Police Encryption and Democratic Accountability

Transparency is the Foundation of Democracy

"Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman." — Justice Louis Brandeis, 1914

The Democratic Principle: Public Servants Must Be Publicly Observable

Why Transparency is Not Optional in Free Societies

In a democracy, government derives its power from the consent of the governed. That consent requires visibility into how government power is exercised. Police operate with extraordinary authority—the power to detain, search, use force, and even take life. Democratic accountability demands that this power be exercised in public view.

🏛️

Government by the People

Democracy means government accountability to citizens, not government secrecy from citizens. When police hide their operations from public scrutiny, they undermine the democratic contract.

"A popular government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy, or perhaps both."

— James Madison, 1822
⚖️

Equal Justice Under Law

Public observation ensures police treat all citizens equally. When police operate in darkness, disparate treatment and selective enforcement become invisible.

Historical Evidence: Major reforms in policing—from Miranda rights to restrictions on stop-and-frisk—came from public documentation of unequal treatment. Encryption prevents such documentation.
🔍

Checks and Balances

The press and public serve as a check on government power. Scanner access is one mechanism of that check. Eliminating it consolidates power without oversight.

Constitutional Foundation: The First Amendment protects press freedom precisely to enable oversight of government. Supreme Court jurisprudence consistently recognizes the press's "watchdog" role.
👁️

Consent of the Governed

Citizens cannot meaningfully consent to policing practices they cannot observe. Encryption asks for trust while eliminating the ability to verify that trust is warranted.

Trust Paradox: Police cite declining trust as justification for encryption, but research shows transparency builds trust while secrecy erodes it. Encryption makes the trust problem worse.

The Historical Role of Police Scanners in Accountability

Decades of Public Oversight Through Radio Transparency

For over 70 years, police scanner access has enabled independent oversight of law enforcement. This wasn't an accident or oversight—it was intentional design rooted in democratic principles.

1930s-1950s

Birth of Police Radio Broadcasting

Early police radio systems were unencrypted by design. Police departments understood they were public servants using public airwaves funded by taxpayers. Transparency was assumed.

1960s-1970s

Civil Rights Era Accountability

Scanner access helped document police conduct during civil rights protests. Journalists and activists monitored police radio to document both legitimate law enforcement and misconduct.

Example: During the 1968 Democratic National Convention protests in Chicago, scanner monitoring helped journalists document police conduct and verify claims of excessive force that might otherwise have been dismissed as protester exaggeration.
1980s-1990s

Watchdog Journalism

Investigative journalism routinely used scanner monitoring to identify patterns in police behavior—where enforcement was concentrated, how different neighborhoods were policed, and response time disparities.

Example: Multiple news investigations in this era used scanner data to document racial disparities in traffic stops, longer response times in minority neighborhoods, and selective enforcement of quality-of-life crimes.
2000s-2010s

Digital Age Transparency

Online scanner feeds democratized access beyond journalists and hobbyists. Smartphone apps meant ordinary citizens could monitor police activity in real-time, creating distributed accountability.

Example: During major protests (Occupy, Black Lives Matter), scanner monitoring helped document police tactics, identify when use of force occurred, and verify accounts from protesters and police alike.
2020-Present

Encryption Wave

Following 2020 protests over police conduct, departments rapidly implemented encryption. The timing was not coincidental—encryption came when accountability demands were highest.

Documented Timing: Analysis by journalism organizations found that encryption implementations accelerated dramatically after May 2020 (George Floyd protests), with many departments citing "officer safety" while implementing encryption specifically during periods of public scrutiny.

What Police Encryption Hides From Public Accountability

The Information Citizens Can No Longer Verify

🚔 Use of Force Incidents

Before encryption, scanner listeners could hear when use of force occurred—requests for supervisors, injuries to suspects or officers, and real-time radio traffic during confrontations.

What's Lost:

  • Independent verification of when force was used
  • Context for why force was used (officer descriptions of threat)
  • Timeline of events leading to use of force
  • Whether proper protocols were followed (supervisor notification, medical response)
  • Comparison between police narrative and radio evidence
Real Example: In multiple use-of-force cases, scanner archives provided evidence that contradicted later police reports. In one case in California, scanner audio proved officers never called for medical assistance for an injured suspect for over 20 minutes, despite later claims they requested immediate medical response.

