Police use ShotSpotter technology to combat gun violence

[bostonasphalt2]

You need to get out more..MA is way behind the 8-ball on this subject. MA is much more restrictive on it's police than other states when it comes to electronic surveillance.

Im not concerned about other states, Im concerned about MA. No one in this state is a citizen. We are all subjects who get jerked around on a whim or lie of protecting the peace. I dont care how restrictive MA is on its police force in terms of electronic surveillance, IMHO, electronic surveillance should not be allowed whatsoever. This state may be behind, but the slope it slides down tends to be much much steeper than almsot every other state except maybe Kalifornia.

 

[OnTheRoad]

Kind of like having an expensive motion detecting gizmo to tell you that your cow just ran off from the open barn door. Now you have to run around and try to find your cow.

Maybe the funds would be better spent in keeping the damn barn door shut in the first place.

 

[gene]

Just curious:

Do all you nay-sayers actually know anything about law enforcement, personnel budgets, crime cluster manning or anything of the like?

Or are you just shooting your mouths off?

What's you point? Perhaps I just didn't get it!

 

[Bill Nance]

I agree with the sentiment about being suspicious of anything approaching cameras everywhere. These aren't cameras. The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy.

What's the real point of these things? (assuming it works as advertised):
Police have limited budgets. Personnel are their largest expense by a long shot. Nothing else comes remotely close. What police don't do, and really can't do, is prevent crime. Presence patrols can deter crime to an extent, but it's a whackamole thing if there's a real overall crime problem as opposed to say a local gang causing localized trouble.

Budgets are the reason there are no longer large scale deployments of foot patrols. It's just too damned expensive.

Take Lowell, for instance. Suppose you wanted to have a solid presence foot patrol in the Centerville district (lots of problems there and if anywhere in the city is worth doing it it's probably there.) So that's four guys and gals on foot patrol who are not available for any other calls, even to areas adjacent to Centerville. They can't get there fast enough.

So now you have the expense of an extra four people on patrol for say two shifts per day, seven days per week, PLUS what you need for rapid response in the vicinity. Do that with another five areas in the city and you have just doubled your manpower budget for the year.

This is the kind of stuff the cops have to deal with, and no one is willing to vote (reasonably so) for the enormous budgets required for this kind of manpower.

Now to the shooting thing. You hear shots. You call it in to the cops. you can't pinpoint it, so either the cops A: ignore it, or B: drive around in circles hoping to get lucky.

This system tells them exactly where the shots occurred. It alerts them directly. They can get to the scene and if there's an ongoing incident, address it, and if it's a crime scene, they can A: talk to witnesses before they can disappear and B: get to the crime scene and gather evidence before it's so polluted it's useless. Hopefully this leads to the arrest and conviction of the doers, so at the least, they aren't going to be free to do it again.

It's great to be armed to defend yourself. But objecting to a useful tool that can't be useful for privacy invasion and may very well be useful for crime solving and getting bad guys off the streets is getting a little paranoid.

 

[Twigg]

I am saying that they have the legal right to in public...big difference!!
<snip>

State which law, regulation, MGL or whatever which states the government has the right to spy on us.

 

[gene]

Let me sum it up for you gents!
Just because the police are not effective at doing the job of crime PREVENTION, Note the word "PREVENTION" does not entitle them to take a citizens rights away. Anymore I might add than my right to carry should be infringed because of gang bangers and dope dealers do drive by's.

Prevention starts at the socialogical level and families that raise children to be good adults fail. Those are the area's where the should focus their surveylance but instead they have encouraged bad behavior and would rather focus on end results rather then solutions.

What we have here is another 30 billion doller 30 year program on crime prevention similar to the past 30 years of failed drug wars. Guess what! 30 years later and billions of dollars later the drugs are still more plentiful than ever.

 

[Half Cocked]

Why should a citizen in public not breaking the law, not harming another person, not causing a problem in public not expect privacy?

When you are walking down the street and a police officer sees you do you have problem with that?

If you yell to someone across the street and a police officer hears you do you have a problem with that?

 

[gene]

I agree with the sentiment about being suspicious of anything approaching cameras everywhere. These aren't cameras. The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy.

What's the real point of these things? (assuming it works as advertised):
Police have limited budgets. Personnel are their largest expense by a long shot. Nothing else comes remotely close. What police don't do, and really can't do, is prevent crime. Presence patrols can deter crime to an extent, but it's a whackamole thing if there's a real overall crime problem as opposed to say a local gang causing localized trouble.

Budgets are the reason there are no longer large scale deployments of foot patrols. It's just too damned expensive.

