Community Perceptions,Concerns for Privacy,and Support for Law Enforcement Use of Aerial Surveillance in Baltimore

Abstract

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.

Keywords

police surveillance aerial surveillance concerns for privacy public attitudes toward policing

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Armstrong

Katz

Schnebly

(2015). The relationship between citizen perceptions of collective efficacy and neighborhood violent crime. Crime & Delinquency, 61(1), 121–142.

Atlas of Surveillance, University of Nevada Reynolds School of Journalism. (2023, June 22). Atlas of Surveillance. https://atlasofsurveillance.org/atlas

Auxier

Raine

Anderson

Perrin

Kumar

Turner

(2019). Americans and privacy: Concerned, confused and feeling lack of control over their personal information. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/11/15/americans-and-privacy-concerned-confused-and-feeling-lack-of-control-over-their-personal-information/

Baltimore Police Department. (2020, March 25). Community education presentation: Aerial investigation research pilot program. https://www.baltimorepolice.org/sites/default/files/General%20Website%20PDFs/Public_Education_Presentation_Plane_final.pdf

Bond

Nader

(2018). Lowell police department: Process and evaluation report. Strategies for Policing Innovation, Bureau of Justice Assistance.

Bradford

Yesberg

Jackson

Dawson

(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.

Braga

Sousa

Coldren

Rodrigues

(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.

Browning

Dietz

Feinberg

(2004). The paradox of social organization: Networks, collective efficacy, and violent crime in urban neighborhoods. Social Forces, 83(2), 503–534.

Burkoff

(2014). Law enforcement use of drones and privacy rights in the United States. University of Pittsburgh Legal Studies. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2492192

10.

California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207, 209 (1986).

11.

Campbell

(2020, December 30). Baltimore Police threatened to end spy plane program in November, claiming “disturbing” leaks of information. The Baltimore Sun. https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/bs-pr-md-ci-cr-bpd-spy-plane-letter-20201230-kxzofgo7l5bghcgahx3p4jzksy-story.html

12.

Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206, 2218 (2018).

13.

Clarridge

(2013, February 7). Seattle grounds police drone program. Seattle Times. http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/seattle-grounds-police-drone-program/

14.

Crime Data Explorer. (2021). Summary reporting system: Summary crime reported by the Baltimore Police Department 2010-2020 [Dataset]. Federal Bureau of Investigation. https://cde.ucr.cjis.gov/LATEST/webapp/#/pages/explorer/crime/crime-trend

15.

Crow

Snyder

Crichlow

Smykla

(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.

Davis

Silver

(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.

Demir

Apel

Braga

Brunson

Ariel

(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.

Engel

(2005). Citizens’ perceptions of distributive and procedural injustice during traffic stops with police. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 42(4), 445–481.

20.

Fenton

Richman

(2019, December 20). Baltimore police back pilot program for surveillance planes, reviving controversial program. The Baltimore Sun. https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/bs-md-ci-cr-baltimore-police-support-surveillance-plane-20191220-zfhd5ndtlbdurlj5xfr6xhoe2i-story.html

21.

Ferraro

K. F.

(1995). Fear of crime: Interpreting victimization risk. SUNY Press.

22.

Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445, 448–49 (1989).

23.

Fontaine

Esthappan

La Vigne

Lawrence

D.S.

Janetta

(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.

Friedman

Heydari

Isaacs

Mauleon

(2020). Civil rights and civil liberties audit of Baltimore’s Aerial Investigation Research (AIR) Program. The Policing Project at NYU Law.

25.

Gau

(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.

Gurinskaya

(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.

Haberman

Groff

Ratcliffe

Sorg

(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.

Han

Sun

I. Y.

(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.

Heen

Lieberman

Miethe

(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.

Hiltner

P. 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.

Honaker

King

Blackwell

(2014). Amelia II: A program for missing data. R Package version 1.0.

33.

Hosmer

Lemeshow

Sturdivant

(2013). Applied logistic regression (Vol. 398). Wiley & Sons.

34.

Kearns

T. 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.

35.

Khan

(2015). Keeping LAPD drone-free. Retrieved June 28, 2016, from Bill of Rights Defense Committee. http://bordc.org/news/keeping-lapd-drone-free/

36.

Kochel

T. R.

Skogan

W. 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.

Koerner

(2015). Drones and the fourth amendment: Redefining expectations of privacy. Duke Law Journal, 64(6), 1129–1172.

38.

Lawrence

Mcfield

Freeman

(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.

39.

Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle v. Baltimore Police Department, Volume #20-1495. (2021). https://epic.org/wp-content/uploads/privacy/Leaders-of-a-Beautiful-Struggle-v-BPD-en-banc-opinion-062421.pdf

40.

