Community support for license plate recognition

Abstract

Purpose -Although the use of license plate recognition (LPR) technology by police is becoming increasingly common, no empirical studies have examined the legal or legitimacy implications of LPR. LPR may be used for a variety of purposes, ranging from relatively routine checks of stolen vehicles to more complex surveillance functions. The purpose of this paper is to develop a "continuum of LPR uses" that provides a framework for understanding the potential legal and legitimacy issues related to LPR. The paper then analyzes results from the first random-sample community survey on the topic. Design/methodology/approach -Random-sample survey (n ¼ 457). Findings -The paper finds substantial support for many LPR uses, although the public also appears to know little about the technology. The survey also reveals that the public does not regard the uses of LPR as equivalent, but rather support is qualified depending upon the use at issue. Originality/value -Previous research has not systematically categorized the wide variety of LPR uses, an oversight which has sometimes led to implicit consideration of these functions as if they are equivalent in their costs and benefits. To assist agencies concerned with community responses to LPR use, the paper points to a number of factors tending to decrease support for LPR, namely, the extent to which a use involves purposes unrelated to vehicle enforcement, the extent to which a function involves prolonged storage of individuals' travel data, and the extent to which a use is perceived as impacting "average" members of the community.

The rapid diffusion of license plate readers in US law enforcement agencies

“…Previous research has shown complicated findings about the relationship between police and their communities regarding LPRs. The public remains fairly unaware of LPR use in their communities, and when they are aware, they are supportive of certain types of LPR uses more than others (Merola and Lum, 2012;Merola et al, 2014). In particular, previous community surveys on LPRs suggest the public is less supportive of using LPRs for everyday traffic and parking violations, but more supportive of using LPRs to solve serious crimes.…”

“…Although limited by the data they access and by the frequency and ways they are used (see discussions by Association of Chief Police Officers, 2013; Lum et al, 2010), LPRs are believed by law enforcement officials to be a force-multiplier to many crime prevention and homeland security efforts. At the same time, LPRs present specific challenges and controversies related to data privacy, data storage and systems maintenance (Merola et al, 2014). Thus, in light of their rapid diffusion, how LPRs are used and their effectiveness in achieving goals of both police and citizens should be central concerns to police practice and research.…”

Benefit-Cost Analysis of Public Safety: Facing the Methodological Challenges

“…A small number of studies have tried to monetize these sorts of costs. Merola, Lum, Cave and Hibdon (2014), for example, tried to get at some of the social costs of LPRs, such as privacy and community trust, by using a community survey. The authors found that the public’s views about the use of these devices depended in part on the purposes for which they were deployed.…”

Policing in the Era of Big Data

“…We do not know how long police should retain records before purging them. Some research has suggested that the public might support long-term record retention (Merola et al 2014). We need research on the time between a data collection and when police realized that they needed the information.…”