By Richard Odin Segovia 

This systematic review explores the recruitment and retention challenges in law enforcement, focusing on their impact on operational effectiveness and community safety. The goal is to synthesize existing literature to identify research gaps and suggest directions for future studies. By examining qualitative and quantitative research, this review aims to provide practical strategies to improve recruitment and retention in law enforcement. Methods: Searches were conducted using Google Scholar, JSTOR, and ProQuest to capture a broad range of law enforcement recruitment and retention studies. The selection process involved a systematic search that yielded 135 records. After removing duplicates, 42 studies were screened based on title and abstract, leading to 34 full-text articles assessed for eligibility. Twenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the qualitative and quantitative synthesis, and five additional sources were used for background and contextual information. This review adhered to PRISMA guidelines. Results: The review highlights key factors influencing recruitment and retention, including public perceptions, competing labor markets, and organizational culture. Enhanced recruitment efforts, such as digital campaigns and targeted outreach, significantly increase applications and improve the quality of applicants. Supportive workplace environments and wellness programs substantially reduce turnover rates and improve job satisfaction. Effective recruitment and retention strategies also enhance community trust and workforce diversity. Conclusions: The review underscores the need for well-structured research to substantiate effective recruitment and retention strategies. It recommends areas for in-depth exploration in future studies, especially longitudinal research on the long-term impacts of innovative recruitment and retention strategies. Application to Law Enforcement: Integrating digital recruitment, community engagement, and wellness programs can enhance workforce stability  and effectiveness for law enforcement leaders. These strategies improve officer recruitment and retention, reduce turnover, and build stronger relationships with the community, leading to more effective policing outcomes.    

Lynchburg, VA: Liberty University, 2024. 43p.

By Robin Joy

Introduction

Criminal justice stakeholders and policymakers are interested in the way people with mental health concerns and/or substance use disorders engage with law enforcement agencies. This examination explores a sample of these interactions to describe individuals’ contact with the criminal justice system. A better understanding of these interactions can evaluate the utility of administrative data to inform policies regarding police responses in crisis incidents.

Methods

With data provided by a municipal police department, researchers identified 18 people who had the most arrests from 2018-2022 and at least one incident with a mental health flag in the Valcour system. Criminal histories were obtained and used in conjunction with data from the Vermont judiciary and Department of Corrections to construct a robust description of how these individuals interact with the criminal justice system.

This study is a preliminary exploration of the utility of administrative data in describing how and why people with behavioral health concerns utilize police services in one municipal police department. As such, the results may not be applicable to other agencies and populations in Vermont. The cohort was too small to find patterns in the criminal histories that suggest how a person goes from limited contact in the first two years to a high utilization of services. Missing also is how much contact the cohort had with law enforcement during their lifetime. Additionally, the interaction that individuals with behavioral health concerns have with other law enforcement agencies, social service providers, and hospitals was outside the scope of study.

Findings

On average, individuals in the cohort had 1.39 contacts per day with law enforcement. Most of the calls were related to non-violent matters. The most common type of call involved intoxication followed by trespass.

Montpelier VT: Crime Research Group, 2024. 18p.

By Stephen Rushin

This Article argues that, if effectively regulated, policing represents a fundamentally important social institution that advances the community interest in public safety, justice, equality, and the rule of law.

In recent years, a significant and growing body of legal scholarship has called for the shrinking of police responsibilities, the defunding of police budgets, or the complete abolition of local police departments. A countervailing body of scholarly literature has questioned the wisdom of some of these proposals, arguing that they could unintentionally make policing worse or have unintended public safety effects.

This Article enters this debate by affirmatively defending the importance of the institution of policing. It argues that effectively regulated policing is critical to the investigation of harmful criminal behavior, the responses to public safety emergencies, the deterrence of future harmful conduct, the physical protection of historically marginalized communities, and the rule of law.

