Police Scanner Myths vs. Facts: Setting the Record Straight

The Claim:

Police departments argue that criminals monitor scanners to track officer locations and plan ambushes, making encryption necessary for officer safety.

The Evidence:

The Reality:

This is perhaps the most pervasive myth—and the easiest to debunk. If scanner access truly endangered officers, there would be incident reports, injury claims, case studies, or at minimum anecdotal evidence. Instead, there's complete silence when departments are asked to provide proof.

Modern criminals don't need scanners when they have:

• Real-time GPS apps (Waze, Google Maps) showing police locations
• Social media reports from bystanders
• Lookouts with cell phones
• Visual observation of marked police vehicles

The scanner ambush scenario is a theoretical concern with no real-world basis.

The Claim:

Open scanners broadcast sensitive victim information—names, addresses, medical details—that should remain private. Encryption is necessary to protect victims.

The Evidence:

The Reality:

Victim privacy is a legitimate concern—but blanket encryption is like burning down your house to kill a spider. Proportional solutions exist:

• Officer training: Teach proper radio protocol to avoid broadcasting identifying information
• Code systems: Use numeric codes for sensitive incident types
• Secondary channels: Switch to encrypted channels only when needed for specific incidents
• MDT usage: Send sensitive information via text-based systems, not voice radio

Many police departments have successfully protected victim privacy for decades without encryption. The ones that didn't were failing to follow basic radio protocols—a training issue, not a technology issue.

The Claim:

Encrypted digital radio systems are more reliable, secure, and effective than traditional open radio communications.

The Evidence:

The Reality:

Encryption adds a layer of technical complexity that can actually reduce communication reliability:

• Fire and EMS coordination: When police encrypt but fire departments don't, coordination during joint responses becomes difficult
• Mutual aid scenarios: During major incidents requiring neighboring departments, encrypted systems create barriers to communication
• Equipment failures: Encryption keys can fail to load, radios can lose sync, and systems can go down—all leaving officers unable to communicate
• Cost-benefit failure: Departments spend millions on encryption infrastructure that provides no documented safety benefit while creating real operational challenges

The Claim:

Even with encryption, the public and media can access police radio audio through delayed streaming (like Chicago's 30-minute delay) or Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

The Evidence:

The Reality:

Real-time access and delayed access serve completely different purposes:

As one journalist put it: "By the time we get the audio, the police have already issued their official statement and controlled the narrative. We've lost our ability to independently verify what actually happened."

The Claim/Question:

Many people wonder if owning or listening to police scanners is illegal, or if encryption is being implemented because scanner use violates the law.

The Evidence:

The Reality:

Police scanners have been legal and widely used for decades by:

• Journalists: Essential tool for breaking news coverage
• Emergency managers: Situational awareness during disasters
• Community members: Understanding police activity in their neighborhoods
• Researchers: Studying crime patterns, traffic safety, and emergency response
• Hobbyists: Radio enthusiasts monitoring public safety communications

Encryption isn't being implemented because scanners are illegal—they're not. It's being implemented because police departments want to control information and avoid the accountability that comes with public oversight.

The Claim:

Police scanner listeners are either criminals trying to evade law enforcement or voyeuristic busybodies with nothing better to do.

The Evidence:

The Reality:

Real people who use scanners for legitimate purposes:

• Highland Park shooting survivors: Used scanners to find safe routes and locate family members during active shooter event
• Colorado residents: Monitored wildfire evacuations and active shooter situations before encryption went into effect
• Traffic safety researchers: Document accident patterns to advocate for infrastructure improvements
• Accountability advocates: Monitor police activity during protests and community events to ensure proper conduct
• Local reporters: Small news outlets that can't afford full-time police reporters rely on scanners for breaking news

Dismissing scanner users as criminals or voyeurs ignores the vast majority of legitimate, public-interest uses that benefit entire communities.

The Claim:

Police radio encryption is simply the natural evolution of radio technology—a modern standard that all departments are adopting as systems get upgraded.

The Evidence:

The Reality:

The timing tells the real story:

• Pre-2020: Digital radio systems existed for years without widespread encryption
• Summer 2020: George Floyd protests lead to open scanners documenting police misconduct, racist remarks, and excessive force
• Post-2020: Rapid acceleration of encryption policies nationwide, often implemented quickly without community input
• Present day: Departments cite "officer safety" but the evidence points to avoiding accountability

As one analysis put it: "The technology enables encryption, but police departments are choosing to use it—and that choice is happening overwhelmingly in response to increased scrutiny and calls for accountability, not because of any documented safety need."

The Claim:

Police departments increasingly claim they're required to encrypt by federal mandate—that CISA, DHS, or P25 standards require full encryption of all radio communications.

The Evidence:

What Federal Guidance Actually Says:

CISA and SAFECOM provide guidance about encryption standards—not encryption mandates:

• If you encrypt: Use AES-256 (not older DES or proprietary algorithms)
• If you use federal grants: Equipment with encryption must meet P25 standards
• The choice is yours: "Considerations for Encryption" documents help agencies determine whether to encrypt, not mandate that they must

The Reality:

When police departments claim a "federal mandate," they're either:

• Confused: Mistaking AES-256 encryption standards (required IF you encrypt) for encryption mandates (which don't exist)
• Misleading: Deliberately misrepresenting federal guidance to avoid community opposition and public debate
• Deflecting: Using "the feds made us do it" as cover for a decision they want to make anyway

Ask your department: "Can you show me the specific federal law or regulation that requires you to encrypt routine dispatch communications?" They won't be able to—because it doesn't exist.