Episode Transcript
[00:00:02] Hello everybody, and welcome to another episode of the Guardian Mindset podcast. I'm your host, attorney Eric Daigle. Listen, here we are in July of 2026. I hope you're all having a great summer. And today we're going to talk about the Digital Guardian. We're going to talk about the aftermath of Shatri, the Supreme Court decision on how technology has changed faster than the Constitution.
[00:00:26] Whether you're listening from your patrol vehicle, your office, your home, or while traveling between trainings, thank you for spending your time with me today. This podcast has always been about one central idea, the Guardian mindset. It is the belief that policing is much more than enforcing laws. It's about protecting communities, preserving public trust, leading people with integrity, and above all, safeguarding the Constitution.
[00:00:53] Every decision we make as law enforcement professionals ultimately comes back to one main how do we protect both public safety and constitutional liberty?
[00:01:05] For generations, that question has guided our profession. Today, however, we're confronting something our predecessors could never have imagined.
[00:01:14] Technology has fundamentally changed policing. Not gradually, not incrementally, not almost overnight. The Constitution hasn't changed. The Fourth Amendment hasn't changed. The mission of policing hasn't changed. But the tools we use to accomplish that mission have evolved at an extraordinary pace. Today's patrol officer carries more computing power than was available at NASA during the Apollo missions.
[00:01:46] Our cruisers are connected to statewide databases in second, body worn cameras document encounters in high definition. Drones provide aerial perspectives. Once available only through helicopters, automated license plate readers can identify stolen vehicles across multiple jurisdictions in real time.
[00:02:07] Artificial intelligence is beginning to summarize reports, organize evidence, and assist investigators.
[00:02:14] Real time crime centers analyze thousands of data points every minute. Investigators can reconstruct a suspect's movements through digital breadcrumbs that didn't even exist 20 years ago.
[00:02:28] The possibilities are remarkable, but so are the constitutional questions. So let's talk about the Guardian's responsibility.
[00:02:37] One of the things I often tell chiefs, sheriffs, supervisors, investigators and attorneys during my training programs is technology itself is neither constitutional nor unconstitutional.
[00:02:51] Technology is simply a tool. Its legality depends entirely upon how we choose to use it.
[00:02:57] History has taught us this lesson repeatedly. The radio changed policing. Fingerprint identification changed policing. DNA changed policing. Computer database changed policing. Mobile data terminals changed policing. Body worn cameras changed policing. Now artificial intelligence is changing policing. The question is never been whether law enforcement should embrace these innovations. Of course we should.
[00:03:27] The real question is whether our policies, our supervision, our training and our leadership evolve at the same pace. Unfortunately, too often they do not.
[00:03:38] Technology races ahead. Policy follows case. Law follows even later. And agencies frequently find themselves operating in territory that courts have never before considered. That's exactly where we are today.
[00:03:55] So let's look at our scope. Let's look at our landscape. A different kind of investigation.
[00:04:03] Imagine you're a detective assigned to investigate a violent robbery. There are no fingerprints, no DNA, no eyewitness capability of making identification, no vehicle description, no suspect. Twenty years ago, the investigation might have stalled. Today, the investigation begins differently. You begin asking entirely new questions. Was there surveillance video? Did nearby businesses have security cameras? Was the suspect carrying a cell phone?
[00:04:35] Can we identify nearby digital devices?
[00:04:38] Were there connected vehicles in the area?
[00:04:41] Was electronic evidence exist that no human witness even realized was being created?
[00:04:48] This is the modern investigative landscape. The crime scene no longer ends at the yellow tape. The crime scene extends to the digital world.
[00:04:58] Every smartphone, every smartwatch, every. Every navigation application, every Bluetooth connection, every wireless signal, every cloud server, every digital interaction creates information.
[00:05:12] And somewhere within that information may be the evidence needed to solve a crime. For investigators, this represents an extraordinary opportunity. For courts, it presents an extraordinary challenges.
[00:05:28] So let's talk about the digital witness.
[00:05:31] I've begun referring to smartphones as silent witnesses at every crime scene. Think about it. Unlike human witnesses, the smartphone doesn't forget. It doesn't become nervous. It doesn't misidentify someone. It doesn't lose interest.
[00:05:46] It continuously creates information.
[00:05:50] Location, history, GPS coordinates, Bluetooth identifiers, WI fi connections, application usage, photographs, metadata, communications calendars, search history, movement patterns.
[00:06:04] This information paints an extraordinary detailed picture of someone's life, sometimes far more accurately than the individual could ever describe themselves.
[00:06:15] This is why digital evidence has become one of the most valuable forms of evidence in modern investigations.
[00:06:21] I talk about a guy who, who did homicide investigations when none of this was around. We were worried about DNA in, in forensic and in even, even fly larvae.
[00:06:34] But here we are today.
[00:06:36] But one of the things we have to focus on is that it also explains why courts are increasingly recognized, recognizing that this information deserves constitutional protection.
[00:06:48] I believe the Constitution was built for moments like this. One of the biggest misconceptions I hear is that the Constitution somehow struggles to keep up with technology. Listen, I disagree.