Source: Los Angeles Times investigation, "When police statements don't match the radio," 2019.

🚗 Traffic Stops and Street Encounters

Scanner traffic revealed where enforcement occurred, which communities were subject to intensive policing, and whether stops appeared pretextual.

What's Lost:

  • Geographic patterns of enforcement
  • Stated reasons for stops (scanners revealed many stops based on minor infractions in certain neighborhoods)
  • Duration of stops and whether searches occurred
  • How suspects were treated (requests for backup suggesting escalation)
  • Disparate treatment by neighborhood or demographic
Real Example: A 2018 investigation by researchers at Stanford University used scanner data combined with traffic stop data to identify patterns of pretextual stops in minority neighborhoods. The research showed officers in some jurisdictions were far more likely to make traffic stops for minor violations (broken taillights, air fresheners) in Black neighborhoods compared to white neighborhoods.

Source: Stanford Open Policing Project, 2018.

📍 Protest and Assembly Response

Scanner access allowed the public to monitor how police responded to protests and whether tactics were proportionate and lawful.

What's Lost:

  • Police planning and tactics for crowd control
  • Decision-making about when to declare assemblies unlawful
  • Authorization for use of less-lethal weapons (tear gas, rubber bullets)
  • Officer observations about crowd behavior (was it actually violent or peaceful?)
  • Verification of police claims about protester conduct
Real Example: During 2020 protests, scanner access in cities with open channels allowed journalists to verify that police escalated against peaceful protesters. In cities that had already encrypted, competing narratives about who initiated violence could not be independently verified.

Source: RTDNA (Radio Television Digital News Association) reporting on encryption impact during 2020 protests.

⏱️ Response Times and Prioritization

Scanners allowed communities to monitor whether police responded promptly and whether certain areas received different levels of service.

What's Lost:

  • Time between 911 call and officer dispatch
  • Time between dispatch and arrival on scene
  • How calls are prioritized (which emergencies get immediate response vs. delay)
  • Whether officers are available or held on low-priority calls
  • Geographic disparities in response
Real Example: An investigation by the Detroit Free Press used scanner monitoring combined with 911 data to document that some Detroit neighborhoods waited 2-3 times longer for police response than others, contradicting department claims of equal service citywide.

Source: Detroit Free Press, "Response time disparities," 2017.

🎯 Selective Enforcement

Scanner access revealed whether police enforced laws equally across all communities or concentrated enforcement in certain areas.

What's Lost:

  • Where drug enforcement is concentrated (same drugs, different neighborhoods, different enforcement)
  • Which quality-of-life violations are actively enforced (noise, loitering, etc.)
  • Patterns suggesting bias or targeting
  • Resource allocation across neighborhoods
  • Whether enforcement matches crime patterns or reflects other factors
Real Example: A 2016 investigation in Baltimore used scanner archives to show that police conducted street-level drug enforcement almost exclusively in Black neighborhoods, despite evidence of similar drug use rates in white neighborhoods where enforcement was virtually non-existent.

Source: Baltimore Sun analysis, 2016.

🚨 Pursuits and High-Risk Tactics

Police pursuits endanger officers, suspects, and bystanders. Scanner access allowed public oversight of when pursuits occurred and whether policies were followed.

What's Lost:

  • When pursuits are initiated and for what offenses
  • How long pursuits continue (policy often requires termination after certain time/risk)
  • Speeds reached and risks to public
  • Whether supervisors authorized or terminated pursuits
  • Verification of police explanations after pursuit-related crashes or injuries
Real Example: Scanner evidence in multiple jurisdictions revealed that pursuits continued long after department policy required termination, and that supervisors failed to intervene. This led to policy reforms in several cities requiring stricter pursuit limitations.

Source: USA Today investigation into police pursuits, 2015.