However, policing can only serve these important functions if it is effectively regulated and accountable to the community it serves. Too often, the failure of policymakers to properly regulate police behavior has led to unaccountable policing agencies that regularly violate the constitutional rights of their constituents, particularly the rights of historically marginalized populations. However, that represents an ongoing regulatory challenge rather than an indictment of the fundamental importance of the institution of policing.

Understanding the importance of policing as a social institution has more than mere academic significance. As some scholars push for a fundamental reimagination of public safety, it is vital for these proposals to understand the value conferred by the institution of policing. Only by understanding the importance of policing can both abolitionists and reformers develop solutions that balance public safety and the protection of constitutional rights.

76 South Carolina Law Review 133 (2024), 47p.

By The College of Policing (UK)

The government’s Safer Streets mission aims to reduce serious harm and increase public confidence in policing and the wider criminal justice system. This guide supports senior police leaders and police and crime commissioners to help achieve this mission. It clearly sets out the best available evidence on public confidence in the police, as well as the policing activities that are most likely to have an impact. „ Implementing neighbourhood policing – Having a targeted visible presence in crime and anti-social behaviour hot spots or places with low trust. – Community engagement to identify the crime and anti-social behaviour issues that matter to people locally. – Carrying out effective problem-solving to tackle the issues that matter the most to local people. „ Policing with procedural and distributive justice – Making fair decisions and treating people respectfully. – Not being seen to over-police and under-protect communities. „ Improving police contact with victims – Responding to the needs and concerns of victims. – Focusing as much on the process as the end result. „ Improving police contact with suspects – Minimising the number of negative experiences. – Explaining enforcement action and preserving people’s dignity. „ Tackling police wrongdoing – Working within the law and adhering to ethical and professional standards. The guide begins by providing key definitions and trends in public perceptions over the past 20 years. It ends with a summary of what else may be important to public confidence in the police.

Coventry, UK: College of Policing Limited (2025) 23p.

By Rylan Simpson ,Leigh Grossman

Purpose

Longstanding debates in policing regard the optimal method of patrolling the community. One question that often gets raised is if patrol officers should be deployed in single-crewed (i.e., one-officer) or double-crewed (i.e., two-officer) units? As part of the present research, we empirically examine the call-related output of patrol units by crewed status in Oakland, California.

Methods

Drawing upon calls for service data from the Oakland Police Department, we retrospectively reconstructed the patrol environment to assess the call-related output of single- versus double-crewed units. We also explored potential variation in the output of double-crewed units as a function of pairing characteristics (e.g., regularly partnered versus not regularly partnered).

Results

Our results revealed that single- and double-crewed units handled similar numbers of calls for service, although sometimes of potentially different types, in similar amounts of time. Our results also revealed that the output of double-crewed units was similar regardless of the pairing characteristics examined.

Conclusions

Whereas many police agencies deploy their patrol officers in single-crewed units, other police agencies deploy their patrol officers in double-crewed units. Overall, we find limited variation among the output of patrol units by crewed status. We discuss our results in the context of research and practice.

Journal of Criminal Justice

Volume 94, September–October 2024, 8 p.

By Mapping Police Violence

Every year Campaign Zero works to make this data accessible and understandable to the public via Mapping Police Violence, a platform tracking civilians killed by U.S. law enforcement. This report aims to provide key takeaways concerning incidents of police violence that resulted in a civilian being killed in 2024. Mapping Police Violence relies on local journalism, and sources news through our system which collects, filters, and processes the data. While we strive to employ official data sources from local and state government agencies, we believe it is important to continue collecting data from publicly accessible media sources. This allows us to identify gaps in government data, and further triangulate and validate the data. As per our methodology, all incidents go through a multi-layered review process. It is likely that the number of incidents may increase in the coming months because some police killings and their circumstances are not reported until weeks or months later.

