Officer Safety and Police Scanners: The Truth
"Criminals use scanners to ambush officers." It's the most emotionally compelling argument for police radio encryption. But when pressed for evidence, departments admit they have none. After decades of open scanner access, zero documented cases exist of criminals using scanners to harm officers.
We Understand the Concern
Let's be clear: officer safety is a legitimate and important concern. Police officers face real dangers in their work, and any technology or policy that could genuinely protect them deserves serious consideration.
The question isn't whether officer safety matters—it does, profoundly. The question is whether encryption actually improves officer safety, or whether this claim is being used to justify a policy choice that has other motivations.
The evidence strongly suggests the latter.
The Claim: Criminals Use Scanners to Ambush Officers
Police departments and unions frequently claim that criminals monitor police scanners to:
- Ambush responding officers
- Evade arrest by knowing police locations
- Target officers' homes by learning their identities
- Interfere with tactical operations
These claims sound plausible. If true, they would justify encryption. So let's examine the evidence.
The Evidence: Zero Documented Cases
Palo Alto's 3-Year Records Search
When Palo Alto, California was considering encryption, they conducted a thorough 3-year records search for any incidents of criminals using scanners to harm officers or compromise operations.
In three years of records across a major California city, not a single documented incident was found.
Broadcastify's Decades of Operation
Broadcastify is the world's largest police scanner streaming platform. Millions of people access scanner feeds through their website and apps. If scanner access endangered officers, Broadcastify would be exhibit A in any prosecution.
After decades of making scanner access easier than ever, no documented harms have emerged.
Public Meeting Admissions
When community members and journalists ask police officials to provide specific cases during city council meetings and public hearings, a consistent pattern emerges:
Department after department, when pressed, admits they cannot provide documentation for their claims.
If This Were Happening, Where's the Evidence?
If criminals were regularly using scanners to harm officers, we would expect to find:
Incident Reports
Police incident reports documenting scanner use in crimes
Not FoundCriminal Prosecutions
Cases where scanner monitoring was cited as criminal methodology
Not FoundOfficer Testimony
Specific officer statements about scanner-facilitated ambushes
Not FoundAcademic Research
Studies documenting scanner use in criminal activity
Not FoundNews Coverage
Media reports of scanner-related attacks on officers
Not FoundFBI/DOJ Reports
Federal documentation of scanner-related officer endangerment
Not FoundThe complete absence of evidence, despite 70+ years of open scanner access, is itself powerful evidence. If this were a real problem, we would have documented it by now.
How Criminals Actually Evade Police
The scanner-ambush narrative ignores how criminals actually operate. Those seeking to evade police have far easier, faster, and more reliable methods:
Lookouts
Human observers are faster than monitoring radio traffic and require no technical knowledge.
Waze & Traffic Apps
Real-time police location sharing that's easier than understanding scanner codes.
Social Media
Community networks share police activity faster than official radio dispatch.
Simple Observation
Marked police cars are visible. No technology needed.
Monitoring a police scanner requires knowing the right frequencies, understanding police codes and terminology, and continuously listening. It's far more effort than any of these alternatives—which is why criminals don't bother.
The Real Timeline Tells the Story
If scanner access endangered officers, we would have seen encryption decades ago. Instead, the timeline reveals a different motivation:
The surge in encryption correlates with accountability concerns, not officer safety technology. Encryption technologies existed for decades but weren't adopted until open scanners documented police conduct during protests.
What This Means for the Encryption Debate
The officer safety argument is emotionally powerful but evidentially bankrupt. This matters because:
- Policy decisions should be evidence-based. Claims that sound reasonable but lack documentation shouldn't drive major policy changes affecting public transparency.
- The real motivations become clearer. When the stated justification has no evidence, we must ask what's actually driving the policy change. The timing suggests accountability concerns, not safety.
- Resources are being misallocated. Departments are spending millions on encryption infrastructure that doesn't address any documented problem, while real officer safety needs may go unfunded.
- Public trust erodes. When police departments make claims they cannot substantiate, community trust in their other statements suffers.
How to Use This Evidence
When your police department proposes encryption citing officer safety, ask these questions:
- "Can you provide documentation of any specific incident where scanner access endangered an officer in this department?"
- "Has any law enforcement agency documented cases of scanner-related officer harm?"
- "If this is a known problem, why did encryption only become urgent after 2020?"
- "What evidence would change your position on this claim?"
The answers—or more often, the inability to provide answers—reveal the true evidentiary basis for encryption.
Take Action for Transparency
Your voice matters. Here are concrete ways to advocate for open police communications in your community.
Contact Your Representatives
Use our templates to email your local officials about police radio encryption policies.
Get StartedRead Case Studies
See how encryption has affected real communities - from Highland Park to Chicago.
View CasesSpread Awareness
Share evidence about police radio encryption with your network and community.
Public Testimony
Learn how to speak effectively at city council and public safety meetings.
Prepare to Speak