclusively on a camera image and license plate number, SignalTrace adds another layer of information by detecting electronic signals being transmitted by nearby consumer devices.

The technology can detect and develop electronic signatures associated with signals such as Bluetooth^®, Wi-Fi and radio frequency identification (RFID). These signatures do not, by themselves, provide an investigator with the name of the person carrying a phone, smartwatch or other device. Instead, the system is designed to recognize when the same electronic signatures, or recurring groups of signatures, appear at different locations and times.

Consider a vehicle which routinely passes an ALPR location while two smartphones and a smartwatch are located inside it. The plate reader provides the vehicle information, while SignalTrace detects electronic signatures associated with devices moving nearby. If substantially the same combination repeatedly appears with that vehicle, the system can establish an association between the vehicle, those device signatures, along with the location and the time of detection. The value comes from recognizing the pattern again later.

For example, if one of those previously observed device signatures subsequently appears near a different vehicle or at another location relevant to an investigation, an investigator may be able to search the historical information and identify the earlier association. Conversely, a recurring combination of device signatures may provide another means of recognizing a vehicle or travel pattern in situations where a usable license plate image was not captured.

Leonardo’s product materials and patents describe capabilities for correlating electronic signatures with license plate records, analyzing movement patterns, identifying devices which repeatedly travel together and developing information about possible routes. In this respect, SignalTrace expands the traditional ALPR model from a record centered primarily on a vehicle and plate number to one capable of correlating several types of observations.

From an investigative standpoint, that additional information can help develop leads when investigators begin with incomplete information. They may know a plate number, a vehicle, an electronic signature, a location, or a recurring group of devices and use the system to search for related observations. SignalTrace therefore does not necessarily require an investigation to begin with the identity of a particular person.

An important distinction is that detecting an electronic signature is not the same as identifying the individual carrying the device. A phone can be borrowed, left inside a vehicle or detected while its owner is merely nearby. Likewise, two devices which repeatedly appear together establish proximity, not necessarily the nature of the relationship between their users. Any association produced by the system remains an investigative lead which must be evaluated and corroborated using other information.

That distinction is also what makes SignalTrace relevant to the developing Fourth Amendment questions discussed here. The constitutional issue is not simply whether an individual plate read or wireless device signature reveals a person’s identity. The larger question is what can be learned when those observations are retained, made searchable and combined over time. A recurring electronic signature which initially contains no name may become considerably more informative when correlated with vehicle registration information, ALPR records, locations, other device signatures, or additional investigative data.

SignalTrace thus provides a useful example of the broader evolution of surveillance technology: Separate pieces of information which reveal relatively little on their own can become more useful – and potentially more revealing – when a system is able to associate them across multiple locations and encounters. For agencies, the technology’s investigative capabilities make questions involving retention, access, data sharing, and the combination of information from different systems particularly important when developing policy.

The Pushback Is Not Only Constitutional

A second, faster moving front has little to do with the Fourth Amendment: state statutory law. California’s ALPR Privacy Act, Civil Code sections 1798.90.5 through 1798.90.55, requires a public usage and privacy policy, access logging and limits on data sharing. The statute authorizes damages of $2,500 for each violation. In Bartholomew v. Parking Concepts, Inc., the California Court of Appeal held in 2026 that failure to publish the required policy can itself support a claim, without a separate data breach or misuse allegation. The California Supreme Court denied review. Other states have considered or enacted restrictions after agencies learned that vendor default settings allowed broader sharing than governing bodies had approved. NPR and local news organizations also reported contract cancellations during 2025 and 2026 involving camera, plate reader and drone platforms.

Building Programs for Where the Law Is Going

None of this requires agencies to abandon ALPRs, pole cameras or drones. The SignalTrace example, likewise, is not a criticism of a particular company or product. The relevant question is whether the agency has built a lawful, transparent and auditable program. The following measures provide a practical compliance framework.