Campaign Zero, 2025. 4p

By R. Shute and M Mecray

Context Service weapon activity, including instances where an officer’s firearm is drawn, pointed, or discharged, plays an important role in understanding events transpiring during a police–public encounter. Detection, documentation, and communication of these events in a way that is accurate, timely, and dependable is vital for enhancing transparency and accountability of law enforcement service weapon use. About this Report The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) requested the Criminal Justice Technology Testing and Evaluation Center (CJTTEC) to investigate the landscape of commercially available and emerging technologies that could meet this need. CJTTEC conducted a review of technologies capable of detecting when a service weapon has been unholstered, pointed, or discharged; documenting when a law enforcement officer discharges their service weapon (or initiating documentation such as body-worn camera (BWC) recordings in such incidents); and communicating the information to dispatchers. CJTTEC’s methodology to understand this technology landscape included secondary research (e.g., reviewing patents, trade literature, press releases, news articles, and publications) and primary research with technology experts, product representatives, and researchers. This brief provides a high-level summary of technology systems capable of documenting, detecting, and communicating service weapon activity, focusing specifically on technology integrated into or onto the weapon, in a holster, in a BWC, in a wearable device, or in environmental sensing tools. Conclusion Although no single commercially available tool is capable of detecting, documenting, and communicating service weapon activity, law enforcement agencies may be able to rely on a suite of products to help them address these needs.

Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International, 2024. 15p.

By Rick Muir and Felicity O’Connell 

Emily is on the phone to a 999-call handler. She is worried because a man who has been stalking her has been seen by a neighbour in a nearby street. While the call handler is talking to Emily and trying to reassure her, the call is being automatically transcribed into an artificial intelligence (AI) system that can search police databases. When Emily mentions the man’s name and address, the AI software discovers that the man has a firearms licence and alerts the call handler that the police need to get to Emily’s house straight away. Police Constable Tony Williamson1 has come across an elderly woman of British Pakistani heritage seemingly distressed in the street. He asks her if he can help, but she does not speak English. PC Williamson turns on the live translation tool on his mobile device and he asks her again. As she speaks, the woman’s words are translated in real time into his earpiece. She says that she is worried because her son Mohammed did not come home from school. This was three hours ago, and she has been trying to look for him. She says her son has a history of mental health problems and often goes missing. PC Williamson types ‘what’s your son’s name and date of birth?’ into the translation app on his phone and intuitively the keyboard is offered in Urdu. The woman types in the answer. The officer can run an immediate search across police databases for any information about her son. A full profile of her son Mohammed Iqbal1 is generated, including a list of addresses with which he is associated. The officer calls the case in and escorts Mrs Iqbal home while reassuring her that officers are now looking for her son. These are just two examples of the way AI powered technology could enhance the way that the police are able to serve the public. Policing is at its heart a complex information business, but it has struggled to make full use of the data stored on its many often outdated systems. AI could be transformative in policing because it can turn this wealth of data into actionable intelligence at the touch of a button. However, the AI revolution poses a whole set of legal and ethical questions for the police and society. How far should the police go in using AI to keep communities safe? Could these technologies make the police too effective, in that they may be able to know much more about us and pry into our private lives to an unprecedented degree? How can we be assured of the reliability and accuracy of the AI tools being deployed? How do we feel about machines making or guiding decisions as to whether a crime should be investigated, or someone should be charged with a criminal offence? Which policing decisions ought to be reserved for human beings? There are important technical, organisational and cultural questions too. Is the data the police hold ready for the AI revolution? Do police leaders understand the technology they are using? Are there the skills in the police workforce to properly exploit the potential of AI? Is the police service organised in such a way that it can properly make use of these new technologies? In this report we explore these and other questions in the following ways: 1. We set out a brief history of the development of AI and define some of the terms used to describe its different forms. 2. We describe some of the ways in which AI is currently being used by UK policing and explore how it might be used in the future. 3. We identify eight challenges for the more widespread use of AI for policing purposes. 4. We make a number of recommendations for policymakers and police leaders intended to help policing make the most of the AI revolution, while maintaining public trust and confidence and protecting rights and freedoms. The report is based on research undertaken between March and September 2024. This included a review of relevant academic and grey literature, interviews with 18 operational and strategic police leaders, policy makers, industry and civil liberties representatives, and a survey of chief information officers in English and Welsh police forces. 

London: Police Foundation, 2025. 28p.