[00:07:01] The Constitution was designed precisely for moments like these. The framers knew they could never predict every future invention. They didn't know about smartphones, cloud computing, artificial intelligence, drones, or Google.
[00:07:16] Instead, they wrote enduring principles. The fourth Amendment protects people against unreasonable searches and seizures. Notice what it does not say? It doesn't list technologies.
[00:07:29] It doesn't identify devices. It doesn't define databases. It protects liberty. This Is why every generation has been required to interpret constitutional principles in light of of new technologies. Whether it was going back to wiretaps or thermal imaging or GPS tracking or cell site location information.
[00:07:52] Digital searches now Google location history and tomorrow artificial intelligence. The Constitution remains constant. The applications evolve.
[00:08:05] We must really focus though, in my opinion, on leadership. In an era of innovation, this is where leadership becomes so important.
[00:08:13] Technology does not make decisions. People do. Artificial intelligence does not determine probable cause. Investigators do. Software doesn't write. Constitutional policy, leaders do. Courts do not supervise patrol officers, supervisors do. The greatest risk facing modern policing is not that technology will advance too quickly. It already has.
[00:08:39] The greatest risk is believing that the purchasing of technology is the same as preparing an organization to use it responsibly.
[00:08:48] Buying software is easy. Developing policy is difficult. Training personnel takes time. Building community trust takes years.
[00:08:58] Leadership requires asking questions that vendors rarely ask.
[00:09:03] Should we collect this information?
[00:09:05] How long should we retain it? Who should have access? Who audits the system? What training is required? How will this decision appear before a federal judge five years from now? And what happens if the technology makes a mistake?
[00:09:21] Technology companies office focus on capability.
[00:09:25] Guardian leaders focus on accountability.
[00:09:29] That distinction matters.
[00:09:31] That's why we're going to talk about why the latest Supreme Court ruling in Chatri matters. The United States Supreme Court's ruling of June 29, 2026 decision in Shatri vs United States did not suddenly create new constitutional rights. Instead, it recognized that existing constitutional protections apply equally in the digital world. The court reminded us that simply because information exists electronically does not mean individuals surren expectation of privacy. Nor does convenience eliminate constitutional safeguards. That principle expands extends well beyond Google. Think about where policing is heading. Artificial intelligence capable of analyzing thousand of reports.
[00:10:21] Automated license plate readers connected across entire states.
[00:10:26] Bluetooth identifiers associated with vehicles, Facial recognition systems, Drone surveillance, real time crime centers, predictive analytics. These technologies are arriving in our squad cars simultaneously. Each offer tremendous investigative value.
[00:10:46] Each also presents legitimate constitutional questions. The agencies that succeed over the next decade will not simply own these technologies, but they'll understand them. They'll develop policies before litigation forces them to. They'll train officers before mistakes occur. And they'll explain their practices to the communities.
[00:11:08] And they will recognize that public trust is every bit as valuable as technological capability.
[00:11:16] The guardian mindset has never been about resisting innovation. Quite the opposite.
[00:11:22] Guardians embrace innovation.
[00:11:25] But they insist that innovation serves constitutional policing, not replaces it. Being a guardian means asking difficult questions before someone else asks them. For us, it means recognizing that every technological advance carries both opportunity and responsibility.
[00:11:45] It means understanding that every new investigative tool must be measured not only by what it can accomplish, but by whether it reflects the principles we have sworn to uphold.
[00:11:57] The badge does not give us permission to ignore constitutional boundaries. It gives us the responsibility to protect them. This is what separates professional policing from mere enforcement. It is what separates guardians from simply operators of technology.
[00:12:14] Technology will continue to evolve. Artificial intelligence will become more sophisticated. Digital evidence will become more expansive.
[00:12:24] Surveillance capabilities will become more precise.
[00:12:27] But our mission remains unchanged to protect life, to serve our communities, and to enforce the law fairly as to preserve the constitutional freedoms that define our democracy.
[00:12:40] This is the guardian mindset. And that is why today's conversation matters. Before we discuss geofence warrants, Google location history, and the Supreme Court decision in Chatri, we must first need to understand something much larger. This case is not merely about one investigation. It's about the future of policing itself.
[00:13:05] Let us examine how a bank robbery in Virginia became one of the most consequential Fourth Amendment cases in the digital era, and why every law enforcement leader should understand its lasting impact.
[00:13:17] Let's take a look at the story of Shatri, the investigation that I believe has changed the Fourth Amendment.
[00:13:24] Let's start out with a quote. Every landmark Supreme Court decision begins with an ordinary police investigation. That's something I often remind investigators when I'm teaching across the country.
[00:13:36] The cases we study in constitutional law didn't begin in the Supreme Court. They didn't begin in a federal courthouse. They began with a call for service, a patrol response, an investigator trying to solve a crime, a supervisor making a decision.
[00:13:52] An officer believed they were doing exactly what the law required.
[00:13:58] Chatri v. United States is no different.
[00:14:01] Before it became one of the most significant Fourth Amendment decisions of the digital age, it was simply a violent bank robbery in Virginia.
[00:14:10] Let's begin there.
[00:14:12] Every investigation starts with one question.
[00:14:15] Imagine you're a detective assigned to this case. You arrive after a robbery at a credit union in Midolphin, Virginia. The suspect is gone. Nearly $200,000 has been stolen. Witnesses are shaken. Security cameras captured portions of the crime. The suspects appear organized, calm, prepared.
[00:14:36] As investigators, you began reconstructing what happened. One detail stood out. The suspect appeared to be talking on a cell phone immediately before entering the bank.
[00:14:48] At first glance, that might not seem particularly important today. Nearly everyone carries a cell phone. But experienced investigators understand something others often overlook. A cell phone is much more than a communication device. It's a digital witness. And sometimes it's the only witness.
[00:15:09] Let's take a look at the modern detective if he had investigated this robbery in 1990, as I probably would have, your checklist would have looked very different.
[00:15:20] Fingerprints, footprint impressions, witness statements, vehicle descriptions, neighborhood canvases, maybe surveillance video if you were fortunate. But usually it was grainy and almost difficult to obtain.
[00:15:34] These investigative techniques remain important today, but they are no longer the entire investigation.
[00:15:42] Today, detectives are also beginning to ask questions that would have sounded like science fiction only a generation ago.
[00:15:51] Did nearby businesses capture WI fi connections? Were there automated license plate readers nearby? Or what digital evidence exists inside nearby businesses? Did any smartphones generate location information?
[00:16:04] Could social media activity establish movement patterns? Was the suspect vehicle connected to telematics?
[00:16:13] Were there nearby? Bluetooth identifiers the crime scene no longer ends at the physical location. It expands and extends into cyberspace. This is exactly where investigators in Shatri turned a new investigative tool.
[00:16:31] Investigators had exhausted many traditional leads. No suspects, no reliable identification, limited physical evidence. But they believed the robber had carried a cell phone. That observ observation became the turning point in the investigation.
[00:16:47] Rather than asking who committed the robbery, investigators asked something different.
[00:16:53] Who was present.
[00:16:55] That subtle shift represents one of the biggest changes in modern policing. Historically, investigators started with a suspect and worked towards evidence.
[00:17:04] Digital investigations increasingly begin with data and work towards identifying a suspect. That distinction matters because it changes the constitutional analysis.
[00:17:16] Enter the geofence warrant.
[00:17:19] Many people outside law enforcement had never heard the term geofence warrant before Chatri. Today, it's become part of every fourth Amendment discussion involving digital evidence. A geofence is exactly what it sounds like. Investigators draw a virtual boundary around a geographic location. They define a time period.
[00:17:40] Then they ask a technology company, in this case Google, to identify devices located within that area during that time.
[00:17:49] Notice something important.
[00:17:51] The warrant does not begin with a person. It begins with a place that is fundamentally different from traditional search warrants. Historically, police identified a suspect, developed probable cause, requested authority to search a particular place connected to that suspect.
[00:18:09] Geofence warrants reverse that process.
[00:18:12] They begin with geography, then attempt to identify people. That difference would ultimately become central to the constitutional debate.
[00:18:21] Google's three step Process One aspect of Chatri that often gets overlooked is how Google actually responds. Contrary to public perception, Google did not simply hand investigators a list of names.
[00:18:35] Instead, there was a structured three stage process. First, Google produced animized location history information for devices inside a defined geographical area. No names, no identifying information, just anonymous digital identifiers.
[00:18:55] Investigators review those movements. Then they request additional information concerning the fewer devices. Finally, after narrowing the field again, Google provided identifying information associated with the remaining accounts. Eventually, only Three individuals remained, and one of those names belonged to Okilo Chatri.
[00:19:18] From there, investigators continued using traditional police work, interviews, additional evidence, corroboration, ultimately leading to federal charges.
[00:19:28] From an investigative standpoint, many officers would likely say, that sounds reasonable. And that's precisely why this case became so important.
[00:19:39] The Constitutional Question Notice that nobody initially questioned whether investigators were trying to solve a serious violent felony. They were. Whether public safety justified an aggressive investigation? It did. Whether technology assisted investigators, it certainly did. The constitutional issue was different.
[00:20:02] Did obtaining Google's location history constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment? The question may sound very technical. It wasn't. In fact, it's foundational.
[00:20:15] Because before a court can determine whether a search was reasonable, it first has to decide whether a search occurred at all.
[00:20:22] If obtaining location history isn't a search, the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply. If it is a search, everything changes. Probable cause, particularity, reasonableness, judicial oversight. Everything.
[00:20:38] Carpenter was waiting in the background long before the Supreme Court decision in Shatri.
[00:20:45] Before Shatri reached the Supreme Court, another case had already begun reshaping digital privacy. In 2017, the last time the Supreme Court dealt with a technology case, Carpenter vs United States.
[00:21:00] In Carpenter, investigators obtained historic cell site location information from a wireless carrier.