Take Lowell, for instance. Suppose you wanted to have a solid presence foot patrol in the Centerville district (lots of problems there and if anywhere in the city is worth doing it it's probably there.) So that's four guys and gals on foot patrol who are not available for any other calls, even to areas adjacent to Centerville. They can't get there fast enough.

So now you have the expense of an extra four people on patrol for say two shifts per day, seven days per week, PLUS what you need for rapid response in the vicinity. Do that with another five areas in the city and you have just doubled your manpower budget for the year.

This is the kind of stuff the cops have to deal with, and no one is willing to vote (reasonably so) for the enormous budgets required for this kind of manpower.

Now to the shooting thing. You hear shots. You call it in to the cops. you can't pinpoint it, so either the cops A: ignore it, or B: drive around in circles hoping to get lucky.

This system tells them exactly where the shots occurred. It alerts them directly. They can get to the scene and if there's an ongoing incident, address it, and if it's a crime scene, they can A: talk to witnesses before they can disappear and B: get to the crime scene and gather evidence before it's so polluted it's useless. Hopefully this leads to the arrest and conviction of the doers, so at the least, they aren't going to be free to do it again.

It's great to be armed to defend yourself. But objecting to a useful tool that can't be useful for privacy invasion and may very well be useful for crime solving and getting bad guys off the streets is getting a little paranoid.

Bill, What say we start the focus of these problems at the family level where they started! Your right that the police can't solve every crime and teachers can't make every kid rocket scientist but our government has helped in a big way to encourage not only bad parenting but bad behavior and I for one don't see solutions to that problem until they face the real issues in society rather then focusing on the results of failed programs.

 

[Half Cocked]

State which law, regulation, MGL or whatever which states the government has the right to spy on us.

The U.S. Supreme Court in Katz vs. United States 389 U.S. 347 (1967), defined modern "search and seizure" law under the Fourth Amendment.11 The Court declared that "What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection, but what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected. Generally, a person walking along a public sidewalk or standing in a public park cannot reasonably expect that his activity will be immune from the public eye or from observation by the police.12 As recognized by the Supreme Court in United States vs. Knotts 368 U.S. 276, 281-82 (1983):

A person traveling in an automobile on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements from one place to another. When [an individual] traveled over the public streets he voluntarily conveyed to anyone who wanted to look the fact that he was traveling over particular roads in a particular direction, and the fact of his final destination when he exited from public roads onto private property.13

Following this reasoning courts, for the most part, have allowed police to videotape individuals on public roads.14

Transactions in plain view in a public forum generally do not raise Fourth Amendment issues. This is known as the plain view rule and open field doctrine. If a person does something illegal in plain view (e.g. in front of a video camera), an officer would not need a warrant to search that person to find the incriminating evidence. Court decisions interpreting and applying the Fourth Amendment do not classify this situation as a person, house, paper, or effects that are protected against unreasonable search and seizures.15 In a recent unpublished opinion, United States vs. Sherman, 990 F. 2d 1265 (9th Cir. 1993), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that individuals videotaped in public view have no reasonable expectations of privacy, and could not challenge the government's use of videotape at trial as violating the Fourth Amendment.16 When this test is applied to video surveillance of public streets, the prevailing legal view is that it does not violate the Fourth Amendment.

In contrast, surveillance by the government of activities occurring within an individual's house may violate the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court has developed a test to determine if such surveillance violates the Constitution:

1. Does the surveillance occur from publicly navigable airspace?

2. Is the surveillance conducted in a physically non-intrusive manner?17

 

[gene]

When you are walking down the street and a police officer sees you do you have problem with that?

If you yell to someone across the street and a police officer hears you do you have a problem with that?

Is this some sort of a riddle? What are you asking?
Is any one of the things you just said against the law?

 

[Half Cocked]

This state may be behind, but the slope it slides down tends to be much much steeper than almsot every other state except maybe Kalifornia.

You sure about that? I feel as if you are making an assumption based upon theory and not supported by facts.

I am not defending MA in any way but I know what it is like in other states from a LE standpoint.

Police in Ma have much more restrictions placed upon us when it comes to search and seizure than other states.