In 2018, Queensland was the first Australian jurisdiction to provide police with new powers to conduct searches in cases where:

A missing person meets the definition of a ‘high-risk missing person’ because they are either: under the age of 13 or are at risk of serious harm if not found as quickly as possible

A police officer holds a reasonable suspicion that searching a particular place may locate the person or provide information relating to their disappearance, and

The occupier of the place cannot or will not give consent for the search to occur.

These provisions are contained in Chapter 7, Part 3A of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld).

Under section 879 of the Act, the CCC was required to review the provisions.

The CCC’s review identified that although the powers are rarely used, they proved to be a useful and valuable tool to progress investigations. It has made two recommendations for consideration by government.

State of Queensland, AUS: Queensland Crime and Corruption Commission: 2024. 22p.

By Sophia Hunt, Claudia Nmai, and Matthew Clair

This report summarizes perceptions of policing among a racially and socio-economically diverse sample of 37 people who faced criminal charges in the Hall of Justice, a courthouse in San Jose, California, between August 2021 and March 2022. A majority of criminal defendants we interviewed reported negative perceptions of personal police treatment, but a considerable minority reported positive perceptions. Among those who reported negative perceptions, two criticisms were common: (1) individual police officers’ violence, abuse, and fabrication of evidence; and (2) systemic policing practices that are overly intrusive and estrange certain disfavored groups in the Bay Area, such as the unhoused. Among those who reported positive perceptions, some believe that, despite their personal experiences of positive treatment, police do not treat everyone fairly and policing quality varies by context and the race of the policed person. Alongside these perceptions, a handful of defendants in the sample offered visions for changing policing. Two notable visions were: (1) reallocating resources from police departments toward other city services or under-resourced groups; and (2) reforming police departments in ways that reduce discrimination and abuse. While we discuss variation along demographic characteristics in our sample, we foreground how the range of experiences and visions of policing in San Jose have implications for policymakers and future research.

Court Listening Project, Report no. 1. Court Listening Project ((c/o Matthew Clair, Stanford University) 2022, 15p.

By John A. Shjarback

Broader public, media, and scholarly interest in police shootings of residents in the United States has been a constant since 2014. This interest followed a number of high-profile deadly force incidents, including those leading to the deaths of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO, and Tamir Rice in Cleveland, OH. In the decade since, researchers from a variety of academic disciplines have learned much about the scope and nature of police shootings. While US police as a whole use their firearms more than most other countries, rates of police shootings of residents vary across states.

The purpose of this report is to examine police shootings of residents—including both fatal and nonfatal, injurious incidents—using a comparative lens. More specifically, it explores rates of police shootings in the states comprising the Regional Gun Violence Research Consortium (RGVRC)—Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island—with the rest of the country. These comparisons suggest an association between levels of firearm prevalence/availability in the general population, as well as related laws and rates of police shootings per capita. The majority of RGVRC states possess the lowest rates of police shootings of residents, which appears to at least partially be a function of low levels of firearm prevalence/availability among residents and strong laws and legislation related to guns.

Albany, NY: Rockefeller Institute of Government, 2024. 20p.

