Why Police Radio Encryption is Dangerous
Across America, police departments are encrypting radio communications—and it's putting lives at risk. Blanket encryption endangers public safety, eliminates accountability, and betrays democratic principles. Here's the evidence they don't want you to see.
For nearly a century, police radio communications were accessible to the public. Journalists monitored scanners for breaking news. Residents heard about emergencies in real time. Community watchdogs tracked police activity. This transparency was a feature, not a bug—it kept police accountable and communities informed.
Now, departments nationwide are encrypting everything. They claim it's about "officer safety" and "victim privacy." But when pressed for evidence, they have none. Meanwhile, the documented harms keep piling up: lives endangered during emergencies, accountability eliminated, journalism crippled, and public trust shattered.
This is the comprehensive case against police radio encryption—backed by evidence, real-world examples, and expert testimony.
Threat #1: Public Safety Endangered
When police radios go dark during emergencies, people die
Police scanners have saved countless lives by providing real-time emergency alerts. When active shooters open fire, when wildfires approach neighborhoods, when tornados touch down—scanner listeners know immediately. They take cover, evacuate, avoid danger zones, and warn others.
Encryption eliminates this life-saving function. And there's no replacement.
Lives Saved by Open Scanner Access
Highland Park Mass Shooting (July 4, 2022)
During one of the deadliest shootings in recent history, open police scanner access provided critical real-time information:
- Immediate awareness: People knew about the active shooter within seconds, long before official alerts
- Avoiding danger: Real-time police communications helped civilians understand where the shooter was and which areas to avoid
- Finding loved ones: Families used scanner information to locate relatives separated during chaos
- Media coordination: Journalists provided accurate public updates, countering rumors and reducing panic
- 911 relief: People with scanner access didn't flood emergency lines seeking information
Outcome: Open scanners demonstrably saved lives. People made informed safety decisions based on real-time police activity.
Natural Disaster Alerts
Across Colorado, residents monitored scanners for:
- Wildfire evacuation orders before official alerts went out
- Tornado touchdowns and safe routes
- Flood zone warnings and road closures
- Chemical spills and hazmat perimeters
In emergencies, seconds matter. Scanner access provided warnings that official systems couldn't match for speed.
Active Shooter Warnings
Before encryption, Chicago residents monitoring scanners received real-time alerts about:
- Active gunmen in their neighborhoods
- Police pursuits heading through residential areas
- School lockdowns (helping parents understand situations)
- Bomb threats and evacuation perimeters
Lives Endangered by Encryption
Chicago Courthouse Shooting
In a city with fully encrypted police radios, more than 40 shots were fired outside a courthouse by an active gunman. Police responded. It was a dangerous, chaotic situation.
But the public never knew in real time.
Because of encryption, there were no scanner alerts. No immediate media coverage. No warnings to people nearby. Just silence—followed 30 minutes later by a sanitized press release, long after the danger had passed.
Result: People near the courthouse had no idea they were in an active shooter situation. They couldn't take cover, avoid the area, or make informed safety decisions.
Denver/Aurora: The Cost of Going Dark
After Denver and Aurora, Colorado encrypted police radios, residents lost critical emergency information:
- Missed wildfire alerts: People who previously monitored scanners for evacuation orders lost their early warning system
- Active shooter blindness: Real-time alerts about shooters in the area—gone
- Emergency coordination: Community emergency response teams lost situational awareness
One resident described it as "flying blind during emergencies that used to have real-time information."
The Emergency Alert Gap
Proponents of encryption often claim that official emergency alert systems (wireless emergency alerts, reverse 911, etc.) can replace scanner access. This is demonstrably false.
| Capability | Police Scanners | Official Alert Systems |
|---|---|---|
| Speed | Instant (real police activity) | 5-30+ minute delay |
| Detail Level | Specific locations, ongoing updates | Vague, limited information |
| Coverage | All incidents police respond to | Only major incidents deemed worthy |
| Continuous Updates | Real-time as situation evolves | One alert, rarely updated |
| Independence | Unfiltered police activity | Filtered by officials |
| Reliability | Direct from source | Depends on officials activating system |
Bottom line: Official alert systems are not a replacement for scanner access. They're too slow, too limited, and too dependent on official decision-making to protect public safety the way real-time scanner monitoring does.
Key Takeaway: Public Safety
Police encryption eliminates a proven, life-saving public safety tool. During active emergencies—when seconds determine whether people live or die—encryption creates an information blackout that endangers communities.
There are documented cases of scanner access saving lives. There are documented cases of encryption hiding danger from the public. There are zero documented cases of scanner access causing the harms encryption supposedly prevents.
