This Review proceeds in three Parts. First, Part I examines Shielded’s text, highlighting Schwartz’s analysis of the problem of unaccountable police, the many barriers to holding police accountable, and her proposed solutions. Part II then critically examines Schwartz’s work, examining pieces of the problem she left undiscussed and the relative shortcomings of her discussion of possible solutions. Finally, Part III takes an abolitionist approach, delving into potential nonreformist reforms and the solution of full abolition, as well as examining the most significant objection to abolitionist approaches: the problem of violence.

This research report documents LGBTQ+ communities’ experiences with police and the disparate treatment they face. In collaboration with scholars from University of California, Irvine and University of the Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, this research uses a national probability sample to examine differences between LGBTQ+ and non-LGBTQ+ people, as well as within the diverse LGBTQ+ community. Findings reveal that unique intersections of gender, sexuality, race, and socioeconomic status are associated with different experiences with and attitudes toward law enforcement. The report concludes with concrete recommendations for law enforcement and legislatures.

This 2023-2024 DOJ report finds that , “through a combination of poor leadership, retaliation, and a complete lack of internal accountability, LPD has created a system where officers can relentlessly violate the law.” Further, the DOJ states it has “reasonable cause to believe that the City of Lexington and the Lexington Police Department engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives people of their rights under the Constitution and federal law” through its use of modern-day debtors prisons.

Every day, law enforcement agencies across the country search thousands of cellphones, typically incident to arrest. To search phones, law enforcement agencies use mobile device forensic tools (MDFTs), a powerful technology that allows police to extract a full copy of data from a cellphone — all emails, texts, photos, location, app data, and more — which can then be programmatically searched. As one expert puts it, with the amount of sensitive information stored on smartphones today, the tools provide a “window into the soul.”

This report documents the widespread adoption of MDFTs by law enforcement in the United States. Based on 110 public records requests to state and local law enforcement agencies across the country, our research documents more than 2,000 agencies that have purchased these tools, in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. We found that state and local law enforcement agencies have performed hundreds of thousands of cellphone extractions since 2015, often without a warrant. To our knowledge, this is the first time that such records have been widely disclosed.

Every American is at risk of having their phone forensically searched by law enforcement.

The use of lying and deception by police in their daily activities has been acknowledged, justified and approved by the Courts, police departments and society. The distinction between tolerated lying and reprehensible perjury in New York State is described in Penal Law. Despite this clear definition of perjury, the Mollen Commission Report (1994) on corruption in the NYPD rarely used the term “perjury.” It did recognize that police practices of falsification were so common that it spawned its own word “testilying.” Testilying and fasifications are simply euphemisms for perjury. This study aims to determine underlying conditions and circumstances that an officer would take into account in making a decision to commit perjury.

Over the past decade, large urban counties have implemented ShotSpotter, a gun fire detection technology, across the USA. It uses acoustic listening devices to identify discharged firearms’ locations. We examined the effect of ShotSpotter within the 68 large metropolitan counties in the USA from 1999 to 2016. We identified ShotSpotter implementation years through publicly available media. ShotSpotter did not display protective effects for all outcomes. Counties in states with permit-to-purchase firearm laws saw a 15% reduction in firearm homicide incidence rates; counties in states with right-to-carry laws saw a 21% increase in firearm homicide incidence rates. Results suggest that implementing ShotSpotter technology has no significant impact on firearm-related homicides or arrest outcomes. Policy solutions may represent a more cost-effective measure to reduce urban firearm violence.