By Matthew B. Ross

 1. Introduction In November 2021, the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office of Public Integrity and Accountability (NJOPIA) engaged the author of this study for the purpose of conducting an independent analysis of traffic stops made by the New Jersey State Police (NJ-SP). Based on the author’s extensive experience working with state and local policymakers to develop early warning systems for identifying police disparities, the NJ OPIA requested that the analysis focus on the central question of whether there was disparate treatment on the part of NJ-SP towards racial and ethnic minorities.2 After cleaning and linking all of the raw data provided by the New Jersey Office of Law Enforcement Professional Standards (NJ-OLEPS), the analytical sample used in this analysis consisted of 6,177,109 traffic stops made by NJ-SP from 2009 to 2021. In the full analytical sample, 60.52 percent of traffic stops were made of White non-Hispanic motorists while 18.8 percent were Black/African-American and 13.44 percent were Hispanic/Latinx. The overall volume of minority motorists stopped by NJ-SP increased from 35.34 percent in 2009 to 46.28 percent in 2021. The overarching finding from the analysis of the NJ-SP data from 2009-21 is that there was extremely strong evidence of a large and persistent disparity both is the decision to stop as well as the decision to engage in post-stop enforcement like search, vehicular exits, use of force, and arrest. In general, the results were estimated with a very high degree of statistical confidence, survived multiple robustness tests, and were found across most years and troops/stations. In the opinion of this study’s author, these disparities represent strong empirical evidence that NJ-SP is engaged in enforcement practices that result in adverse treatment towards minority motorists. Following best practices, this study applies an ensemble of the most reliable statistical tests available in the scientific literature. The intuition of this approach is that the shortcomings of any individual test are overcome by the totality of the evidence produced by a multitude of tests examining a broad set of enforcement outcomes.

Boston: Northeastern University, 2023. 44p.

By Matthew B. Ross, Jesse J. Kalinowski, Kenneth Barone

Connecticut’s novel approach to collecting and analyz-ing traffic stop data for evidence of disparate treatment is widely considered to be a model of best practice. Here,we provide an overview of Connecticut’s framework,detail solutions to the canonical empirical challenges of analyzing traffic stops, and describe a data-driven approach to early intervention. Unlike most juris-dictions that simply produce an annual traffic stop report, Connecticut has developed an ongoing system for identifying and mitigating disparity. Connecticut's Framework for identifying significant disparities on an annual basis relies on the so-called “preponderance ofevidence” approach. Drawing from the cutting-edge of the empirical social science literature, this approach applies several, as opposed to a single, rigorous empiri-cal test of disparity. For departments identified as having a disparity, Connecticut has developed a process for intervening on an annual basis. In that process, police administrators engage with researchers to conduct an empirical exploration into possible contributing factors and enforcement policies. In Connecticut, this approach has transformed what had once been a war of anecdotes into a constructive data-driven conversation about policy. Variants of the Connecticut Model have recently been adopted by the State of Rhode Island, Oregon, and California. Connecticut’s approach provides a useful model and policy framework for states and localities conducting disparity studies of police traffic stops

Criminology & Public Policy. 2020;19 pages:1289–1303.

By Gretta L. Goodwin

Technologies such as automated license plate readers and drones can support federal law enforcement activities. However, the use of these technologies in public spaces—where a warrant is not necessarily required prior to use—has led to concerns about how law enforcement is protecting civil rights, civil liberties, and privacy. GAO was asked to review federal law enforcement’s use of detection, observation, and monitoring technologies. This report examines 1) the use of these technologies in public spaces without a warrant by selected DHS law enforcement agencies and 2) the extent to which the agencies have policies to assess the use of technologies for bias and protect privacy. GAO selected CBP, ICE, and the Secret Service within DHS based on various factors, including the large number of law enforcement officers in these agencies. GAO administered a structured questionnaire and reviewed documents, such as technology policies. GAO also interviewed agency officials. What GAO Recommends GAO is making five recommendations including that DHS develop policies and procedures to assess the risks of bias and ensure CBP, ICE and Secret Service implement privacy protections through technology policies. DHS concurred, but ICE and Secret Service described actions they have taken that do not address the recommendations, as discussed.

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2024. 54p.