Lieberman

Miethe

Troshynski

Heen

(2014). Aerial drones, domestic surveillance, and public opinion of adults in the United States. UNLV: Center for Crime and Justice Policy.

41.

Lum

Stoltz

Koper

Scherer

(2019). Research on body-worn cameras: What we know, what we need to know. Criminology & Public Policy, 18, 93–118.

42.

Manzella

Favre

(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.

Marte

Anania

Rice

Mehta

Milner

Winter

Walters

Capps

Ragbir

(2018). What type of person supports 24/7 police drones over neighborhoods? Journal of Unmanned Aerial Systems, 4(1), 61–70.

44.

Mcguire

(2020). The laughing policebot: Automation and the end of policing. Policing & Society, 31(1), 20–36.

45.

Merenda

Trent

Rinke

Buchanan

(2021). Understanding citizen satisfaction with the police: Results from a community survey. Police Practice & Research, 22(1), 692–710.

46.

Merola

Lum

(2014). Predicting public support for the use of license plate recognition technology by police. Police Practice & Research, 15(5), 373–388.

47.

Miethe

Lieberman

Heen

Sousa

(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.

Miethe

Lieberman

Sakiyama

Heen

(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.

Miethe

Lieberman

Sakiyama

Troshynski

(2014). Public attitudes about aerial drone activities: Results of a National Survey. UNLV: Center for Crime & Justice Policy.

50.

Monmouth University. (2013). U.S. supports unmanned domestic drones. Monmouth University Poll, August 15. https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_nj_081513/

51.

Murphy

Cherney

(2011). Understanding the contingency of procedural justice outcomes. Policing: A Journal of Policy & Practice, 5(3), 228–235.

52.

Nix

Wolfe

S. E.

Rojek

Kaminski

R. J.

(2015). Trust in the police: The influence of procedural justice and perceived collective efficacy. Crime and Delinquency, 61(4), 610–640.

53.

Pavone

Esposti

(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.

Portes

(1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 24(1), 1–24.

55.

Price

(2019). Public safety drones. The Bill Blackwood Law Enforcement Management Institute of Texas. https://shsu-ir.tdl.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11875/2656/1877.pdf?sequence=1

56.

R Core Team. (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/.

57.

Rubin

(2004). Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys (Vol. 81). Wiley & Sons.

58.

Sakiyama

Miethe

Lieberman

Heen

Tuttle

(2016). Big hover or big brother? Public attitudes about drone usage in domestic policing activities. Security Journal, 30(4), 1027–1044.

59.

Sampson

Raudenbush

Earls

(1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277(5328), 918–924.

60.

Sargeant

Kochel

T. 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.

Saulnier

Thompson

(2016). Police UAV use: Institutional realities and public perceptions. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 39(4), 680–693.

62.

Schaap

(2021). Police trust-building strategies. A socio-institutional, comparative approach. Policing and Society, 31(3), 304–320.

63.

Schaefer Center for Public Policy. (2020). Baltimore Aerial investigation Research Project. Findings from the Early Launch Community Survey. Arnold Foundation. https://68iab1.p3cdn1.secureserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/AIRCommunitySurveyReport-SchaeferCenter-FINAL.pdf

64.

Schlinkmann

(2021, February 5). ‘Spy plan’, bill dies. St. Louis Post-Dispatch. https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/aldermen-pass-controversial-firefighters-pension-change-spy-plane-bill-dies/article_9328bc59-ec00-5a98-b830-350823bdd294.html

65.

Snyder

B. H.

(2020). “Big brother’s big brother”: The visual politics of (counter) surveillance in Baltimore. Sociological Forum, 35(4), 1315–1336.

66.

Soderberg

(2016, November 1). Persistent transparency: Baltimore surveillance plane documents reveal ignored pleas to go public, who knew about the program, and differing opinions on privacy. The Baltimore Sun. https://www.baltimoresun.com/citypaper/bcp-110216-mobs-aerial-surveillance-20161101-story.html

67.

Sousa

Miethe

Sakiyama

(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. Louis

Saulnier

Walby

(2019). Police use of body-worn cameras: Challenges of visibility, procedural justice, and legitimacy. Surveillance & Society, 17(3/4), 305–321.

69.

Sunshine

Tyler

(2003). The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law & Society Review, 37(3), 513–548.

70.

Tyler

(2003) Procedural justice, legitimacy, and the effective rule of law. Crime & Justice, 30, 283–357.

71.

Tyler

Jackson

(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.

Weiss

Bailar

(2002). High response rates for low-income population in-person surveys. In Ver Ploeg

Moffitt

R. A.

Citro

C. F.

(Eds.), Studies of welfare populations: Data collection and research issues. (pp. 86–104). National Academies Press.

74.

West

Bowman

(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.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB