Sound Off

GPS and OnStar: No exception to a sound pursuit policy

by John Phillips
President, PursuitWatch

No one would argue that it was a media frenzy last October when GM announced 19 of its 2009 model vehicles would be equipped with the technology, through OnStar, to halt police chases for stolen cars. Law enforcement would ask OnStar’s mobile communications system to remotely shut off the engines of cars they were pursuing. The idea is this technology would bring a safe and quick end to police chases.

Around the same time, the Los Angeles Police Department was testing StarChase, a devise mounted on patrol cars that shoots a GPS tracking devise that sticks to fleeing cars. Considering Los Angeles had over 600 pursuits last year, any new testing is a welcomed idea.

Will all this technology make police chases a thing of the past?

Both StarChase and the OnStar products use state of the art technologies which no one could have imagined years earlier would be possible. Fox News, CBS News, and USA Today called, wanting to know what I thought about these exciting new technologies.

They asked: “Do you support these technologies?”

Yes, I support all technologies that might make the job of law enforcement safer and more effective. Much as the two-way radio, helicopter, and the computer have helped police protect their communities, StarChase and OnStar might once prove as important as those previously mentioned.

I understand that when an officer engages in a pursuit of a suspect, he or she is putting their life — as well as the public's — in danger every time. If these technologies make it possible for more officers and civilians to go home safe to their families every evening, then let's see if it works.

“Will it make pursuits a thing of the past?” They continued, adding, “If police had this technology in 2001, would your sister still be alive?”

I can answer both of these questions at once: I don’t know. 

But this is what I do know:
1.  The potential for these technological advancements does not take the place of safe and smart policy.
2. The costs of these new technologies are high, and with the already incredibly stretched budgets of our nations departments, don’t expect to see devices on your local patrol cars that can shoot a GPS tracker onto a suspect’s car anytime soon.
3. The StarChase technology requires the suspect’s vehicle to be either stopped or going very slowly at a close range.
4. And, let us also not forget this new OnStar technology will only be included on a small fraction of the vehicles. Chances are this won’t be an option in the vast majority of situations for many years.  So my question is:  What do we do between now and then?

From a slightly different angle, The Economist contacted me, wondering what I thought about the civil liberties implications of these new technologies. Could these devices be easily abused? Would this allow law enforcement to always know what I’m doing? Is this Big Brother?

This side of the debate shows even more so the need for clear and defined policy that lets officers know what can and can’t be done. Hopefully, a policy that clearly states the wrongs and rights of these technologies can cut down on cases that might bring civil liberties issues into question.

So, until that time, all departments should adopt a policy that requires adequate training for police officers, only pursues violent felons, allows for complete and painstaking review of all incidents, and makes available to the public all requested information. Until this becomes common practice, these technologies are no more than a story in the newspaper.