By Holly Bird, Jodie Bradshaw, Roger Grimshaw, Habib Kadiri and Helen Mills

The Labour government came into office earlier this year, with an ambitious ‘aim to halve knife crime in a decade’. Early moves have included, in September, the launch of a ‘Coalition to Tackle Knife Crime’, aiming, as the press release put it, to ‘bring together campaign groups, families of people who have tragically lost their lives to knife crime, young people who have been impacted and community leaders, united in their mission to save lives and make Britain a safer place for the next generation’. This was followed, in November, with proposals to fine senior executives of online companies if they market illegal weapons, along with moves to ban the sale of so-called ninja swords. The government is also proposing both ‘rapid intervention and tough consequences’ for those caught in possession of a knife and a network of ‘Young Futures hubs’, to improve access to support for young people at risk of criminalisation. The second of these proposals, which prioritise prevention and support for young people at risk, has a strong evidence-based underpinning it. ‘Decades of research and evidence gathering’, this briefing points out, ‘has shown that the drivers of serious violence are insecure employment prospects, poverty, substance misuse, mental health issues, volatile drug markets, experience of violence’. The same cannot be said of the ‘rapid intervention and tough consequences’ proposals, which tend to prioritise often short-term enforcement over longer-term prevention. One recent example of such action, the subject of this briefing, is the Serious Violence Reduction Order (SVRO), currently being piloted in four police areas in England. At its simplest, the imposition of an SVRO on an individual in effect gives the police carte blanche to stop and search them, at any time and in any place, and without the police having to demonstrate ‘reasonable suspicion’. Previous research on so-called suspicion-less stops and searches, cited in this briefing, found no evidence that they had any impact on the levels of violent crime. Indeed, there is scant evidence that stop and search in general has much of an impact on underlying crime levels (Bradford and Tiratelli, 2019). This is not an argument for no police enforcement. The police clearly perform important public order functions. But it is an argument for the importance of effective, evidenced-based policing. The roll-out of the SVRO pilots are shrouded in secrecy, with information hard to come by. While they are subject of an evaluation, there are some questions over whether it will provide the rigorous evidence of impact (or not) required, or, indeed, whether it will ever be published.

London: Centre for Crime and Justice Studies , 2024. 18p.

By The College of Policing (UK)

Key points Successfully identify stalking or harassment „ Think stalking first using the stalking mnemonic FOUR. Are the behaviours Fixated, Obsessive, Unwanted and Repeated? „ In cases of harassment, review and reconsider why the case does not meet the description of stalking. Investigate thoroughly „ Establish any pattern of behaviour and relevant history, reported or otherwise. „ Follow all lines of enquiry, whether they point towards or away from the suspect. „ In cases of stalking or harassment it is likely there will have been use of technology to facilitate the behaviour, and reasonable lines of enquiry must be pursued. Care for the victim „ Be compassionate and understanding in your approach. „ Do not make judgements about a victim’s behaviour – focus on the evidence. „ Remember that safeguarding the victim and reducing risk take priority over a criminal justice outcome. „ Recognise that victims may be traumatised and in need of specialist support. „ Remember that victims may be entitled to an enhanced service under the Code of Practice for Victims of Crime. „ Keep the victim updated on relevant stages of the investigation (eg, arrest, charge or release).

This advice will assist investigators responsible for a case once it has been transferred following the initial police response. This may be investigators working within public protection or CID, or in some forces, local policing investigators who retain stalking or harassment cases following an initial response

London: College of Policing (UK), 2024. 33p.

By National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; Erin Hammers Forstag, Rapporteur

On June 24 and 25, 2024, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine held a two-day public workshop exploring law enforcement’s use of person-based and place-based predictive policing strategies. Predictive policing strategies are approaches that use data to attempt to predict either individuals who are likely to commit crime or places where crime is likely to be committed, to enable crime prevention. The workshop was held in response to Executive Order 14074,1 which discusses enhancing public trust and safety through accountable policing and criminal justice practices, and Executive Order 14110,2 which addresses the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in law enforcement. David Weisburd (George Mason University and Chair of the workshop planning committee) began by noting that these executive orders reflected strong public concerns surrounding the idea of predictive policing, as well as critiques of specific implementations—in particular for these strategies’ disparate impact on communities of color. While planning the workshop, Weisburd said that the planning committee confronted several challenging issues. First, there is a lack of precise and clear definitions of what exactly constitutes predictive policing. Second, the term “predictive policing” is often avoided, even when approaches appear to meet conventional definitions. Predictive technologies include “automated,” “dynamic,” or “data-driven,” approaches. However, predictive policing is generally seen as involving predictive algorithms that identify individuals and locations that are more likely to be associated with crime in the future. Whatever the definition, law enforcement agencies routinely use tools that collect and analyze data to anticipate crime and facilitate police response. Weisburd highlighted that the method and extent to which police should rely on algorithmic approaches remain as real-world challenges for law enforcement officials.