Threat #2: Accountability Eliminated
When the watchdogs can't watch, misconduct goes unchecked
Police work for the public. In a democracy, public servants should be publicly observable. For decades, scanner access provided independent oversight—anyone could hear how police operated, verify official accounts, and document misconduct.
Encryption eliminates this accountability mechanism. And the timing reveals why.
Misconduct Exposed by Open Scanners
2020 Protests: Racism Documented
During protests following George Floyd's murder, open police scanners revealed what departments tried to hide:
- Racist remarks: Officers making racist comments during demonstrations, caught on open radio
- Aggressive tactics: Coordination of crowd control measures that contradicted official statements
- Use of force: Real-time documentation of police violence against protesters
- Narrative control attempts: Discrepancies between what radio showed and what officials claimed
This independent documentation was critical for holding police accountable. Body cameras didn't capture it (conveniently "malfunctioned" or not released). Internal affairs wouldn't investigate it. But scanners revealed the truth.
Uvalde School Shooting: The Truth vs. The Narrative
After the devastating Uvalde school shooting, police gave press conferences praising their response. They controlled the narrative—until scanner audio was analyzed.
The radio communications revealed a chaotic, failed response that directly contradicted official accounts. Officers waited. Children died. The scanner audio exposed the truth that body camera footage (held by police) and official statements (controlled by police) never would have.
Without scanner access, the public would only have the official version—incomplete and misleading.
Historical Accountability
Throughout history, scanner access has enabled:
- Documentation of excessive force during arrests
- Exposure of racial profiling patterns
- Evidence of corruption and coordination with criminals
- Proof of false arrest claims and planted evidence
- Records of officer misconduct during traffic stops
The Timing Reveals the Motive
Encryption Surge: Before and After 2020
Before 2020
- Digital radio systems existed for years
- Encryption was possible but rarely used for routine dispatch
- Most departments kept communications open
- Officer safety cited occasionally, but not driving policy
George Floyd Protests
Open scanners document police misconduct, racist remarks, and aggressive tactics nationwide
After 2020
- Rapid acceleration of encryption policies
- Departments rushing to encrypt, often without public input
- Sudden claims about officer safety (with no new evidence)
- Encryption implemented quickly in cities with accountability scrutiny
The pattern is clear: When scanners exposed what police wanted hidden, encryption suddenly became "urgent." This isn't about safety—it's about avoiding accountability.
Why Alternative Accountability Mechanisms Fail
Encryption advocates claim other oversight mechanisms make scanner access unnecessary. This is false. Here's why:
Body Cameras
Problem: Controlled by police departments
- Officers can turn them off
- Footage can "malfunction" or be "lost"
- Departments control release timing and redaction
- Public access requires lengthy FOIA battles
- Only shows one officer's perspective, not coordination or context
Not independent oversight—police control the evidence.
Internal Affairs
Problem: Police investigating police
- Inherent conflict of interest
- Blue wall of silence protects officers
- Investigations secret, results rarely public
- Low rates of sustained complaints
- No independent verification
Not independent—same department, same incentives.
FOIA Requests
Problem: Slow, expensive, easily denied
- Weeks or months for responses
- Thousands of dollars in fees
- Heavy redaction of "sensitive" info
- Exemptions allow denial
- Too late for breaking news or immediate accountability
Not real-time—by the time you get records, narrative is set.
Civilian Oversight Boards
Problem: Limited power and access
- Often lack subpoena power
- Recommendations frequently ignored
- Depend on police cooperation
- Don't hear real-time police activity
- Political pressure limits independence
Not empowered—advisory role with limited enforcement.
Scanner access was the only truly independent, real-time oversight mechanism. It required no permission, no cooperation, no FOIA battles. Anyone could listen. Anyone could verify. Anyone could document. That's exactly why police want it eliminated.
Key Takeaway: Accountability
When police encrypt radios, they eliminate the last independent check on their power. Body cams, internal affairs, FOIA—all controlled by police. Scanner access was different: independent, real-time, and unfiltered.
The surge in encryption immediately after 2020 protests exposed misconduct reveals the true motive: avoiding accountability, not protecting safety.
Threat #3: Journalism Destroyed
A free press requires access to information—encryption eliminates it
For as long as police radios have existed, journalists have monitored them. Scanners are fundamental tools of journalism—they enable fast, accurate, independent reporting on public safety. When police encrypt, they don't just frustrate reporters. They cripple the Fourth Estate.