 

[gene]

The U.S. Supreme Court in Katz vs. United States 389 U.S. 347 (1967), defined modern "search and seizure" law under the Fourth Amendment.11 The Court declared that "What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection, but what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected. Generally, a person walking along a public sidewalk or standing in a public park cannot reasonably expect that his activity will be immune from the public eye or from observation by the police.12 As recognized by the Supreme Court in United States vs. Knotts 368 U.S. 276, 281-82 (1983):

A person traveling in an automobile on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements from one place to another. When [an individual] traveled over the public streets he voluntarily conveyed to anyone who wanted to look the fact that he was traveling over particular roads in a particular direction, and the fact of his final destination when he exited from public roads onto private property.13

Following this reasoning courts, for the most part, have allowed police to videotape individuals on public roads.14

Transactions in plain view in a public forum generally do not raise Fourth Amendment issues. This is known as the plain view rule and open field doctrine. If a person does something illegal in plain view (e.g. in front of a video camera), an officer would not need a warrant to search that person to find the incriminating evidence. Court decisions interpreting and applying the Fourth Amendment do not classify this situation as a person, house, paper, or effects that are protected against unreasonable search and seizures.15 In a recent unpublished opinion, United States vs. Sherman, 990 F. 2d 1265 (9th Cir. 1993), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that individuals videotaped in public view have no reasonable expectations of privacy, and could not challenge the government's use of videotape at trial as violating the Fourth Amendment.16 When this test is applied to video surveillance of public streets, the prevailing legal view is that it does not violate the Fourth Amendment.

In contrast, surveillance by the government of activities occurring within an individual's house may violate the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court has developed a test to determine if such surveillance violates the Constitution:

1. Does the surveillance occur from publicly navigable airspace?

2. Is the surveillance conducted in a physically non-intrusive manner?17

Does that sound good to you or does it sound as it might to most people like an abusive law that should be changed. Spitting in public used to be a crime as well as jay walking but rarely do you hear of people being cited for either unless it's to the benefit of a low life in law enforcement that has nothing else to hang a citizen on.

 

[Half Cocked]

Does that sound good to you or does it sound as it might to most people like an abusive law that should be changed. Spitting in public used to be a crime as well as jay walking but rarely do you hear of people being cited for either unless it's to the benefit of a low life in law enforcement that has nothing else to hang a citizen on.

I was asked for the legal cite. There it is. I have only been defending the actions as being legal.

There is a huge difference between moral beliefs and the law.

Do not tell me that the police can't do it. If you want to say that you do not like it that is one thing but do not say it is illegal or that it can't be done.

I am sure that there are many in america who disagree with Roe v. Wade, Miranda and the Heller decision as well.

 

[gene]

I was asked for the legal cite. There it is. I have only been defending the actions as being legal.

There is a huge difference between moral beliefs and the law.

Do not tell me that the police can't do it. If you want to say that you do not like it that is one thing but do not say it is illegal or that it can't be done.

I am sure that there are many in america who disagree with the Heller decision as well.

Let me just say as that there isn't some law,some where, somehow on the books you can't nail someone on. You quoted a law that may be on the books, like so many others through the century, but in most cases would be thrown out of court if you used it against a law abiding citizen by a judge if he or she wasn't on dope. The law was intended to prevent criminal behavior and not to hassle law abiding citizens although it might be the cause of abuse. Any cop worth his salt knows enough about the law to hang some one on some law no matter how off the wall the law is. God knows there are enough of them on the books to pick something!

 

[Half Cocked]

You quoted a law that may be on the books, like so many others through the century, but in most cases would be thrown out of court if you used it against a law abiding citizen by a judge if he or she wasn't on dope.

You did pick up on the fact that this was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court did you not?

But I guess that means nothing to you.

 

[gene]

I was asked for the legal cite. There it is. I have only been defending the actions as being legal.

There is a huge difference between moral beliefs and the law.

Do not tell me that the police can't do it. If you want to say that you do not like it that is one thing but do not say it is illegal or that it can't be done.

I am sure that there are many in america who disagree with Roe v. Wade, Miranda and the Heller decision as well.

Try pulling that bs on someone that can afford other than a public defender and see how far it gets you. Better yet how about we change the law to say you lose you pay and we would see how well you do at enforcing that law. When something smells bad, it usually is bad!

 

[Half Cocked]

The law was intended to prevent criminal behavior and not to hassle law abiding citizens

And how is it hassling law abiding citizens?

 

[gene]

You did pick up on the fact that this was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court did you not?

But I guess that means nothing to you.

Can't say I agree with all the decisions of the supreme court but I do agree with 2A. That sure as hell doesn't mean that somehow somewhere some AH won't try to change it either that doesn't feel the same way I do.

As you most likely know the law has a very narrow margin of error as well!

 

[gene]

Suppose I placed a camera outside of your living area in the public. Every day I would watch you come out of your home and go to work even though you broke no laws. Would it bother you? I mean after all I am just filming a public area! One which you use but use the same as me. I mean really, wouldn't that just piss you off? Wouldn't you try to find some way to keep me from doing it or would you simply accept it as a way of life?