This workshop, said Weisburd, comes at a time when original applications of predictive policing have come and gone, while algorithmic and big data technologies advance and continue to be applied in law enforcement contexts. “We may be on the precipice of a new era of predictive policing,” he said, “with the time and wisdom to consider what that could and should look like.”

Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2024. 13p.

By The Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund

Surveys suggest that the American public increasingly agrees with the persistent media narrative that fatal police shootings and use of excessive force are common, racist, and getting worse.

Activists and political leaders frequently refer to these fatal incidents and police use of force broadly as “police violence.” In 2021, then-Speaker of the US House of Representatives called “police brutality” an “epidemic.”

But the facts don’t support those claims. In reality, fatal police shootings and all uses of force are exceedingly rare, very limited, and overwhelmingly justified. The myths around police force and fatal shootings are both false and pernicious, yet pervasive.

This report seeks to set the record straight.

THE FACTS:

• Police rarely use force.

• When police use force, it is usually limited and proportional.

• Fatal police shootings are extremely uncommon.

• Unarmed fatal police shootings are both exceedingly rare and largely justified.

• Public perceptions around fatal police shootings and race are distorted.

Alexandria, VA: The Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund 2024. 11p.

By The High Level Group, European Commission

The European Union constitutes an area of freedom, security and justice where fundamental rights and the different legal systems and traditions of the Member States are respected. It endeavours to ensure a high level of security1 through measures to prevent and combat crime and to facilitate coordination and cooperation between law enforcement, judicial and other competent authorities. Technological developments and the digitalisation of our societies have led both to significant changes in citizens’ daily lives and to new challenges for law enforcement and judicial authorities in ensuring a high level of security, at both national and EU level. In today’s digital age, almost every criminal investigation has a digital component. This was addressed in April 2023 in the scoping paper for the High-Level Expert Group on access to data for effective law enforcement: Technologies and tools […] are also abused for criminal purposes. This development makes it increasingly challenging to maintain effective law enforcement across the EU to safeguard public security and to prevent, detect, investigate, and prosecute crime, and to meet victims’ legitimate expectations of justice and compensation. If not properly addressed, there is a real risk that this current trend will enable criminals to go ‘dark’ […]. This is a serious threat to individuals’ and society’s security and can ultimately impede on the positive obligation of the state to continue ensuring the rule of law and a democratic society2 . The right to respect for private and family life, home and communications, and the right to the protection of personal data, are guaranteed under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. Confidentiality of communication, be it in writing or on the phone, has been a major achievement of democratic societies, ensuring that neither the state nor private actors may interfere in peoples’ freedom of expression and enabling the establishment of a flourishing civil society. The enjoyment of those rights can be subject to limitations under the law, in particular with regard to measures intended to safeguard national security, defence or public security and for the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences or of unauthorised use of electronic communication systems, provided these measures are necessary, appropriate and proportionate within a democratic society. Therefore, law enforcement and judicial authorities may open and read written communications, intercept phone calls and listen to conversations, if deemed necessary, proportionate and justified, if such measures are in line with the applicable legal provisions and if they are carried out with due respect for fundamental rights. This possibility should be available to all competent authorities, irrespective of technological developments. The proliferation of new forms of interpersonal communication that has occurred in recent years means that all of society has to adapt to new realities. We must ensure that communication among citizens remains protected, and at the same time that law enforcement and judicial authorities continue to be able to fulfil their duty of protecting citizens by preventing and fighting serious and organised crime and terrorism. The need for adaptation is urgent, and the experts call on policymakers to act promptly as law enforcement authorities (LEAs) are already behind the pace of technological developments, which directly affects their ability to uphold citizens’ rights. At the informal meeting of justice and home affairs ministers on 26 January 2023, home affairs ministers reflected on the challenges posed by technological developments for law enforcement in the digital age. They also expressed concern that the applicable rules and their interpretation through case-law, together with practical and operational impediments, are making it increasingly challenging for LEAs to carry out their work, in particular when it comes to the retention of and access to data necessary to investigate and prosecute crime3 . Following this discussion, the Council endorsed the establishment of a group to develop a strategic forward-looking vision on effective and lawful access to data, electronic evidence and information in the digital age for judicial and law enforcement authorities: the High-Level Group on access to data for effective law enforcement (HLG)4 . The HLG’s goal was to find solutions to the challenge inherent in permitting lawful access to data in order to uphold a high level of security for all people living in the EU, while ensuring compliance with fundamental rights, including the rights to privacy and to data protection, as well as a high level of cybersecurity, through efficient and future-proof solutions. The 42 recommendations5 , the main deliverable resulting from the work of the HLG, come at a time when calls for online accountability are increasing. The recommendations address current and anticipated challenges in view of technological developments, aiming to enable a comprehensive EU approach to ensuring effective criminal investigations and prosecutions. The recommendations are clustered in three blocks: capacity building; cooperation with industry and standardisation; and legislative measures. They emphasise the challenges law enforcement faces in accessing data in a readable format for criminal investigations due to the lack of harmonised data retention obligations and stringent requirements of EU case-law, the growing use of end-to-end encryption and the lack of cooperation by certain non-traditional telecommunications services. While welcoming the e-evidence rules, the recommendations highlight their limits in addressing challenges posed by encryption and call for stronger cooperation between law enforcement and judicial authorities and service providers to nurture a permanent dialogue and a mutual understanding of operational, technical and business needs and to overcome difficulties in accessing encrypted data. According to experts, stronger cooperation between law enforcement and service providers will improve the situation to a certain extent, but a future-proof solution also requires that obligations upon service providers to cooperate be enforced by legislation, without weakening encryption in a generalised or systematic way for the users of a service.