• Retention: Set the shortest period each technology’s purpose is justified and be able to explain why. A short window helps after Chatrie, but no longer guarantees an outcome.
• Sharing scope: Disable default nationwide sharing settings; require case-by-case, documented authorization before another agency can query local data.
• Fusion review: Combining ALPR, aerial platforms, facial recognition, or device-signature add-ons like SignalTrace should get independent Fourth Amendment review before deployment.
• Duration discipline: Avoid open-ended camera and drone deployments; use defined windows with periodic reauthorization.
• Policy and audit trail: Confirm that a compliant and genuinely public usage policy exists and is followed. Under some statutes, the absence of the required policy can itself create liability.
• Contractual control: Vendor agreements should give the municipality, not the vendor, control over every sharing, retention and fusion setting, with audit rights.
• Periodic legal review: Reassess each program’s Fourth Amendment posture annually and after any decision which touches the doctrine directly.

Conclusion

Chatrie is not an ALPR, pole camera or drone case, and it resolves none of those questions directly. It does confirm that the Supreme Court will look beyond the third- party doctrine’s traditional formalities and ask whether a technology allows the government to reconstruct a revealing account of a person’s movements. It also establishes that short duration is not, by itself, a safe harbor. The programs most likely to withstand legal scrutiny will be those designed now with narrow retention, controlled sharing, documented access, periodic review, and careful limits on the combination of data sources.

James E. “Jeb” Brown, Esq., is the cofounder of Shield Public Safety Training, Inc. (shieldpst.org), a national law enforcement legal education organization. He previously served as Supervising Deputy City Attorney for the City of Riverside and as Chief Assistant County Counsel for Riverside County, California, in a career centered on representing and advising law enforcement officers and agencies. 

Understanding Chatrie: Geofence Warrants and the Fourth Amendment

Larry E. Holtz, Esq.

Unlike a traditional warrant aimed at a known suspect, a geofence warrant works in reverse. Officers identify a crime location and time period, and a technology company searches its location database for devices which were in, or near, that area. The tool can help identify unknown suspects or witnesses, but it also raises significant Fourth Amendment concerns because it may capture location information for people who happened to be nearby.

In Chatrie v. United States, 609 U.S. ___ (6/29/2026), the U.S. Supreme Court addressed a geofence warrant used to investigate a Virginia bank robbery. The robber entered the Call Federal Credit Union in Midlothian, Virginia, displayed a handgun, threatened bank employees, forced the manager to open the safe, and fled with approximately $195,000. Surveillance footage showed that the robber appeared to be using a cell phone before the robbery, but investigators had no suspect.

Officers obtained a geofence warrant directed to Google. The warrant sought Location History data for phones within a 150 meter radius of the credit union during a one hour window surrounding the robbery. Google’s response eventually identified three users, one of whom was Okello Chatrie. His location data placed him near the credit union shortly before the robbery and showed him leaving the area afterward. Officers later executed search warrants at residences associated with Chatrie and found robbery demand notes, nearly $100,000 in cash and a 9mm pistol. Chatrie pleaded guilty and was sentenced to nearly 12 years in prison.

The Fourth Circuit upheld the conviction, reasoning that obtaining Chatrie’s Google Location History data was not a Fourth Amendment search because he had voluntarily provided the information to Google. The Supreme Court disagreed. Relying heavily on Carpenter v. United States, the Court held that police conduct a Fourth Amendment “search” when they obtain a person’s cell phone Location History data from Google. The Court explained that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in detailed records of their cell phone location, even when that information is held by a third-party technology company.

The Court emphasized that Google Location History may be even more revealing than traditional cell site location information. It can record a phone’s location frequently, pinpoint location with greater precision and even estimate elevation, potentially showing which floor of a building a person entered. The Court also rejected the government’s argument that two hours of location data was too brief to trigger Fourth Amendment protection. Even short-term location tracking can reveal sensitive information, such as visits to a home, doctor, lawyer, religious site, political event, or other private location.