[00:21:07] The Supreme Court recognized something revolutionary.
[00:21:11] Modern cell phones reveal far more than simply where we travel. They reveal who we are, where we worship, who we are associated with, medical appointments, political meetings, private residents, personal roots. The court recognized that location information creates what is called an intimate window into a person's life. That phrase would become very critical. And it would also become critically important because shot tree presented an even more revealing technology.
[00:21:46] Google location history.
[00:21:48] Unlike csli, Google location history is extraordinarily precise, often accurate, within only a few meters, updated approximately every two minutes, capable of estimating elevation inside of buildings. Think about that. Not only can technology increasingly determine that you entered a building, it it may determine what floor you visited. The constitutional implications are enormous.
[00:22:18] Let's look at the Supreme Court's analysis.
[00:22:21] Justice Elaine Kagan, writing for the majority, recognized that Google's location history provides an extraordinary detailed picture of a person's movements. The court rejected several arguments advanced by the government.
[00:22:35] First, the government argued that only two hours of location data had been collected. The court rejected the idea that constitutional protections depend upon duration.
[00:22:47] Even brief monitoring may reveal intimate details about someone's life.
[00:22:52] Second, the government argued that Google stored the information. Therefore, the individual supposedly surrendered any expectation of privacy.
[00:23:02] Again, the court disagreed. Simply because digital information is maintained by a technology company does not automatically eliminate Fourth Amendment protections.
[00:23:13] Finally, the court rejected the notion that ordinary smartphone users voluntarily expose this information simply by using modern technology.
[00:23:24] Think about your own cell phone. How many applications request access to your location? How often do you users simply click accept?
[00:23:33] How many people fully understand what information is being collected? The court recognized modern reality, and that is smartphones are no longer optional luxuries. They are essential tools in everyday life. Participants in modern society increasingly require participation in digital ecosystems.
[00:23:55] Constitutional protections cannot disappear simply because technology becomes indispensable.
[00:24:03] What the Court Didn't Decide this is perhaps the most misunderstood part of the Shatri decision.
[00:24:09] The Supreme Court did not declare geofence warrants unconstitutional. In fact, the Court carefully avoided answering that question.
[00:24:18] Instead, it answered only the threshold issue.
[00:24:22] Did obtaining Google location history constitute a search?
[00:24:27] Yes.
[00:24:28] Then the court sent back the case to the Fourth Circuit. Why? Because another question remained. Was this particular warrant reasonable? Did it satisfy probable cause? Was it sufficiently particular?
[00:24:42] Did though each stage of the process comply with the Fourth Amendment? Those questions remain incredibly important because future courts will now shape the constitutional framework governing digital evidence.
[00:24:56] Why Every Officer Should Care Some of you may be thinking, I'm not a detective. This doesn't affect patrol, and I respectfully disagree.
[00:25:07] Every officer today encounters digital evidence. Domestic violence investigations, missing persons, traffic fatalities, search warrant, use of force investigations. Cell phones appear everywhere.
[00:25:20] Digital evidence has become routine police work. Supervisors review body worn camera footage. Detectives analyze digital evidence. Administrators purchase investigative software. Chiefs approve technology budgets.
[00:25:34] Everyone has a role, which means everyone has a responsibility to understand the constitutional principles governing these tools. Technology has democratized sophisticated investigations, but it has also democratized constitutional responsibility.
[00:25:52] A Defining Moment I believe history will remember Shatri much like we remember Carpenter. Not because it answers every question, but because it recognizes something fundamental. The Fourth Amendment still matters in the digital age. The Constitution did not become obsolete when smartphones were invented.
[00:26:11] Its principles remain every bit as relevant today as they were when the Bill of Rights was adopted. The challenge before law enforcement is not deciding whether technology belongs in policing. It absolutely does. The challenge is ensuring that our use of technology continues to strengthen, not weaken, the constitutional foundation upon which our profession depends. This is what Kshatri teaches us. And it's only the beginning. Because if Google location history raises these constitutional questions, what happens when we add artificial intelligence, Bluetooth identifiers? Automated license plate readers, Drone surveillance, Real time crime centers? Predictive analytics? The future has arrived.
[00:26:58] Now let us explore how these rapidly converging technologies are reshaping police investigations and leadership in ways many agencies have yet to fully appreciate.
[00:27:10] The new era of digital surveillance from geofence warrants to artificial intelligence.
[00:27:17] Technology doesn't simply change how we investigate crime. It changes how we define privacy.
[00:27:24] That statement made me one of the most important lessons law enforcement leaders need to understand today.
[00:27:30] In the first few minutes of this series, we talked about how technology has evolved.
[00:27:36] Now I'd like to take the conversation one step further because Chatri isn't really about Google. It isn't even about geofence war. It's really about something much larger. It's about what happens when dozens of emerging technologies begin working together.
[00:27:53] The future isn't 10 years away. It isn't five years away. It's already here.