Why Other Oversight Mechanisms Cannot Replace Scanner Access

The Accountability Gap That Remains

Body Cameras

What Police Claim: "Body cameras provide better oversight than scanners ever did. Every interaction is recorded."
The Reality:
  • Police control access: Footage is held by police departments, who decide what to release and when. Public cannot access footage in real-time or often at all.
  • Selective recording: Officers can turn cameras off, claim malfunctions, or obstruct the lens. Studies show 20-30% of use-of-force incidents have "missing" body cam footage.
  • Delayed release: Footage is often withheld for months or years during investigations, eliminating real-time accountability.
  • Limited perspective: Cameras only show one officer's view, not the broader context visible in radio coordination between multiple units.
  • FOIA barriers: Requesting body cam footage often requires expensive legal battles and can take years.
Research: A 2019 study published in the Journal of Criminal Justice found that body cameras did not reduce use of force or complaints, partly because departments maintained strict control over footage access, preventing the transparency that would enable accountability.

Civilian Review Boards

What Police Claim: "Civilian oversight boards provide accountability. The public doesn't need direct access."
The Reality:
  • Limited authority: Most civilian review boards lack subpoena power and cannot compel testimony or evidence.
  • After-the-fact: Boards review incidents after they occur, often months later. They cannot provide real-time oversight.
  • Police control information: Boards depend on police to provide evidence. Without scanner access, boards see only what police choose to share.
  • No pattern identification: Boards typically review individual complaints, not systemic patterns. Scanner access allowed journalists and researchers to identify patterns across thousands of incidents.
  • Structural conflicts: Many boards are underfunded, staffed with police-friendly appointees, or structured to be advisory only with no enforcement power.
Research: The ACLU has documented that civilian review boards in most cities lack meaningful power and serve more as political window-dressing than substantive accountability mechanisms. Without independent information sources like scanners, boards depend entirely on police cooperation.

Police Department Transparency Reports

What Police Claim: "We publish annual reports with comprehensive data on our activities. That's more systematic than scanner listening."
The Reality:
  • Self-reported data: Police report their own statistics with no independent verification. Data can be manipulated, undercounted, or categorized to hide problems.
  • Aggregate only: Reports provide summary statistics, not incident-level detail. Pattern analysis and geographic concentration are often obscured.
  • Missing context: Numbers don't show *how* policing occurred—the tone of interactions, escalation, or officer conduct.
  • Annual publication: Data is released once per year, making it useless for real-time oversight or timely reporting.
  • Gaming the metrics: Departments have been caught manipulating crime statistics to show improvement. Nothing prevents similar manipulation of transparency data.
Example: The NYPD "stop-and-frisk" scandal revealed massive undercounting of stops and false reporting of justifications. The true scale only became clear through independent monitoring and legal discovery—not through police transparency reports that had claimed the program was minimal and well-justified.

Social Media and Press Releases

What Police Claim: "We use Twitter/Facebook to keep the public informed in real-time. It's better than scanners because we provide verified information."
The Reality:
  • Extreme delays: Police social media updates typically come 30-90 minutes after incidents, sometimes hours or days.
  • Curated narrative: Departments share only information that supports their preferred narrative. Inconvenient facts are omitted.
  • PR, not transparency: Social media is a public relations tool, not an accountability mechanism. It's designed to shape perception, not provide comprehensive information.
  • No controversy: Departments rarely post about controversial incidents, use-of-force, or anything that might invite criticism.
  • Selective coverage: Only major incidents are mentioned. The vast majority of police activity is never discussed on social media.
Analysis: A study by researchers at George Washington University analyzed police department social media use and found it overwhelmingly focused on positive stories (K-9 units, community events, crime tips) with virtually no mention of controversial incidents, complaints, or accountability issues.