Why Scanners Are Essential to Journalism
Breaking News Coverage
Scanners allow journalists to report on incidents as they happen—fires, crashes, shootings, pursuits. This real-time coverage serves the public interest by keeping communities informed during emergencies.
With encryption: Reporters wait for official press releases, often hours after incidents conclude. Breaking news becomes "already happened" news.
Independent Verification
Scanner access lets journalists verify official police statements against actual radio traffic. This fact-checking function is critical for accountability journalism.
With encryption: No way to independently verify claims. Reporters must take official statements at face value or wait for FOIA requests (if granted at all).
Resource Efficiency
Small news outlets and freelance journalists can't afford full-time police reporters at every precinct. Scanners level the playing field, allowing anyone to monitor police activity.
With encryption: Only well-funded outlets with official relationships can get timely information. Local news crisis deepens.
Context and Detail
Scanner traffic provides rich detail—suspect descriptions, specific locations, number of units responding, incident progression. This context makes reporting accurate and useful.
With encryption: Vague press releases with minimal detail. "An incident occurred" tells the public almost nothing.
Professional Opposition to Encryption
Radio Television Digital News Association (RTDNA)
RTDNA, the world's largest professional organization devoted to broadcast and digital journalism, conducted a comprehensive survey in 2023.
Police radio encryption ranked as the #1 concern for news directors nationwide.
RTDNA has formally opposed blanket encryption, arguing it violates press freedom and the public's right to know about police activity funded by taxpayer dollars.
"The 30-minute delay is almost useless for breaking news. By the time we get the audio, the incident is over and the official statement is already out. We've essentially lost our ability to independently report on police activity in real time."
— ABC7 Chicago reporter on encrypted scanner access
Media Coalitions Fighting Encryption
News organizations across the country have formed coalitions to oppose encryption:
- Colorado: Multiple news outlets jointly opposing Denver/Aurora encryption
- California: First Amendment Coalition leading opposition efforts
- Illinois: Chicago media demanding better access
- National: Associated Press, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press issuing statements
The Chilling Effect on Investigative Journalism
Beyond breaking news, encryption hampers investigative journalism:
- Pattern identification: Researchers can't monitor scanner audio to identify patterns of racial profiling, excessive force, or neglect in certain neighborhoods
- Follow-up reporting: Without scanner context, journalists don't know which incidents warrant deeper investigation
- Source development: Scanner monitoring helps journalists understand police operations, making them better equipped to report on law enforcement issues
- Accountability reporting: Long-form investigations often begin with scanner-documented incidents that differ from official accounts
As one investigative reporter put it: "Encryption doesn't just slow us down. It blinds us to entire categories of stories that serve the public interest."
Key Takeaway: Press Freedom
A free press requires access to information. When police encrypt radios, they don't just inconvenience journalists—they fundamentally undermine the Fourth Estate's ability to independently monitor government power.
Every major journalism organization opposes blanket encryption. That should tell you something about whose interests encryption really serves—and it's not the public's.
Threat #4: Trust Destroyed
Secrecy breeds suspicion—transparency builds trust
Police-community relations are at a historic low. Trust in law enforcement has eroded across demographic groups. In this environment, encryption makes things worse. When police operate in secret, communities reasonably wonder: what are they hiding?
Transparency as Trust-Builder
âś… Open Communications Signal
- "We have nothing to hide"
- "Our work can withstand public scrutiny"
- "We welcome community oversight"
- "We trust you to understand our work"
❌ Encrypted Communications Signal
- "You can't be trusted with information"
- "What we do is none of your business"
- "We need to control what you know"
- "We have something to hide"
Whether fair or not, this is how communities perceive encryption. In an era when trust must be rebuilt, secrecy is exactly the wrong approach.
Democratic Principles at Stake
Public Servants Should Be Publicly Observable
In a democracy, government operates with the consent of the governed. That consent requires transparency—the ability of citizens to observe how power is exercised in their name.
Police are public servants, funded by taxpayers, empowered to use force in the community's name. The presumption should be openness, with narrow exceptions for legitimate operational needs.
Blanket encryption inverts this principle. It makes secrecy the default and openness the exception. This is antithetical to democratic governance.
"Sunlight is the Best Disinfectant"
Justice Louis Brandeis famously wrote that "sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants." Transparency doesn't just enable oversight—it prevents misconduct from happening in the first place.
When officers know their radio communications are public, they're more likely to:
- Use professional language
- Follow proper procedures
- Avoid bias and discrimination
- Treat community members with respect
Encryption removes this accountability pressure. What happens in the dark stays in the dark.