[00:28:00] Every week I read another article announcing a new technological advance. The advancement that promises to make policing smarter, faster, or more efficient. Artificial intelligence, predictive analytics, real time crime centers, facial recognition, Bluetooth identifiers, drone surveillance, automated license plate readers, digital evidence management, natural language processors, and generative AI.
[00:28:25] Each one sounds impressive on its own, but together, together they represent the most significant transformation in policing since the introduction of the patrol car.
[00:28:37] Technology never exists in isolation.
[00:28:40] One of the biggest mistakes we make is discussing technology one system at a time. We talk about automated license plate readers, then drones, then AI, then, then body worn cameras, then geofence warrants, as though they're separate conversations. I don't think they are. They aren't. They're becoming one ecosystem. Imagine an armed robbery. Twenty years ago, the investigation relied on witnesses and fingerprints. Today, the suspect drives through an LPR camera.
[00:29:12] Traffic cameras record the vehicle. Private security cameras capture additional footage. Body worn cameras document witness interviews. A drone photographs the escape route. Investigators obtain cell phone records. Google location history, places devices nearby. Bluetooth identifiers associate warrantless devices with the suspect vehicle. Artificial intelligence analyze hundreds of hours of surveillance footage. A real time crime center correlates all the information in seconds.
[00:29:44] No single technology solves the case. The investigation succeeds because all of them work together.
[00:29:51] That convergence is transforming criminal investigations. And it is transforming constitutional law from vehicles to people.
[00:30:01] Let's talk about something that illustrates this perfectly.
[00:30:05] For years, automated license plate readers, or ALPRs, have been among the most valuable investigative tools available to law enforcement. They locate stolen vehicles, recover missing persons, identify wanted fugitive, track suspect vehicles, develop investigative leads. This technology has been tremendously successful. But even ALPR technology is evolving. Recently, Lunaro introduced technology known as signal trace, which reportedly correlates Bluetooth and other wireless identifiers emitted by by devices traveling with a vehicle. Think about that for a second. Historically, an ALPR identified a vehicle.
[00:30:46] Tomorrow it may identify the Electronic devices traveling inside that vehicle. A smartphone, a smartwatch, wireless earbuds, vehicle information system, fitness trackers. Potentially creating what has been described as an electronic fingerprint.
[00:31:03] That changes everything.
[00:31:05] Because now we aren't merely identifying vehicles, we're potentially identifying people.
[00:31:11] That distinction, I believe, matters.
[00:31:14] The Fourth Amendment has always recognized a difference between observing public activity and compiling detailed records about individuals. The more technology connects information together, the more courts begin asking different constitutional questions.
[00:31:32] The Mosaic Theory There's a concept of constitutional law often referred to as the Mosaic theory.
[00:31:40] Think of it as a mosaic. One tile tells you almost nothing. Add another. Still very little. But eventually thousands of small pieces create a complete picture. Digital investigations work the same one same way. One ALPR hit, probably insignificant. One GPS point, limited value, one cell phone connection. Not much. But combine Google location history, cell site records, Bluetooth identifiers, ALPR data, body worn camera footage, financial transactions, social media activity, vehicle telematics.
[00:32:18] Now you've reconstructed someone's life. Where do they sleep, where they worship, where they receive medical treatment, who they spend time with, where they protest, what restaurants they frequent, and where their children attend school. That's why the Supreme Court's modern Fourth Amendment decision focuses on aggregation, not individual data points.
[00:32:41] The Constitution increasingly recognizes that collecting tiny pieces of information over time can reveal extraordinary, intimate details about someone's life.
[00:32:53] Artificial intelligence changes the speed of investigations.
[00:32:57] Now let's introduce artificial intelligence. Many people think AI replaces police officers. I don't believe that's accurate. AI doesn't replace investigators, it accelerates them. Imagine asking an investigator to review 2,000 hours of surveillance footage. Impossible.
[00:33:15] Now imagine AI reviewing it in minutes. Imagine searching 50,000 police reports, analyzing patterns, identifying reoccurring names, finding similar vehicle description, recognizing behavior similarities, locating matching MOs. What previously required weeks now happens almost instantaneously.
[00:33:39] AI isn't creating evidence, it's helping investigators find evidence.
[00:33:44] That distinction is important because constitutional responsibility never shifts to the algorithm. It remains with the investigator.
[00:33:53] The Leadership Question Whenever I teach technology or investigation classes, someone inevitably asks one question. Eric should agencies use artificial intelligence? My answer surprises them. You're asking the wrong question.
[00:34:08] The question isn't whether agencies should use AI. They already are. Record management systems use AI. Evidence platforms use AI. Dispatch systems increasingly use AI. Crime analysis software uses AI. Body worn camera systems uses AI.
[00:34:27] The question is different.
[00:34:29] How do we govern it? How do we supervise it? And how do we auto it?
[00:34:35] And how do we explain it?
[00:34:38] Leadership has become far more important than technology because AI doesn't remove human responsibility, it magnifies it.
[00:34:48] The RAND Warrant, in a recent RAND Corporation report developed with the Council on Criminal justice, reached a conclusion every police executive should read.