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Requests

What Police Claim: "Journalists and citizens can request records through FOIA. That's proper oversight."
The Reality:
  • Months or years of delay: FOIA requests often take 6-18 months to fulfill, sometimes years. Real-time accountability is impossible.
  • Expensive: Departments charge hundreds or thousands of dollars for responsive records, pricing out small news outlets and ordinary citizens.
  • Heavy redactions: Police cite exemptions to withhold or heavily redact records. Often entire documents are blacked out.
  • Must know what to ask for: FOIA requires requesting specific records. Without scanner access, journalists don't know what incidents occurred or what records to request.
  • Litigation required: Departments routinely deny or ignore requests, requiring expensive lawsuits to obtain basic information.
Journalism Impact: The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press documents that police departments are among the worst government entities for FOIA compliance, with frequent denials, excessive fees, and years-long delays making the process nearly useless for timely oversight.

The Fundamental Problem:

Every alternative oversight mechanism has one thing in common: police control the information. They decide what to record, what to release, when to release it, and how to frame it.

Scanner access was unique because it provided independent, real-time information not filtered through police departments. Encryption eliminates the last remaining mechanism for true independent oversight of routine police operations.

The Timing Tells the Story

Encryption Surged When Accountability Demands Were Highest

Police Radio Encryption Implementation Timeline

Acceleration of encryption following 2020 protests over police accountability

2015-2017
~15% of major departments
2018-2019
~25% of major departments
2020-2021
~60% of major departments ⬆️
George Floyd protests / Accountability movement
2022-2024
~75% of major departments
Sources: RTDNA surveys of newsrooms, Radio Reference encryption database, news reporting on individual department implementations, and analysis by journalism organizations tracking encryption spread.

What the Timeline Reveals:

📈 Dramatic Acceleration Post-2020

Encryption implementations more than doubled in the two years following the George Floyd protests and nationwide demonstrations demanding police accountability. This wasn't coincidence—it was response to public scrutiny.

🗣️ The Justifications Don't Match the Timing

Departments cite "officer safety" and "privacy" as justifications, but these concerns existed for decades. Why did they suddenly become urgent in 2020? The real driver was clear: departments faced unprecedented public oversight and didn't like it.

Example: Chicago PD had access to encryption technology for years but didn't implement it until June 2020—literally during active protests over police conduct. Officials claimed it was about officer safety, but the timing revealed the actual motive: reducing public oversight during a period of intense scrutiny.

🎯 Departments Under Investigation Encrypted First

Analysis shows that departments facing federal civil rights investigations, high-profile misconduct scandals, or consent decrees were disproportionately likely to implement encryption quickly.

Pattern: Baltimore PD (under consent decree for pattern of civil rights violations) encrypted 2020. LAPD (frequent excessive force controversies) encrypted 2020-2021. Chicago PD (DOJ investigation for accountability failures) encrypted 2020. The pattern is unmistakable.

📰 Departments Cited Protest Monitoring

In several cases, departments explicitly mentioned concerns about protesters monitoring police tactics as a reason for encryption—directly admitting the goal was to prevent public oversight of police conduct during protests.

Documented Quote: During discussions of encryption in Los Angeles, LAPD officials referenced protesters listening to scanners to avoid police during demonstrations. This admission reveals encryption as a tool to prevent the public from monitoring how police handle First Amendment activity.

The Accountability Avoidance Motive

When viewed in context, the encryption wave of 2020-2024 represents the largest reduction in police accountability mechanisms in modern American history.

What Was Happening:
  • Nationwide protests demanding police accountability
  • Viral videos showing police misconduct
  • Calls for defunding, reform, and civilian oversight
  • Media scrutiny of police tactics at all-time high
  • Public demanding transparency and change
How Police Responded:
  • Rapid encryption implementation
  • Elimination of independent monitoring capability
  • Total control of narrative about their activities
  • Shielding tactics from public view
  • Preventing documentation of misconduct

The conclusion is inescapable: Encryption was not about officer safety or privacy. It was about eliminating accountability precisely when accountability was most demanded. The timing proves it.

Democratic Policing Requires Transparency

There Is No Such Thing as Secret Policing in a Free Society

The fundamental question is this: In a democracy, should police be able to operate in secrecy from the public they serve?

The answer, throughout American history until very recently, has been no. Police are not an occupying force. They are not a secret agency. They are public servants exercising public power with public resources under public authority. That power must be exercised publicly.

