In 2020, the Baltimore Police Department implemented the Aerial Investigation Research (AIR) surveillance program, partnering with a third-party vendor that took video surveillance of the city to supporting investigations for four violent offenses: murders, non-fatal shootings, armed robberies, and carjacking. This study examined which factors shape community support for the program. Survey data was collected from Baltimore city residents online and over the phone (N = 769). Results indicate that fear of crime and perceptions of police legitimacy and bias effect support for the AIR program. Importantly, residents who were more concerned about privacy violations were less likely to support the program and viewed it as less effective. Findings emphasize the need for police to examine public support prior to program implementation.
ArmstrongT.KatzC.SchneblyS. (2015). The relationship between citizen perceptions of collective efficacy and neighborhood violent crime. Crime & Delinquency, 61(1), 121–142.
2.
Atlas of Surveillance, University of Nevada Reynolds School of Journalism. (2023, June22). Atlas of Surveillance. https://atlasofsurveillance.org/atlas
BondB.NaderE. (2018). Lowell police department: Process and evaluation report. Strategies for Policing Innovation, Bureau of Justice Assistance.
6.
BradfordB.YesbergJ.JacksonJ.DawsonP. (2020). Live facial recognition: Trust and legitimacy as predictors of public support for police use of new technology. British Journal of Criminology, 60(6), 1502–1522.
7.
BragaA.SousaW.ColdrenJ.RodriguesD. (2018). The effect of body-worn cameras on police activity and police-citizen encounters: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 108(3), 511–538.
8.
BrowningC.DietzR.FeinbergS. (2004). The paradox of social organization: Networks, collective efficacy, and violent crime in urban neighborhoods. Social Forces, 83(2), 503–534.
CrowM.SnyderJ.CrichlowV.SmyklaJ. (2017). Community perceptions of police body-worn cameras: The impact of views on fairness, fear, performance, and privacy. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 44(4), 589–610.
16.
DavisD.SilverB. (2004). Civil liberties vs security: Public opinion in the context of the terrorist attacks on America. American Journal of Political Science, 48(1), 28–46.
17.
DemirM.ApelR.BragaA.BrunsonR.ArielB. (2020). Body worn cameras, procedural justice, and police legitimacy: A controlled experimental evaluation of traffic stops. Justice Quarterly, 37(1), 53–84.
18.
Dow Chemical Co. v. United States, 476 U.S. 227, 238 (1986).
19.
EngelR. (2005). Citizens’ perceptions of distributive and procedural injustice during traffic stops with police. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 42(4), 445–481.
FerraroK. F. (1995). Fear of crime: Interpreting victimization risk. SUNY Press.
22.
Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445, 448–49 (1989).
23.
FontaineJ.EsthappanS.La VigneN.LawrenceD.S.JanettaJ. (2019). Updated: Views of the police and neighborhood conditions: Evidence of change in six cities participating in the national initiative for building community trust and justice. Urban Institute Justice Policy Center.
24.
FriedmanB.HeydariF.IsaacsM.MauleonE. (2020). Civil rights and civil liberties audit of Baltimore’s Aerial Investigation Research (AIR) Program. The Policing Project at NYU Law.
25.
GauJ. (2011). The convergent and discriminant validity of procedural justice and police legitimacy: An empirical test of core theoretical propositions. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39, 489–498.
26.
GurinskayaA. (2020). Predicting citizens’ support for surveillance cameras. Does police legitimacy matter?International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 44(1–2), 63–83.
27.
HabermanC.GroffE.RatcliffeJ.SorgE. (2016). Satisfaction with police in violent crime hot spots: Using community surveys as a guide for selecting hot spots policing tactics. Crime & Delinquency, 62(4), 525–557.
28.
HanZ.SunI. Y.HuR. (2017). Social trust, neighborhood cohesion, and public trust in the police in China. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 40(2), 380–394.
29.
Harvard Law Review. (2022). Leaders of a beautiful struggle v. Baltimore Police Department. Fourth Circuit holds warrantless access of aerial surveillance data unconstitutional. Harvard Law Review, 135(3), 920–927.
30.
HeenM.LiebermanJ.MietheT. (2018). The thin blue line meets the big blue sky: Perceptions of police legitimacy and public attitudes towards aerial drones. Criminal Justice Studies, 31(1), 18–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/1478601x.2017.1404463
31.
HiltnerP. J. (2013). The drones are coming: Use of unmanned aerial vehicles for police surveillance and its fourth amendment implications. Wake Forest Journal of Law & Policy, 3(2), 397–416.
32.
HonakerJ.KingG.BlackwellM. (2014). Amelia II: A program for missing data. R Package version 1.0.
KearnsT. B. (1999). Technology and the right to privacy: The Convergence of surveillance and information privacy concerns. William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal, 7(3), 975–1012.
KochelT. R.SkoganW. G. (2021). Accountability and transparency as levers to promote public trust and police legitimacy: Findings from a natural experiment. Policing: An International Journal, 44(6), 1046–1059.
37.