 

[drgrant]

This presents the beginning of the slippery slope that the police would love to get rolling if they had their ways. I make no apologies for my disgust of your statements.

If you think it's "just the beginning" you're behind the curve already.

As far as rolling goes, it's already rolling like a freight train on a straight
track.

First there was traffic cameras, now this. Then there will be more
cameras basically in every public space, and even many ones you think are "private. " Cities started to get "excited" about being able to finally enable the "surveillance state" after 9/11 occurred, and they likely got all kinds of cash from the feds to do it, too. Numerous US cities aspire to be orwellian theme parks just like London is.

We can gripe about this all we want but there really isn't any way to stop
it as long as the government is given a large satchel of money to waste on
this kind of thing. [sad2]

-Mike

 

[Half Cocked]

Suppose I placed a camera outside of your living area in the public. Every day I would watch you come out of your home and go to work even though you broke no laws. Would it bother you? I mean after all I am just filming a public area! One which you use but use the same as me. I mean really, wouldn't that just piss you off? Wouldn't you try to find some way to keep me from doing it or would you simply accept it as a way of life?

I have a elderly neighbor across the street who watches me go to work every day. Not a problem.

 

[Bill Nance]

Bill, What say we start the focus of these problems at the family level where they started! Your right that the police can't solve every crime and teachers can't make every kid rocket scientist but our government has helped in a big way to encourage not only bad parenting but bad behavior and I for one don't see solutions to that problem until they face the real issues in society rather then focusing on the results of failed programs.

+10,000+++++ YES! Parents are always the answer.

How we get to good parenting is a thorny issue though. I don't want (and I would presume you wouldn't) the government interfering with me raising my child as I see fit. I have a 21-year-old, un-pregnant, non-felon daughter. She got spankings. She isn't scarred for life.

Government isn't at the root of this problem as I see it. You want a culprit? two things:
1. My generation (the baby boomers, I was the last official year)

2. Economics.

The baby-boomers are the most completely useless drivel this country has ever produced. Most of them dishonorably evaded the draft by either hiding out in college (Clinton, Cheney, et al) or using family connections or fake disabilities to get out of it (Limbaugh) while poor people or plain patriots went in their place. They were given more benefits than any generation before or since with fewer expectations. These are the knuckleheads on both sides of the political spectrum who've contributed to the overall decline in society.

Economics: Sadly we live in an era when both parents simply HAVE to work to make ends meet and make any progress whatever. That means kids wind up in day care, left alone altogether or with a mishmash of friends (since daycare is financially totally out of reach for the working poor) and that results in kids who are often not properly parented. The best manage ok, but most of us aren't the best. We just DO our best, and the more resources we have to do it with, the more likely it is we'll do a good job.

I had a scout troop for three years in Washington. It was a special "at-risk" troop, made up solely of kids who were at high risk of becoming involved with drugs or gangs. I worked with these kids a lot, including acting in loco parentis on many occasions when there were troubles at school. (The principle of the middle school, a wonderful guy, became a close associate after my seemingly endless meetings with him).

Mate, I could not BUY help. NO ONE would help. The parents tried, but they were both out working 15 hours a day and had 4 kids. Volunteers from the community? NADA.
I went on radio, I wrote newspaper articles, no help. I finally gave it up when the witch-hunts after child molesters got so hot I feared a false accusation when I was alone with the boys. The troop disbanded.

It's not the government's fault. I keep hearing that it is, but it's not. It's the community's fault. These are OUR kids. ALL of them. until those of us with the means to do so are willing to get off our dead asses and actually DO something, nothing changes.

You can blame parents all you want. Many suck. The kids should be put in foster homes. But many simply have no options.

The problem with the total libertarian approach is that on the one hand you want parents with no means at their disposal (it ain't a crime to have an IQ of 88 or to work for $7 an hour) to do a good job when they simply cannot be THERE.

On the other hand, when government gets involved, you scream bloody murder.

I totally agree it's all about parenting. The problem is how we as a society can get that to happen.
Let me know when you come up with an an answer. Expectations mean nothing. Expectations don't produce results most of the time. At best they can slightly affect performance. we don't need slight improvements, we need drastic ones.

 

[terraformer]

You did? I failed to see the cite that states that one has a legal expectation of privacy out in public.