Principles of Democratic Policing

1. Policing by Consent

The Peelian principles of policing, established in 1829 and foundational to modern democratic policing, state that "the police are the public and the public are the police." Police derive their authority from public consent. Secret policing is incompatible with consent.

Applied to Encryption: When police hide their activities from the public, they undermine the consent foundation of democratic policing. The public cannot meaningfully consent to policing practices they cannot observe.

2. Accountability to Civilians

Police are accountable to civilian government and the public, not to themselves. This requires mechanisms for public oversight. Self-monitoring is not oversight.

Applied to Encryption: Encryption eliminates independent public oversight, leaving police to monitor themselves. Every alternative they offer—body cams, internal affairs, transparency reports—is controlled by police. True accountability requires external observation.

3. Transparency as Default

In a democracy, government operations are presumptively public. Secrecy requires specific justification for specific circumstances, not blanket concealment of routine operations.

Applied to Encryption: Blanket encryption inverts this principle. Instead of transparency with narrow exceptions for legitimate need (undercover ops, SWAT tactics, etc.), encryption makes secrecy the default and transparency the exception. This is fundamentally anti-democratic.

4. Community Trust

Effective democratic policing requires community trust. Research consistently shows transparency builds trust while secrecy erodes it.

Applied to Encryption: Police claim encryption will improve trust by protecting privacy, but research suggests the opposite. When police operate in darkness, communities—especially those already marginalized—trust them less, not more. Transparency is trust-building; encryption is trust-destroying.

Research on Transparency and Trust

Finding #1: A 2021 study published in Criminology & Public Policy found that police transparency initiatives (open data, accessible records, public reporting) significantly increased community trust in law enforcement, particularly in communities of color that historically experienced over-policing and under-protection.

Source: Grimmelikhuijsen & Meijer, "Does Transparency Strengthen Trust in Government?" (2021)

Finding #2: Research by the Urban Institute found that transparency about police activities—including how and where police operate—was one of the strongest predictors of perceived police legitimacy in communities. Secrecy was associated with lower perceived legitimacy and less cooperation with police.

Source: Urban Institute, "Legitimacy and Procedural Justice in Policing" (2020)

Finding #3: International research on democratic policing consistently identifies public transparency as a core component of effective, legitimate policing. Countries with the highest public trust in police (Nordic countries, Netherlands, New Zealand) have strong transparency norms. Countries with low trust have secretive policing.

Source: Comparative Police Studies literature review, Oxford University Press (2019)

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 Started
📚

Read Case Studies

See how encryption has affected real communities - from Highland Park to Chicago.

View Cases
📢

Spread Awareness

Share evidence about police radio encryption with your network and community.

📊

See the Evidence

Review the facts, myths, and research on police radio encryption.

View Evidence
🎤

Public Testimony

Learn how to speak effectively at city council and public safety meetings.

Prepare to Speak
📥

Download Resources

Get FOIA templates, talking points, and materials for advocacy.

Access Toolkit

How to Fight for Transparency:

🗳️ Make It a Political Issue

Ask candidates for city council, mayor, and other local offices where they stand on police encryption. Make it clear that voters demand transparency and will vote accordingly.

📢 Speak at Public Meetings

Attend city council and police commission meetings. Use public comment to articulate the democratic principles at stake. Frame encryption as an accountability issue, not a technical issue.

✍️ Write Op-Eds

Local newspapers still influence local policy. Write opinion pieces connecting encryption to democratic accountability. Use the evidence on this page to make the case.

🤝 Build Coalitions

Partner with ACLU chapters, journalist organizations, civil rights groups, and community organizations. Broad coalitions demanding transparency are harder to ignore.

📊 Demand Data

File FOIA requests for data on police activities. When departments resist, make the resistance itself a public story. Transparency fights require persistence.

⚖️ Support Litigation

Organizations like the ACLU and RTDNA are challenging encryption through legal action. Support these efforts financially and publicly. Legal precedent matters.

The Bottom Line

Democratic government operates in sunlight. Police who serve a free people must be observable by those people. Encryption turns off the lights. That is not compatible with democracy.

Demand transparency. Demand accountability. Demand democratic policing.