KoernerM. (2015). Drones and the fourth amendment: Redefining expectations of privacy. Duke Law Journal, 64(6), 1129–1172.
38.
LawrenceT.McfieldA.FreemanK. (2021). Understanding the role of race and procedural justice on the support for police body-worn cameras and reporting crime. Criminal Justice Review, 48(1), 48–68.
LiebermanJ.MietheT.TroshynskiE.HeenM. (2014). Aerial drones, domestic surveillance, and public opinion of adults in the United States. UNLV: Center for Crime and Justice Policy.
41.
LumC.StoltzM.KoperC.SchererJ. (2019). Research on body-worn cameras: What we know, what we need to know. Criminology & Public Policy, 18, 93–118.
42.
ManzellaM.FavreG. (2015). Through the looking glass: Public safety agency drone policies and the Fourth Amendment. Center for Homeland Defense and Security, United States Naval Postgraduate School.
43.
MarteD.AnaniaE.RiceS.MehtaR.MilnerM.WinterS.WaltersN.CappsJ.RagbirN. (2018). What type of person supports 24/7 police drones over neighborhoods?Journal of Unmanned Aerial Systems, 4(1), 61–70.
44.
McguireM. (2020). The laughing policebot: Automation and the end of policing. Policing & Society, 31(1), 20–36.
45.
MerendaF.TrentJ.RinkeC.BuchananM. (2021). Understanding citizen satisfaction with the police: Results from a community survey. Police Practice & Research, 22(1), 692–710.
46.
MerolaL.LumC. (2014). Predicting public support for the use of license plate recognition technology by police. Police Practice & Research, 15(5), 373–388.
47.
MietheT.LiebermanJ.HeenM.SousaW. (2019). Public attitudes about body-worn cameras in police work: A national study of the sources of their contextual variability. Criminal Justice Review, 44(3), 263–283.
48.
MietheT.LiebermanJ.SakiyamaM.HeenS. (2015). Public attitudes about UAV usage in police work: A comparative case study of Mesa County residents. UNLV: Center for Crime and Justice Policy.
49.
MietheT.LiebermanJ.SakiyamaM.TroshynskiE. (2014). Public attitudes about aerial drone activities: Results of a National Survey. UNLV: Center for Crime & Justice Policy.
MurphyK.CherneyA. (2011). Understanding the contingency of procedural justice outcomes. Policing: A Journal of Policy & Practice, 5(3), 228–235.
52.
NixJ.WolfeS. E.RojekJ.KaminskiR. J. (2015). Trust in the police: The influence of procedural justice and perceived collective efficacy. Crime and Delinquency, 61(4), 610–640.
53.
PavoneV.EspostiS. (2012). Public assessment of new surveillance-oriented security technologies: Beyond the trade-off between privacy and security. Public Understanding of Science, 21(5), 556–572.
54.
PortesA. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 24(1), 1–24.
R Core Team. (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/.
57.
RubinD. (2004). Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys (Vol. 81). Wiley & Sons.
58.
SakiyamaM.MietheT.LiebermanJ.HeenM.TuttleO. (2016). Big hover or big brother? Public attitudes about drone usage in domestic policing activities. Security Journal, 30(4), 1027–1044.
59.
SampsonR.RaudenbushS.EarlsF. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277(5328), 918–924.
60.
SargeantE.KochelT. R. (2018). Re-examining the normative, expressive, and instrumental models: How do feelings of insecurity condition the willingness to cooperate with police in different contexts?Policing & Society, 28(7), 823–840.
61.
SaulnierA.ThompsonS. (2016). Police UAV use: Institutional realities and public perceptions. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 39(4), 680–693.
62.
SchaapD. (2021). Police trust-building strategies. A socio-institutional, comparative approach. Policing and Society, 31(3), 304–320.
SousaW.MietheT.SakiyamaM. (2017). Inconsistencies in public opinion of body-worn cameras on police: Transparency, trust, and improved police-citizen relationships. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 12(1), 100–108.
68.
St. LouisE.SaulnierA.WalbyK. (2019). Police use of body-worn cameras: Challenges of visibility, procedural justice, and legitimacy. Surveillance & Society, 17(3/4), 305–321.
69.
SunshineJ.TylerT. (2003). The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law & Society Review, 37(3), 513–548.
70.
TylerT. (2003) Procedural justice, legitimacy, and the effective rule of law. Crime & Justice, 30, 283–357.
71.
TylerT.JacksonJ. (2013). Popular legitimacy and the exercise of legal authority: Motivating compliance, cooperation and engagement. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 20(1), 78–95.
72.
United States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2020). Crime in the United States, 2010-2019. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s.
73.
WeissC.BailarB. (2002). High response rates for low-income population in-person surveys. In Ver PloegM.MoffittR. A.CitroC. F. (Eds.), Studies of welfare populations: Data collection and research issues. (pp. 86–104). National Academies Press.
74.
WestJ.BowmanJ. (2016). The domestic use of drones: An ethical analysis of surveillance issues. Public Administration Review, 76(4), 649–659.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
