Policing Technology Model Statutes and Legislative Resources

Technological innovations have the potential to make our society safer–but they also raise serious concerns around issues such as privacy, inaccuracy, and perpetuation of racial bias. Too often, the debate around police technology is framed as a choice between embracing technology or banning it. We believe that the better approach is to authorize particular technologies while eliminating or minimizing harms. 

Our model statutes and legislative resources promote a more responsible and democratic way to consider how technologies are used by law enforcement to ensure more protection for all. 

• Automated License Plate Readers

• Facial Recognition Technology

• Lateral Surveillance

• Fusion Centers and Police Data Sharing

• Authorization of Policing Technology

If you have any questions or comments on these model statutes (both completed and under development), we welcome your input at legislation@policingproject.org.

The Problem

Automated License Plate Readers automatically capture license plate images and alert officers to stolen vehicles or drivers with outstanding warrants. Their use can exacerbate over-enforcement of low-level offenses; disproportionately affect communities of color; carry risks of false positives; and lead to the long-term tracking of innocent drivers.  

The Solution

Our Automated License Plate Reader model statute mandates transparency, sets reasonable data retention time frames, limits use for low-level offense enforcement, and addresses bias concerns.

To view our two-pager summarizing the key provisions of this statute, click here. 

To read the Policing Project’s Automated License Plate Reader statute, click here.

The Problem

Law enforcement agencies across the country are using facial recognition technology (FRT) without explicit statutory or democratic authorization. Use of FRT presents persistent, significant accuracy and bias concerns, risks to free expression (e.g., surveillance at protests), and concerns that surveillance–already marked by bias–can be done at a supercharged speed and scale. 

The Solution

Our Facial Recognition Technology Checklists address these concerns by ensuring that police only may use FRT if it makes the public safer, if the public actually wants it, and if the technology does not perpetuate harms like racial injustice and invasions of privacy. 

To view our overview summarizing the key provisions of these checklists, click here.

To read the Policing Project’s Facial Recognition Technology Checklist for state and local lawmakers, click here. 

To read the Policing Project’s Facial Recognition Technology Checklist for Congress, click here. 

The Problem

In recent years, law enforcement has become increasingly reliant on privately-owned surveillance tools, like camera-equipped smart doorbells. Police have been able to dramatically expand their surveillance capabilities, raising a host of civil rights and civil liberties concerns. 

The Solution

Our Lateral Surveillance Policy Framework will offer concrete suggestions for commonsense regulation of police use of lateral surveillance, including measures to ensure police are using these technologies only when democratically authorized, protect privacy, reduce racial profiling, and provide transparency and accountability. 

The Policing Project’s Lateral Surveillance Policy Framework is forthcoming in 2023. While the statute is under development, you can read the Policing Project’s civil rights audit of Ring that summarizes some of our policy recommendations on lateral surveillance. 

The Problem

Fusion centers are joint state and federal law enforcement operations that are meant to help agencies “connect the dots” between various intelligence sources to better combat terrorism. In reality, many fusion centers have become expansive data-gathering machines that indiscriminately collect vast quantities of information about innocent people, without democratic authorization or oversight.

The Solution

Our Fusion Center Statute will govern the collection, retention, and distribution of intelligence information, create an oversight board, and establish a right for individuals to request their own date. 

The Policing Project’s Fusion Center Statute is forthcoming in 2023. While the statute is under development, you can read about our Oregon Titan lawsuit, which details some of our biggest concerns with fusion centers.

The Problem

Police across the country use technologies in ways that often are unauthorized by state or local legislative bodies and lacking in transparency to their communities. Several solutions to this problem have been suggested, including the ACLU’s Community Control Over Police Surveillance (CCOPS) model statue, but unauthorized uses of technology by police continue apace. 

The Solution

Our model statutes, the Authorized Police Technology (APT) Act and Authorized Databases and Police Technology (ADAPT) Act, build on the framework established by CCOPS by (1) streamlining some requirements in order to encourage broader adoption and (2) adding new language to regulate the use of policing databases along with policing technologies. 

These model statutes ensure oversight and transparency for both the acquisition of new policing technologies, as well as existing policing technologies, including databases like fingerprint databases, DNA databases, gang databases, automated license plate reader databases, and criminal history databases. They also strike a balance between allowing law enforcement to use tools beneficial to public safety, while providing meaningful protections for privacy, bias, and civil liberties. 

To read more about the APT Act, including the statute itself, click here. 

To read more about the ADAPT Act, including the statute itself, click here.