Technology with a badge

The first time a license-plate reader helped solve a violent felony, the lead came in minutes, not weeks. The community celebrated justice but also voiced unease about who might be watching, who had access and if tools built for public safety could drift beyond their purpose. At community meetings, fears surfaced that ICE had access to ALPR data, which wasn’t true, but the concern was real. Today, debates about technology often hinge less on what it does than what people fear it might become.

Since the adoption of body cameras, law enforcement has undergone one of its most significant technological shifts. Recently, policing tools have advanced more quickly than contextualizing them. Political narratives, frequently driven by emotion and misunderstanding, now shape technology policies faster than evidence ever did.

As technology and community concerns evolved, so did my vision as a chief. I quickly reawakened to a fundamental truth: policing isn’t about mechanisms; it’s about preventing harm. Technology changes the how, not the why. I returned to what had worked for more than 25 years: proactive, results-based policing based on actionable intelligence and decisive enforcement. Outcomes, not data, mattered most.

One of the best compliments I received as a police chief sounded like a criticism when a councilor said that she never heard much about the police department. To me, that meant success. The most important outcomes in policing are never measured because they never happen, crimes are prevented and victims never created. When policing works, there’s no headline, just a community that remains safe.

Measurement is essential, but the realization of prevention changed how we measure success. Crime rates show what has happened; clearance rates tell offenders what will happen. The difference isn’t academic; it’s behavioral. As the National Institute of Justice notes, “The certainty of being caught is a far more powerful deterrent than the severity of punishment.” Deterrence works when consequences feel inevitable, not abstract.

The New York Times reached a similar conclusion, noting that “criminals tend to think in the short term, responding more to the likelihood of getting caught than to long-range punishment.” Focusing exclusively on crime totals is a trap. Offenders don’t study dashboards; they calculate immediate risk. And good investigators leverage technology. Used correctly, it multiplies effectiveness and builds legitimacy. 

Tools like license-plate readers favor precision over intrusion. They don’t broaden policing, they narrow it – reducing guesswork, shortening investigations and lowering repeat offenses. Catching someone early, when the offense is small, often matters more than apprehending them dramatically after the crime has grown.

Public fear often imagines policing technology as a dragnet, but it works more like breadcrumbs. A camera hit isn’t probable cause, it’s an investigative lead. Human judgment, supervision, audit trails and judicial oversight remain central. Data is retained briefly, accessed narrowly and governed by policy. The goal is restrained, targeted access. This is why governance matters more than ideology. Intentional contracts, training, cybersecurity, communication and access controls determine whether technology earns trust or erodes it. When social trust fractures, fear fills the gap.

When national frustration rises, efforts at change tend to focus where action is easiest, not where authority actually lies. A single viral moment can rewrite policy overnight, often far from where reform would have real impact. The New York Times reported that several cities experienced sharp increases in violent crime following rapid pullbacks in proactive policing after 2020, even as reform goals remained unmet. Symbolic resistance can feel righteous, but policy reactions outpace practical outcomes and carry real costs.

Privacy is a fundamental human right, alongside the right to move freely and feel safe. Protecting privacy requires deliberate limits, not just good intentions. Ethical technology is intentional, built through transparent policies and community dialogue. Contracts must clearly define data ownership and limit secondary sharing. 

Violence is a human problem, not a political one, but it is often exploited, amplifying division instead of understanding. In that noise, policing technology becomes a stand-in for national debates, distracting from the shared goal of safety. What endures is the harder work of building trust through communication, transparency and facts.

As a police chief, I’ve learned that public safety carries unavoidable obligations to prevent crime, not merely respond to it. Deterrence works when policing is proactive and enforcement is fair, swift, proportional and the message is clear: if you commit a crime, you will be caught. Communities are safest when technology serves people, not politics and trust has room to grow.

– Durango Police Chief Brice Current