LET THE BOY’S HAVE THEIR TOYS!
Many people in the United States are calling for an end to what they perceive is the militarization of law enforcement. There is a fear that the technology and equipment being supplied to local and state law enforcement has made the agencies that use this equipment closer to a standing army rather than a civil policing agency. Opponents point to armored personnel carriers, automatic weapons and protective body armor as directly associated to the military. I like to look at these as natural improvements to the tools law enforcement already uses, similar to improvements in everyday work. The military has given us more everyday technology than many people are aware of.
There are many things in everyday life that have their roots directly related to the military. One of the most easily recognizable technologies that are traced to the military is the Global Position Systems (GPS). The navy needed a satellite system to aid with its nuclear submarine fleet and to help develop the “Transit/NAVSTAR” satellite system. The GPS system grew out of that research. This technology became so successful that it was declassified and made available for civilian use by president Ronald Reagan.
Canned food is another everyday device directly related to the military. Napoleon offered a 12,000-franc reward to anybody who came up with a new way to preserve food. The idea behind this invention of preserving food started in glass bottles before an Englishman, Peter Durand, put the food into tin cans and perfected it.
Maximilian II advanced the use of body armor, started in the 16th century in Italy 30 years earlier. These early steel and iron vests were crude devices compared to today’s ballistic armor.
The use of ambulances to transport the sick and injured was started by the Spanish army 500 years ago. The French military under Napoleon Bonaparte improved on the early methods of transporting the injured from the battlefield and designed special wagons to remove its soldiers to specially designed battlefield hospitals.
Digital cameras developed by an Eastman Kodak engineer can trace their success to a joint NASA and United States Air Force satellite, launched in 1976. These cameras had the ability to look anywhere the military needed to help with their missions. Log onto your computer and go to GOOGLE Earth. The resolution of these images can be refined down to about one meter.
Today, just about every cell phone sold carries with it a digital camera and a GPS locating app. Everyday products such as disposable razors, tampons and the microwave oven all can trace their roots to the military.
So why are people so up in arms about the use of new equipment and technology by law enforcement? Is there an automatic distrust that the police will misuse this technology to abuse civil rights or peoples’ privacy?
The use of drones for civilian law enforcement is a major concern for some people. The drones we are talking about are small, non-military grade drones to be used to complement existing rotary or fixed-wing aircraft. These drones are much cheaper to fly than a helicopter or aircraft, and are much safer for officers and the public.
Currently the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Congress and state legislative bodies are looking for ways to regulate civilian and government use of drones. There are many bills pending that would restrict domestic law enforcement from using these devices. I believe restricting the use of drones would be detrimental on many levels. It would be wasteful to taxpayers who ultimately pay the bill for law enforcement. It would be wrong for the environment and it would restrict breakthrough advancement in the ability for public safety to monitor situations from a distance.
As far as misusing the drone to gather information against suspects, the courts are very particular about how any information is gathered. Federal and State Courts have already ruled and restricted technology that they consider invasive such as GPS tracking or infrared technology that can track a person in their homes. Fire departments may be able to use this technology, but law enforcement may be restricted. Zoom lenses on cameras and binoculars can’t be used to look into your house in certain jurisdictions. The courts also allow helicopters to fly overhead at a regulated height and allow observations made in “plain view”. With any new technology, the judicial system will be called upon to restrict any “abuses” by law enforcement or other agencies.
