Some communities have more law enforcement cameras spying on public places than others, yet the complaints seem to have dwindled as the public has grown accustomed to them.
They may serve as a crime deterrent, but the utility of the ShotSpotter is more in detection than prevention. Here's an example from Minneapolis
The plan consists of strategically placed microphones which pick up the sound of gunshots. The program triangulates the sound, pinpoints the location where the shot was fired, and focuses cameras on that spot.
Apparently it works. Shots were fired in Minneapolis on September 17 as a fellow was gunned down. No human witnesses came forward, but the system did its job as the cameras zoomed in and picked up the car the gunmen used for their getaway. The car's owner directed police to the suspected gunmen. See Technology cracks Mpls. homicide case. Via Slashdot.org.
So would that be enough to get a conviction if there is no other evidence? We'll have to wait for an answer to that one. But a jury would probably want more than that to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.
Related: A pilot program planned for Oak Cliff, a suburb of Dallas, Texas, was put on hold due to liability concerns of Oncor, the electricity distributor which owned the poles on which the microphones and camera would be attached. See Pilot project for gunshot sensors in north Oak Cliff is on hold.
Comments