The Court also declined to apply the traditional third-party doctrine. Although Google stored the data, the Court concluded that ordinary smartphone use does not mean a person has surrendered constitutional protection in detailed digital location records.

Importantly, the Court did not decide whether the geofence warrant was valid. Instead, it remanded the case for the lower court to decide whether the warrant was supported by probable cause and described with sufficient particularity. For law enforcement, the practical lesson is clear: Geofence warrants are searches under the Fourth Amendment and must be drafted with careful attention to probable cause, narrow time and location limits, minimization procedures, and particularized standards for moving from anonymized data to identifying a specific user.

It should be noted, however, that Google has now instituted a significant change which apparently insulates Location History data from geofence warrants. In July 2025, years after the geofence warrant used in this case, Google now stores Location History data on individual users’ devices rather than on its own servers. As a result, Google is no longer capable of responding to geofence warrants which seek Location History data.

Larry E. Holtz has served as a Detective Sergeant with the Atlantic City, New Jersey, Police Department; a Deputy Attorney General for the state of New Jersey, and an Assistant County Prosecutor. Presently, Mr. Holtz is a leading author for Blue360° Media, the largest US provider of legal information which is solely focused on serving law enforcement. Mr. Holtz is a certified police trainer and teaches on a regular basis. He is a member of the bar in New Jersey, Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia and is admitted to practice before the federal bar in the District of New Jersey and the Third Circuit.

“Where have all the cruisers gone; long time passing?
Gone to junkyards, everyone. Oh, when will they ever learn?”

My appreciation to the late Pete Seeger, as his 1960s war lament seemed perfect to “customize” for this article because we currently have a police car shortage in the land of the free. Sure, there are “new” cruisers which can be seen, sat in and driven at the LE expos, but the most are rebadged earlier models or humongous SUVs and just not what cops want or need.  

In the last several years, American automakers have faced a perfect storm of supply chain disruptions, semiconductor shortages, production changes, model discontinuations, rising costs, and an industry-wide shift toward SUVs, trucks and electrified vehicles. Police fleet production has been caught in the middle. New LE units are available, but choices have narrowed and prices have increased at a remarkable rate. Manufacturers also point to the growing amount of safety, communications and electronic technology now built into modern vehicles. Even online auctions for used cruisers have become expensive, as discontinued Crown Vics and Dodge Chargers – still favorites among many cops – continue to command astonishing prices.

Departments with large fleets are increasingly forced to keep vehicles in service well beyond the mileage which once signaled the end of their useful life which can also reduce their eventual trade-in or resale value. As a result, these units may sit out of service for extended periods while awaiting costly replacement parts.

For example, Washington, DC’s Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) has faced serious fleet availability problems. Earlier this year, nearly 200 MPD units were reportedly sidelined for maintenance or repairs. Average daily fleet availability has also declined: 95.5% in 2023, 92.8% in 2024 and 90.9% in 2025. MPD spent approximately $8.47 million in FY 2025 for vehicle parts and repairs – an average of roughly $5,100 per vehicle annually.

As we reported recently, the Illinois State Police (ISP) are also facing a serious replacement problem. More than 1,000 vehicles have reportedly reached, or are approaching, recommended replacement thresholds and ISP officials have warned that, at current funding levels, replacing the agency’s aging fleet could take approximately 18 years. That means many sedans, SUVs and pickups will continue accumulating miles long after agencies traditionally would have replaced them.

 While the Arkansas State Police (ASP) still have a fair number of Ford^® Police Interceptor^® Utility vehicles and Tahoes in-service  , some ASP troopers are still driving high mileage 2023 Charger Pursuits until replacements can be purchased. (The popular Chargers were discontinued in 2024.)

This situation is being repeated across the country as production constraints, procurement delays, limited model choices, and rising costs continue to complicate fleet replacement.