[00:35:00] That's R a n D. Google it.
[00:35:04] Different AI applications present different levels of constitutional and operational risk. Risk assessment, predictive policing, surveillance technologies. These applications deserve the greatest scrutiny.
[00:35:17] Administrative functions, scheduling, document organization, training support.
[00:35:23] Those generally present significant less risk. Why?
[00:35:27] Because constitutional consequences differ.
[00:35:30] Using AI to organize case files isn't the same as using AI to influence decisions affecting someone's liberty. Governance should reflect that reality. A one size fits all AI policy isn't enough anymore.
[00:35:45] We need risk based governance.
[00:35:48] Human judgment still wins.
[00:35:51] I often hear people ask questions in this discussion. Will AI replace police officers? No. Will AI replace detectives? No.
[00:36:01] Will AI replace police chiefs? Absolutely not.
[00:36:05] Why? Well, because policing isn't simply information processing. It's judgment, discretion, empathy, communication and ethics.
[00:36:16] Those are unique human responsibilities.
[00:36:19] Artificial intelligence can't identify patterns. It cannot explain community expectations. It cannot earn public trust. It cannot stand before a grieving family. It cannot testify about integrity.
[00:36:33] Technology may recommend leaders decide. That distinction can never disappear.
[00:36:42] Real Time Crime Centers Real time crime centers may become one of the most defining innovations of modern policing.
[00:36:50] Imagine combining traffic cameras with LPRs and CAD and RMS and drone feeds and body worn cameras and 911 calls and social media monitoring and weather and public events and crime mapping and etc. Etc.
[00:37:06] Then place all of it before trained analysis supported by AI. That's powerful. It's very, very policy powerful.
[00:37:16] But it also requires extraordinary discipline. Because when information becomes centralized, accountability must become centralized as well.
[00:37:27] Policies matter. Auditing matters. Access controls matter. Training matters. Technology doesn't eliminate constitutional responsibility, it increases it.
[00:37:41] The Digital Guardian this brings us back to the Guardian mindset.
[00:37:45] Technology has created extraordinary opportunities.
[00:37:49] We solve crimes faster, locate missing children, identify violent offenders, recover stolen vehicles, improve officer safety, protect victims. These benefits are real.
[00:38:00] But guardians recognize something equally important.
[00:38:04] Every increase in capability requires an increase in responsibility.
[00:38:09] The greater our technological power, the greater our obligation to exercise restraint. History teaches us that public trust is never lost because of technology itself. It's lost when technology is deployed without transparency, without policy, without oversight, and without accountability.
[00:38:29] The Guardian understands that constitutional policing isn't a barrier to innovation.
[00:38:35] It is the framework that makes innovation legitimate.
[00:38:39] In this podcast, we focused on understanding why Chatri matters. Because the Supreme Court wasn't merely deciding a case involving Google. It was preparing the Constitution for the next generation of policing.
[00:38:53] Artificial intelligence, digital surveillance, real time crime centers, automated analytics, emerging technologies.
[00:39:01] These conversations are no longer optional.
[00:39:05] Every chief, every supervisor, every investigator, every prosecutor, every Legal advisor must understand where policing is heading, because the agencies that thrive in the next decade won't necessarily possess the most advanced technology.
[00:39:22] They'll possess the strongest leadership. The leadership who understands that constitutional policing and technological invit innovation are not opposing forces. They're partners. And when those two principles work together, public safety improves, public trust grows, and policing fulfills its highest calling.
[00:39:44] Let us turn from technology to leadership and discuss what every chief supervisor, investigator, prosecutor, and legal advisor must understand about governing these powerful tools.
[00:39:57] We'll explore policy development, supervision, training, accountability, and how to build an organization that embraces innovation while never losing sight of the Constitution.
[00:40:08] We call it Leading Constitutional Policing in the Digital Age.
[00:40:12] What every chief supervisor and investigator must understand Leadership has never been tested by the technology you purchase.
[00:40:22] It is tested by how responsibly you govern it. Those words have been increasingly meaningful to me over the past several years. As I travel around the country teaching chiefs, command staff, supervisors, investigators, prosecutors and attorneys, I see agencies make significant investments in technology.
[00:40:42] The problem is, what does this all mean?
[00:40:46] Connecting state and regional intelligence database these investments are impressive, but they also create an entirely new leadership challenge. Because technology has become easy to buy, leadership is not technology. Companies will gladly demonstrate what their products can do. Very few will spend equal time discussing what those products should not do. That responsibility belongs to us.
[00:41:16] It belongs to the police chief, the sheriff, the prosecutor, the investigator, the legal advisor, and ultimately every officer who touches that technology. This podcast isn't about artificial intelligence. It isn't about geofence warrants. It isn't about drones or license plate readers. This chapter is about leadership. Because technology will never determine the future of policing, leaders will.
[00:41:42] The New Responsibility of police Leadership When I first entered law enforcement in the early 1990s, leadership looked very different.
[00:41:52] Chiefs worried about staffing, budgets, training, collective bargaining, equipment, community policing.