Brussels: European Commission, 2024. 51p.

By Janice Goldstraw-White, Martin Gill and Mark Button

Levels of economic crime have soared to alarming levels in the last decade. Even with significant underreporting, the volume of offences has placed a strain on police resources and this has served to undermine the ability of law enforcement to respond effectively. Meanwhile, parts of the private and not-for profit sectors dedicate significant resources to combatting economic crime. Banks and insurance companies for example, employ thousands of staff in antifraud roles. This expertise is largely invisible to the police, representing a massive, wasted opportunity. Efforts to harness the work of the private and not-for-profit sectors to assist public policing initiatives to tackle economic crime have been slight, an observation as true for the UK as it is other countries. Much of the focus, where it does exist, appears to centre on data sharing while there are many other initiatives. Indeed, the link between the lack of resources and the potential to harness the work of others is rarely made. How can such a glaring gap exist? The overall aim of this project was to begin to address this question, more specifically:

• To identify the forms of joint efforts taking place that can serve as a reference point to inspire and guide future initiatives;

• To highlight some successful examples of engagement;

• To indicate the factors that are needed to replicate success;

• To lay the foundations for a larger scale study examining the ways in which additional resources from the private and not-for-profit sectors can cost effectively be harnessed to significantly improve the law enforcement response to fraud.

To understand the landscape of organisations working together we employed three key methodologies. First, we mapped the services provided by both private and not-for-profit entities that support (or have the potential to support) law enforcement responses to economic crime. Second, we developed a set of five illustrative case studies to demonstrate diverse forms of engagement. Third, we conducted in-depth interviews with stakeholders involved in various aspects of fraud prevention and enforcement to identify both the potential opportunities and the existing barriers to working together.

The output is designed to provide a resource for law enforcement, counter-fraud leaders and policymakers. Our mapping of existing initiatives will serve as a reference guide, facilitating opportunities to benefit from current provisions and inspiring replication and new ways of working.

Tunbridge Wells, UK: Perpetuity Research and Consultancy International Ltd and CCEC, Portsmouth, UK: University of Portsmouth , 2024. 61p.