Actually, I know where you are going with this and you are right, there is no "expectation of privacy" in public, but from what I understand, this is more for tracking ones movement and other visually observable facts. If I take a high gain mic or laser mic and focus it on two people whose conversation is inaudible from the nearest distance to any other person visible, is this admissible? The supreme court has already (KYLLO V. UNITED STATES) said thermal imaging is not a reasonable means of search despite the heat emanating from the home is "visible" without intruding on the home's barriers. Given Kyllo, logically this would be forbidden and this is the exact same circumstance as Kyllo, albeit in audio, not thermal imaging.

Actually..I work for you!

Great, meet me at my house in the morning and escort me to work, the store and protect me anywhere else my heart desires to go... Oh, you can't do that? Then you don't really work for ME but the general population of place x in order to serve the best interests of that population as a whole. And in a democracy, that would be the government's interests.

And no, I am not trying to be a prick, nor cop basher or whatever, but trying to really look at this from a true libertarian (little l, not the Big L or Libertarian party) perspective.

 

[terraformer]

In contrast, surveillance by the government of activities occurring within an individual's house may violate the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court has developed a test to determine if such surveillance violates the Constitution:

1. Does the surveillance occur from publicly navigable airspace?

2. Is the surveillance conducted in a physically non-intrusive manner?17

Not so. See my other post but Kyllo adds more tests to this. The use of technology not in common use can not be used to enhance the observers ability to "see" things not readily observable otherwise. All of the previous case law deals with visual issues, but the logical conclusion is that auditory enhancements (laser mics off windows, hi-gain mics in public, Van Eck snooping, etc) would be covered the same way. So any US circuit court that ignores Kyllo does so at considerable risk. I hope that you don't just use these two tests when you are working, as they will be insufficient.

Where does this leave us? Well, the gun shot mics are fine so long as they only pick up sounds loud enough such as gun shots (there can't be any reasonable expectation of the privacy of a gun shot outdoors). However, any mic that is strong enough to pick up regular conversation, and especially muted conversation, from any significant distance would not pass this test.

 

[pbearperry]

Beating dead horses should be against the law.Always complaining but not having any idea how to fix it should be against the law also.If the Cops listened to every whining citizen they would not be able to do and part of their jobs.
It all comes down to"Hey Officer,can't you guys do something about Blah,Blah,Blah?
However I don't mean me,I mean the other guy."

 

[bostonasphalt2]

When you are walking down the street and a police officer sees you do you have problem with that?

If you yell to someone across the street and a police officer hears you do you have a problem with that?

your points are illogical, misguided and laughable at BEST. You obviously have Zero understanding and represent an alarming corruption of power fueled by lies of protecting us. Figures no one can get through to you, you DONT work for or else you would have the same feelings the rest of us have. Insted you work for them, and I am ashamed any part of my tax money supports them.

 

[Half Cocked]

The supreme court has already (KYLLO V. UNITED STATES) said thermal imaging is not a reasonable means of search despite the heat emanating from the home is "visible" without intruding on the home's barriers. Given Kyllo, logically this would be forbidden and this is the exact same circumstance as Kyllo, albeit in audio, not thermal imaging.

Correct...because it is picking up on something coming from INSIDE of the home. Go back and read my first post as this is exactly the question that I had!!!!!

 

[Half Cocked]

I hope that you don't just use these two tests when you are working, as they will be insufficient.

You need not worry about my legal interpretations when working. I do just fine. Thanks for your concern.

Where does this leave us? Well, the gun shot mics are fine so long as they only pick up sounds loud enough such as gun shots (there can't be any reasonable expectation of the privacy of a gun shot outdoors)

Is this not what I have been saying......

However, any mic that is strong enough to pick up regular conversation, and especially muted conversation, from any significant distance would not pass this test.

Agreed...but this has not been part of the discussion.

 

[Half Cocked]

your points are illogical, misguided and laughable at BEST.

Really...then maybe you should have this discussion with the Supreme Court then.
You obviously must have a greater comprehension of the Fourth Amendment than the rest of us.

You obviously have Zero understanding and represent an alarming corruption of power

Actually..I have a very good understanding of the laws that I take an oath to uphold.

Figures no one can get through to you, you DONT work for or else you would have the same feelings the rest of us have

.

So.....who is the "us". Are you now the spokesman for NES. Who are you to say what peoples "feelings" should be.

Please show me where I have stated that I believe in government intrusion into peoples privacy and where I think that all of this is a good idea.

My position has been and will continue to be that it is legal and that they have every right to do it, whether any of us like it or not.

You are showing your true ignorance in taking my legal interpretations as my personal beliefs.

If you want to know my personal beliefs just ask.

 

[dwarven1]