[00:41:59] Today, all of those responsibilities remain, but they've been joined by entirely new questions. Can we explain how our AI systems work?
[00:42:10] Who automates and who audits our automated decisions? How do we validate technology before deploying it? What data are we collecting? How long are we keeping it? Who has access? Can that information be shared? Can it be subpoenaed? What happens if the technology makes a mistake? What happens if the technology is biased? What happens if the technology is right but the public loses confidence anyway?
[00:42:37] Those aren't technology questions. They're leadership questions.
[00:42:41] Buying technology is not innovation.
[00:42:44] One of the biggest misconceptions in policing is that innovation begins when we purchase new software. It doesn't. Innovation begins when organizations change how they think I've worked with agencies that spend millions of dollars on technology, yet continue to operate with outdated policies.
[00:43:04] I've also worked with agencies that possess limited technology but exceptional leadership.
[00:43:10] Guess which organization is better prepared for litigation. The answer surprises people.
[00:43:15] Technology without governance creates liability. Technology with governance creates opportunity. The difference is leadership.
[00:43:25] The guardian leader is important. The guardian mindset has always emphasized one.
[00:43:31] Leadership exists to protect people. That includes protecting officers, protecting communities, protecting victims, protecting constitutional rights.
[00:43:40] Technology simply becomes another tool through which that mission is accomplished.
[00:43:46] Guardian leaders understand something very important.
[00:43:50] Every new capability demands new accountability.
[00:43:54] The more information we collect, the more disciplined we must become. The more powerful our technology, the stronger our supervision must be. The faster artificial intelligence works, the more deliberate human judgment must become.
[00:44:09] Technology should never reduce leadership. It should require more of it.
[00:44:14] Policy must lead technology.
[00:44:17] One of the first questions I ask agencies is simple.
[00:44:21] When did you last review your technology policies?
[00:44:24] Silence, crickets. Not because agencies don't care, but because technology evolves faster than policy.
[00:44:31] Many departments still operate policies written before artificial intelligence existed, before drones were common, before geofence warrants. That should concern every police. Executive policies are not written for yesterday. They're written for tomorrow.
[00:44:48] The agencies that wait for litigation before updating policies are allowing the courts to become their policy writers.
[00:44:56] That's never good leadership. I advise agencies to worry about the four pillars of technology. Governments.
[00:45:05] I encourage them to think about governance through four pillars.
[00:45:12] First, policy.
[00:45:14] Every technology should have a clearly written policy. Not because accreditation requires it, but because officers deserve guidance.
[00:45:21] Policies answer questions before critical incidents occur. When can technology be used? Who authorizes it? What documentation is required? How is the information retained? When is judicial authorization necessary? How are constitutional safeguards maintained? A policy isn't merely a document. It's a leadership philosophy.
[00:45:43] Second, training.
[00:45:45] Buying technology without training is like purchasing an aircraft without teaching anyone to fly. Training cannot simply answer. Simply explain which button to press. Training must answer questions like why do we have this technology? And why does this technology exist? And what constitutional issues apply? And what legal limitations exist? And what ethical concerns should officer recognize? What happens when technology produces unexpected results?
[00:46:12] Technological training should always include constitutional training. The two cannot be separated.
[00:46:19] Third, supervision.
[00:46:22] Policies without supervision are simply words. Technology must be monitored not because we distrust officers, but because we understand human nature.
[00:46:31] Audit logs matter. Documentation matters. Review processes matter. Artificial intelligence should never become. Set it and forget it.
[00:46:41] Someone must always ask, is the technology function as intended? Are officers following policy? Are constitutional standards being maintained? Leadership requires verification, not assumption.
[00:46:56] Fourth, accountability.
[00:46:59] Perhaps the most important pillar. Accountability.
[00:47:02] Technology should never reduce Accountability. It should increase transparency. When mistakes occur, and they will, we must be willing to explain them, correct them, learn from them, improve. That's how public trust grows. Communities rarely expect perfection.
[00:47:18] They expect honesty.
[00:47:21] AI doesn't eliminate biases.
[00:47:24] One of the promises often associated with artificial intelligence is that algorithms eliminate human bias. I think that's an oversimplification. Artificial intelligence reflects the data it's given. If historical data contains bias, algorithms may reproduce it, sometimes even amplify it. That doesn't mean AI is inherently flawed. It means leadership matters. Validation matters. Independent testing matters, Continuous auditing matters. Chiefs should never assume technology is objectively simple because it's computerized. Every algorithm should be viewed with healthy professional skepticism.
[00:48:04] Explainability matters. Here's another leadership lesson. If you can't explain how technology contributed to a decision, you probably shouldn't rely upon it. Imagine testifying in federal court.
[00:48:16] Counsel asks chief, why did your department rely upon this artificial intelligence recommendation? Could you answer if the response is because the software said so, You've already lost credibility. Leadership requires explanation. Technology should support professional judgment, never replace it.
[00:48:36] Public trust is the ultimate technology.
