City of Alexandria, Virginia

Dr. Tarrick McGuire

Technology Governance Champion

The central question facing police agencies is not what technology is capable of doing, but what a democratic society should permit it to do. This question becomes increasingly important as the technological revolution transforms urban governance through interconnected cameras, sensors, and data systems designed to enhance environmental monitoring, transportation, traffic safety, waste management, street lighting, and the delivery of essential public services. Consequently, the development of smart cities creates new challenges for the constitutional framework governing police agencies, requiring them to balance technological innovation and the delivery of core public services with the responsibilities of protecting communities, maintaining public trust, and safeguarding civil liberties.

In a modern technology era, this distinction matters more than ever as police agencies gain access to increasingly sophisticated tools that expand their capacity to prevent and respond to crime. Automated license plate readers can identify vehicles associated with criminal investigations, analytical systems can process vast quantities of crime data to detect patterns and potential threats, and digital technologies can assist in locating missing or endangered persons. For example, a network of automated license plate readers may alert police when a vehicle associated with a missing person is detected, enabling officers to respond more quickly and potentially prevent further harm. This example highlights that police are becoming smart not only in terms of how they can automate routine functions serving communities, but also in ways that enable them to monitor, understand, analyze, and plan operations to improve efficiency, equity, and quality of life for citizens in real time, Batty et al. (2012).

Across the U.S., numerous examples demonstrate how emerging technologies can enhance public safety, improve the delivery of police services, and reduce harm to communities. At the same time, the growing use of these technologies has prompted a national debate over privacy, government authority, data security, and the constitutional protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment. Recognizing these challenges early, the Alexandria Police Department incorporated technology into its broader public-safety strategy through the G.R.E.A.T. framework: Geographical Policing, Relationships, Enforcement, Assessment, and Technology. The framework reflects an understanding that technology would become increasingly central to protecting communities, while also emphasizing that technological innovation cannot be separated from relationships with the community, effective enforcement, continuous assessment, and the broader responsibilities of public safety. In this framework, technology is positioned not as an end, but as one component of a broader approach to policing and community protection.

“The central question facing police agencies is not what technology is capable of doing, but what a democratic society should permit it to do.”

As explained to the police agency and the broader community, a Constitutional Governance Framework for SMART Cities Public-Safety Technology should begin with five principles: legality, necessity, proportionality, accountability, and transparency.

Legality requires leaders to understand the constitutional, statutory, and regulatory authority governing technology before it is deployed.

Necessity asks what specific public-safety problem we are attempting to solve and whether the technology is necessary to address it.

Proportionality requires determining whether the capability and scope of oversight or data collection are appropriate to the legitimate public-safety objective.

Accountability requires meaningful oversight, auditing, access controls, retention requirements, documented use, contractual and sharing agreements, and remedies for misuse.

Transparency means providing the public with meaningful information about how technology is governed and how constitutional rights are protected, while recognizing that some operational details must remain secure.

Good governance requires more than the establishment of rules; it requires discipline to seek and evaluate evidence before reaching conclusions. City leaders confronting controversial public-safety technologies should resist pressure to make immediate judgments based solely on headlines, political pressures, or assurances from advocates for technology or those against it. Instead, they should begin with the evidence. Does technology accomplish its intended purpose? What documented benefits and limitations have emerged from its use? What unintended consequences have been identified in other jurisdictions? And what does the available evidence reveal about privacy, civil liberties, disparate impacts, data security, costs, and public trust?

Public safety leaders have a similar responsibility. We must understand the lenses through which others view an issue. An investigator may see technology through the lens of identifying a violent offender or locating a missing child. A civil liberties advocate may see the same technology through the history of government oversight and constitutional protection. A resident may experience it through personal interactions with law enforcement. A city manager may consider cost, liability, and institutional sustainability. A researcher may focus on whether the evidence supports the claimed benefits. A cybersecurity or homeland-security professional may focus on vulnerabilities that others cannot see.

For example, a recent study by the National Policing Institute included a survey examining what drives public opinion about the acceptability of ALPR use. The survey found that public acceptance of automated license plate readers (ALPRs) varies substantially depending on how the technology is used. Respondents expressed strong support for public-safety applications, including locating missing or abducted children, investigating violent crimes, and recovering stolen vehicles, while support declined sharply for broader uses such as immigration enforcement, routine traffic enforcement, and monitoring protests or political gatherings.

Immigration enforcement was particularly divisive, with concerns about ALPR data being accessed by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) producing the largest political divide measured in the survey. Age also emerged as a significant demographic difference, with opposition declining from 67.6% among respondents ages 25–34 to 40.6% among those 65 and older. The findings further suggest that public confidence may be influenced more by governance safeguards than by messaging alone: 57.5% of respondents indicated that their support would increase if police adopted safeguards they personally selected, while many respondents favored limiting the retention of ALPR data unrelated to criminal activity. Collectively, the findings suggest that public acceptance of ALPR technology is shaped by its intended purpose (National Policing Institute, 2026).

As governments work to strengthen the delivery of core services, public safety remains a fundamental responsibility of every community. Law enforcement agencies have a constitutional responsibility to uphold the rights and liberties embodied in the Constitution and reflected in their professional obligations. Technology can expand government's capacity to deliver essential services, while effective technology governance establishes the boundaries, safeguards, and accountability necessary to ensure that such capabilities are used responsibly.

The future of public safety technology should therefore not be framed as a choice between technological innovation and the support of public safety or civil liberties. In a responsible democratic government, technology governance should serve to advance these objectives together, ensuring that innovation strengthens public safety while remaining consistent with constitutional principles, individual rights, and accountability.