ShotSpotter can instantly alert police to gunfire. Why are some cities getting rid of it?

Mike Bebernes

Over the past few months, Chicago’s progressive Mayor Brandon Johnson has been at odds with some of his city’s most prominent leaders over the future of ShotSpotter, a controversial gunshot detection system used by more than 100 law enforcement agencies across the United States.

Chicago’s contract with ShotSpotter is set to end later this year. Johnson wants to let it expire, but the City Council recently voted to keep it. At the moment, it’s unclear which side will ultimately get its way.

Similar debates have played out across the country. Over the past few years, dozens of cities have eagerly inked deals with ShotSpotter in hopes that it will benefit public safety. But concerns about its accuracy and how it’s utilized by police have inspired other cities to get rid of it or decline to install it in the first place.

Here’s how ShotSpotter works: An array of strategically placed audio sensors listen for the sounds of gunshots in a certain area. When one of them picks up something that may be gunfire, it sends the audio to ShotSpotter’s review center where human workers listen to it and notify local police and emergency services if they determine that the system did accurately identify gunfire. According to the company, the process from the bullet being fired to authorities being alerted typically takes less than a minute.

ShotSpotter says that its tech accurately recognizes gunshots 97% of the time and independent research shows that it can lead to police arriving at the scene of a shooting more quickly. But a lot of research suggests that — even if it’s not being fooled by other loud noises like fireworks or cars backfiring — its effect on public safety is limited.

In Chicago, for example, a review by the city government found of the 41,000 times that police responded to a ShotSpotter alert over an 18-month span, they discovered evidence of a gun-related crime only 9% of the time and followed up with an investigatory stop just 2% of the time. Separate studies have also found that the presence of ShotSpotter has no impact on rates of gun violence.

Despite its limitations, many police and elected officials in many cities still argue that ShotSpotter is a valuable tool for public safety. They argue that the technology allows authorities to respond more quickly to gun violence in which mere minutes can make the difference between catching a suspect or providing a victim with lifesaving care. Boston Mayor Michelle Wu said last month that ShotSpotter had led to “countless instances of lives being saved.”

Advocates also say that although it may not reduce crime on its own, ShotSpotter provides invaluable data that allows communities to know when and where gun violence is occurring. They say that’s information they can’t get in any other way, because — research suggests — that the vast majority of shootings are never reported to the police.

But Johnson and other opponents say ShotSpotter isn’t just ineffective but is actively harmful. Beyond the cost, which can run into millions of dollars per year in big cities, there’s also evidence that police can spend so much time chasing “dead-end” leads prompted by ShotSpotter alerts that they actually become less responsive to legitimate emergency situations.

Leaked data also shows that ShotSpotter tends to be concentrated in low-income communities of color, which critics say feeds “overpolicing” or even potential abuse by law enforcement. Others say the system is dangerous because it puts police in the mindset that they should expect a firefight when responding to an alert, with potentially deadly consequences.

The debate over crime in Chicago, in general, and ShotSpotter’s role in public safety, more specifically, will likely continue to garner national attention over the next two months in the lead-up to the Democratic National Convention scheduled to be held there in mid-August.

ShotSpotter saves lives and helps police solve crimes

"The first thing to establish about ShotSpotter is that it works. … This technology alerts [police] immediately to shots fired, enabling them not only to respond themselves but also — crucially — to direct emergency medical care there as well. Oftentimes, the alternative is simply dying in the street.” — Jeffrey Blehar, National Review

Cities should spend their money on public safety tools that actually work

“Demanding a technology proves its effectiveness before we purchase it does not mean we are any less outraged about the gun violence in our city. It means we very rationally would rather allocate funds towards something with demonstrable efficacy.” — Marcus Harrison Green, Seattle Times

ShotSpotter makes police bias against poor people of color even worse

“This technology is very intentionally being deployed in these hotspots and if you just scratch beneath the surface, it just usually translates to where poor Black and Latino people are, where violence is concentrated.” — Abené Clayton, gun violence researcher, to CNN

ShotSpotter’s shortcomings aren’t an excuse to abandon it altogether

“If Chicago is going to reverse its slide into anarchy and decline, then we need police to enforce the laws, using whatever technology can help them. Being human, the police will inevitably make mistakes. A bigger mistake is to use that as an excuse to not even let them try.” — Neil Steinberg, Chicago Sun-Times

ShotSpotter creates life-and-death situations unnecessarily

“Its alerts sometimes result in the deployment of armed police who are expecting armed resistance to a location where there is none, but where innocent residents could become targets of suspicion as a result.” — Matthew Guariglia and Jason Kelley, Electronic Frontier Foundation

Cities can’t combat gun violence if they can’t track where it’s happening

“In the neighborhoods in which we work, hardly anyone calls in to report a gunshot. Without ShotSpotter … we may not know about these instances of violence and would be unable to deploy to the scene to intervene and break the cycle of gun violence in our communities.” — Wayne E. Rawlins, community activist, South Florida Sun Sentinel

No piece of tech is good or bad, what matters is how it’s utilized

“ShotSpotter is a technological tool, no more and no less, and what really matters here is what human police officers actually do when they respond to its alarms.” — Editorial, Chicago Tribune

ShotSpotter’s critics on the left don’t want the police to be successful

“ShotSpotter is, essentially, a surveillance tool, and those are the enemy of progressives. So is the idea that crime-fighting technology be placed in areas that experience gun violence.” — Editorial, Boston Herald

Advertisement