Where Can I Find a Cruiser?   

Some agencies have filled shortages with used cruisers purchased from area departments and online auctions, and it’s been reported that some departments have even loaned extra units to shorthanded neighboring PDs.  

During a shortage, previous one officer units may have to carry two officers and some “take-home” programs may be temporarily reduced or suspended. Major special events can put still more pressure on available fleets. The 2026 FIFA World Cup, for example, required host cities and surrounding jurisdictions to commit large numbers of officers, specialty units and support vehicles for extended periods.

Dare to Be Different  

Police departments may also have options beyond traditional fleet purchases, including short-term leases and rentals where state and local procurement rules, insurance requirements and vendor agreements permit them. Because laws and purchasing regulations differ substantially among jurisdictions, fleet managers should have their legal, risk management and procurement personnel review any temporary vehicle arrangement before signing a contract.

If leasing or renting, shorter agreements may provide greater flexibility while permanent fleet shortages are resolved. Agencies should also confirm in advance that the vendor allows law enforcement use, including the installation of emergency equipment and removable graphics.

To avoid return charges or contract violations, agencies should use removable, no drill equipment and temporary vinyl graphics whenever possible. Any agreement should clearly spell out insurance coverage, permitted modifications, maintenance responsibilities, and vehicle return requirements.

When considering temporary vehicles, don’t overlook nontraditional choices, such as SUVs, which are readily available in preferable white or light colors, such as gray or silver. However, agencies should carefully match the vehicle to its intended assignment. Standard civilian vehicles may lack the braking, cooling, handling, tires, and other heavy-duty components found in police package vehicles and may not be appropriate for pursuit or other high-speed emergency operations. If non-pursuit capable vehicles are used for patrol or support duties, their operational limitations should be clearly established by agency policy. Changes in color or body style from the permanent fleet should also be communicated to the public when appropriate.

Covert Assignments   

Undercover and surveillance operations open up a variety of rental/lease possibilities not ordinarily considered for patrol. For these assignments, the primary consideration is the ability to blend in. The goal is to use the types of vehicles common to your area. Also, avoid bright colors, expensive sports cars and vehicles which have been customized.

During several years supervising vice and narcotics units, I had good results using ordinary, older vehicles for surveillance assignments. In some jurisdictions, agencies may be able to obtain temporary vehicles through approved agreements with dealers or other legitimate sources. Vehicles should be safe, properly registered and insured, and any arrangement should be documented and authorized under agency policy and applicable state law.

As with rentals and leases, responsibilities for maintenance, repairs, insurance, and permitted use should be agreed upon in writing. Depending on local law and agency policy, unconventional vehicles – such as work vans, tow vehicles, delivery vehicles, and other commonly encountered models – can provide excellent cover because they blend naturally into the community.

Remember, you are only limited by your imagination; however, using an officer’s personally owned vehicle for covert assignments can create unnecessary security, liability and privacy concerns. A vehicle directly connected to an officer may expose identifying information or make it easier for a suspect to associate the vehicle with the officer or the officer’s family. Agency owned or properly authorized covert vehicles are generally the safer choice.

Mustangs   

In the past, we discussed the growing popularity of Ford Mustangs for highway patrols. They have reentered duty as interstate enforcers by a number of states, many of which had used the earlier 1982-1993 version, the Fox Body SSP (Special Service Package).  

The return of Mustangs to highway enforcement comes as agencies look for alternatives to the traditional high-performance police sedan. The Crown Victoria Police Interceptor^® disappeared years ago, while production of the previous generation Dodge Charger Pursuit ended after the 2023 model year. With fewer rear-wheel drive police sedans available, some agencies have turned once again to the Mustang for specialized traffic and highway enforcement.