Who Opposes Encryption (And Why That Matters)
Encryption isn't just opposed by "scanner hobbyists" or "police critics." Broad, diverse coalitions oppose blanket encryption:
đź“° Journalism Organizations
- Radio Television Digital News Association (RTDNA)
- Associated Press
- Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
- Regional news coalitions
- First Amendment advocacy groups
⚖️ Civil Rights Groups
- ACLU (multiple state chapters)
- First Amendment Coalition
- Racial justice organizations
- Government transparency advocates
đź‘Ą Community Organizations
- Neighborhood associations
- Traffic safety advocates (using scanner data)
- Community emergency response teams
- Local accountability groups
đźš” Some Law Enforcement Professionals
- Officers who value community trust
- Chiefs prioritizing transparency
- Departments using hybrid systems successfully
- Law enforcement researchers and academics
This isn't a fringe position. Mainstream institutions defending democratic values oppose blanket encryption. When journalists, civil libertarians, community groups, and even some police professionals all agree—that coalition deserves serious consideration.
Key Takeaway: Trust & Democracy
At a time when police-community trust must be rebuilt, encryption moves in exactly the wrong direction. Secrecy breeds suspicion. Transparency builds trust.
In a democracy, public servants should be publicly observable. Blanket encryption betrays this principle and the communities police are sworn to serve.
The False Justifications
Why the arguments for encryption don't hold up
We've seen the documented harms encryption causes. But what about the reasons departments give for encrypting? When you examine the evidence—or lack thereof—the justifications fall apart.
❌ "Officer Safety"
The Claim: Criminals use scanners to ambush officers.
The Evidence:
- Zero documented cases of scanner-related officer harm
- Palo Alto: 3-year records search found "no responsive records"
- Broadcastify CEO: Never received evidence in decades
- Multiple departments admit no cases when pressed
Verdict: Theoretical concern with no real-world basis. A solution in search of a problem.
❌ "Victim Privacy"
The Claim: Open scanners broadcast sensitive victim information.
The Reality:
- MDTs (in-car computers) can transmit sensitive info via text, not voice
- Officer training solves this (use "victim" not names)
- Selective encryption for sensitive calls (domestic violence, etc.)
- Decades of privacy protection without blanket encryption
Verdict: Legitimate concern, but blanket encryption is overkill. Proportional solutions exist.
❌ "Technology Upgrade"
The Claim: Encryption is just part of modern digital radio systems.
The Truth:
- Digital P25 systems can operate encrypted OR in the clear
- It's a switch, not a requirement
- Many depts using digital systems choose to stay open
- Encryption surge correlates with 2020 protests, not tech cycles
Verdict: Misleading. Encryption is a policy choice being disguised as inevitable technology.
❌ "FOIA Provides Access"
The Claim: Public can still access radio audio through FOIA requests.
The Problems:
- Weeks or months of delay (useless for breaking news)
- Expensive fees ($1,000s in some jurisdictions)
- Heavy redaction of "sensitive" information
- Requests often denied under exemptions
- Not real-time, not independent, not reliable
Verdict: False equivalence. Delayed, controlled access is not a substitute for real-time transparency.
The Timing Reveals the True Motive
If officer safety was the real concern, why did encryption become urgent only after 2020 protests exposed police misconduct via scanners?
If victim privacy was paramount, why did departments protect privacy for decades using protocols and training, only to suddenly need blanket encryption after accountability scrutiny increased?
If technology was the driver, why do many departments with modern digital systems choose to remain open?
The pattern is clear: Encryption isn't about safety or privacy. It's about control. Control of information, control of the narrative, and avoidance of accountability.
The Verdict: Encryption is Dangerous
Evidence-based conclusion on blanket police radio encryption
Documented Harms
- âś… Lives endangered during emergencies
- âś… Accountability eliminated
- âś… Journalism crippled
- âś… Trust eroded
- âś… Democracy undermined
Real people harmed, real consequences documented
Documented Benefits
- ❌ Zero cases of scanner-caused officer harm
- ❌ No evidence encryption improves safety
- ❌ No proven operational benefits
- ❌ No measurable ROI on millions spent
Theoretical concerns without real-world evidence
The Evidence is Clear
Blanket police radio encryption is dangerous. It endangers public safety by eliminating real-time emergency alerts. It eliminates accountability by removing independent oversight. It destroys journalism by blocking access to information. It erodes trust by choosing secrecy over transparency.
And for what? Zero documented benefit. No evidence of the harms it supposedly prevents. Just a power grab disguised as a safety measure.
When police departments encrypt, they're not protecting officers or victims. They're protecting themselves from accountability. And communities pay the price.
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