[00:48:39] I've often said that the most valuable technology any police department possesses isn't artificial intelligence. It isn't drones. It isn. It isn't real time crime centers. It's public trust. Without trust, technology becomes suspicious. With trust, technology becomes accepted. Communities don't evaluate police departments solely by what technology they own.
[00:49:02] They focus on responsibility, transparency.
[00:49:06] That's why communities engagement matters. Explain your technology, explain your policies, explain your safeguards, invite questions, listen to concerns.
[00:49:18] Transparency strengthens legitimacy. Why we created the DLG Technology Summit this brings me to something that's deeply important to me. Several years ago, our team at Dago Law Group recognized that agencies need more than product demonstrations. They need education. They need legal analysis. They need operational guidance. They need leadership development.
[00:49:39] This is why we created the DLG Technology Summit. Not to showcase gadgets, promote vendors, but to prepare leaders.
[00:49:47] At the summit, we discuss artificial intelligence, digital evidence, geofence warrants, fourth Amendment developments, automated license plate readers, real time crime centers, drones, body worn cameras, emerging surveillance technologies, and perhaps most importantly, how leaders govern all of it.
[00:50:05] Because technology isn't the future. Responsible leadership is.
[00:50:10] If there's one lesson I hope every listener takes from today, it is technology will never solve the leadership challenges facing policing. Only leaders can do that. The Constitution doesn't fear innovation. It simply requires accountability. The Guardian mindset isn't about resisting technology.
[00:50:29] It's about enduring technology and ensuring technology never outpaces our commitment to justice. As Police professionals, we have always adapted from radios to computers, from DNA to digital evidence, from fingerprints to artificial intelligence. We will continue to adapt.
[00:50:48] But we must never forget why the public entrusts us with these extraordinary tools. Not because technology makes us powerful, but because our character determines how the power is exercised.
[00:50:59] That's what leadership looks like and what constitutional policing demands. And that's what the Guardian mindset has always been about. The future of policing. The future of policing will not be determined by technology we possess. It will be determined by the principles that guide us in using it.
[00:51:18] I'd like to pause for just a minute. Think back to your first day in law enforcement. And some of you, like myself, it may have been 30 years ago.
[00:51:27] Other has, perhaps just a few years ago.
[00:51:30] Regardless, when you begin your career, I suspect your academy instructors emphasized the same foundational principles that Mayan integrity, service, courage, professionalism, respect, accountability, and above all, the Constitution.
[00:51:45] These principles have endured through every generation of policing. They've survived the transition from revolvers to semi automatic pistols, from paper to mobile computers, from radio dispatch to digital, from fingerprints to DNA. And now they must guide us through perhaps the greatest transformation policing has ever experienced. Technology in the age of artificial intelligence.
[00:52:12] If I were in a room full of police chiefs and I asked them, what will policing look like 10 years from now? I'd probably receive dozens of different answers.
[00:52:23] We're witnessing a convergence of technologies.
[00:52:26] We're focusing in the fact that these technologies are no longer developing independently and the future is an integrated public safety ecosystem.
[00:52:38] Information is becoming instant. Evidence begins before officers leave the scene. Body worn, camera footage uploads automatically. Analysis occurs in very limited time.
[00:52:52] The speed is remarkable, but speed introduces a new danger. The faster information moves, the greater the temptation to make decisions before we fully evaluate the evidence.
[00:53:05] Technology can accelerate investigations, but it should never accelerate judgment. This brings us to most, perhaps the most important lesson of this entire podcast. No matter how sophisticated technology becomes, policing remains a human profession. Victims need compassion. Witnesses need reinsurance, Families need empathy. Communities need trust, and courts need credibility.
[00:53:32] Artificial intelligence cannot comfort the parents of a missing child. An algorithm cannot stand beside an officer after a traumatic event.
[00:53:40] A computer cannot rebuild trust after a controversial event. Leadership remains profoundly human.
[00:53:48] The Guardian mindset reminds us that while technology may enhance our capabilities, it must never diminish our humanity.
[00:53:57] As I close this episode, I want to leave you with one final thought.
[00:54:01] The oath we took many years ago, when you raised your right hand, didn't mention artificial intelligence.
[00:54:07] It didn't mention all the technology.
[00:54:09] The oath we took to support and defend the Constitution.
[00:54:13] Everything else, every policy, every investigation, every technological advancement, every leadership decision must flow from that commitment. The Constitution has guided this profession for nearly 250 years. It has survived every technological revolution, and it will survive this one as well.
[00:54:34] Our responsibility is to ensure that policing evolves without losing sight of principles that gave our profession legitimacy in the first place.
[00:54:43] Technology will continue to change. The Guardian mindset should never have to.
[00:54:49] Thank you very much for joining me today and I appreciate all that you bring to the table and I will leave you. I hope to see you all in the DLG Technology Summit, August 12th through 14th virtually. Check us out at www.dlgtechnologysummit.com. i will leave you as I always do, help those who need your help, protect those who need your protection, and most importantly, keep yourself and others safe. Be well. See you next.
[00:55:26] Sam.