Although Ford does not currently build a police package Mustang, departments have found that the rear-wheel drive Mustang GT works quite nicely for specialized enforcement. The GT’s standard 5.0L Coyote V8 produces 480 horsepower and available factory performance equipment can include upgraded brakes and exhaust components. Police radios, lighting, graphics, and other LE equipment must be added by the agency or its upfitter. An added benefit is that Mustangs attract attention at community and recruiting events – especially from younger car enthusiasts – and historically maintain strong resale appeal. Saddle up.

Our neighbors to the north are also changing the appearance of their police fleets.   The Royal Canadian Mounted Police recently unveiled its first major redesign of frontline vehicle markings in more than 30 years. The new design uses highly reflective black-and-white graphics intended to improve visibility while retaining the familiar RCMP identity. The redesigned vehicles will gradually appear across Canada as the fleet is replaced.  

New Graphics for an Old Cruiser   

Another way to modernize your fleet while waiting for new cruisers (you can’t find) is to change your graphics. Many American departments are changing graphics now to those which celebrate our 250^th anniversary. We’re not suggesting changing the fleet colors by repainting or even “wrapping” them in another color, just updating the graphics.

The Indiana State Police took advantage of adding Mustang GTs and Dodge Durangos to its fleet by introducing a retro-style white over blue appearance inspired by earlier Indiana State Police cruisers. When possible, new graphics can be added to remaining fleet vehicles to present a uniform appearance.

The Arkansas State Police recently took a different approach as their garage repainted one of their 2023 Chargers in a 1960s two-tone paint scheme with current markings. They changed the lighting to a contemporary lightbar, as this beauty is used for enforcement every day, with an occasional appearance at a town parade or festival.

Remember, any graphics or color change should be announced in the media to the public.

New Units and Squads  

As part of the Missouri State Highway Patrol’s commitment to supporting the FIFA World Cup activities in Kansas City this summer, specialized troopers and additional resources were assigned to help manage large crowds and address other public safety situations associated with the tournament. State and local agencies devoted substantial personnel and equipment to the event, and officials reported that the Kansas City World Cup celebrations concluded without major public safety problems.

Cop Vehicle News   

There are a couple of new vehicles of particular interest to law enforcement fleets you need to check out.

Are you tired of counting all those black Suburbans in DC convoys? Well, never fear, because Ford has announced the 2028 Expedition Police Responder. It comes standard with four-wheel drive, a 3.5L EcoBoost^® V6, ten-speed automatic transmission and an electronic locking rear differential with 3.73 gears. Police-specific features include Police Dark Car, Police Engine Idle, Police Perimeter Alert, and a 360 degree camera system. Inside are two rows with seating for five occupants and durable police-duty upholstery.

The Expedition joins Ford’s established LE lineup which includes the Police Interceptor Utility – America’s best-selling police vehicle – and the F-150^® Police Responder pickup.

Ram has also announced the 2027 ProMaster City^®, a midsize van available in cargo and passenger configurations and a smaller partner to the full-size ProMaster vans already serving as SWAT, CSI, equipment, and prisoner transport vehicles. The ProMaster City uses front-wheel drive and a 1.6L turbocharged four-cylinder engine, with approximately nine feet of available cargo floor length.

New Names for Old Friends 

Two familiar public safety vehicle equipment companies have recently undergone significant corporate or branding changes, although their established product lines remain available.

Pro-gard Products has been acquired by HAVIS, bringing together two familiar public safety vehicle equipment companies and expanding HAVIS’ portfolio of integrated law enforcement vehicle solutions.

Tenhold, formerly Jotto Desk and now a Kiefer Sage sub-brand, continues to supply law enforcement vehicle equipment and mounting systems. The company has also introduced a new Suppressor Lock Head for its Weapon Mounting System, designed to secure weapons equipped with suppressors. Tenhold says its equipment is currently used by agencies in more than 25 states.

Sergeant James Post has 27 years of experience in a variety of assignments in the Kansas City, MO, Police Department, as well as other police and fire agencies and the US Marshals. He can be reached at kopkars@arkansas.net.

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.)