Big Data Policing And Criminal Liability
Big Data Policing and Criminal Liability: Overview
What is Big Data Policing?
Big Data Policing refers to the use of large datasets, analytics, machine learning, artificial intelligence (AI), and predictive technologies by law enforcement agencies to:
Identify potential suspects
Predict crime hotspots (predictive policing)
Analyze social networks for criminal activities
Monitor public behavior and communication
Legal and Ethical Challenges
While big data can enhance policing efficiency, it raises serious legal and ethical questions:
Privacy concerns: Collection and use of vast amounts of personal data.
Bias and discrimination: Algorithms can perpetuate racial or social biases.
Due process: Risk of wrongful profiling or arrests based on inaccurate data.
Transparency and accountability: Black-box algorithms challenge fair trial rights.
Criminal liability: When data-driven decisions lead to wrongful convictions or law enforcement misconduct.
Key Legal Questions in Big Data Policing and Criminal Liability
Can police use predictive analytics to justify searches or arrests?
How should courts assess evidence generated by big data tools?
What are the liabilities of law enforcement for algorithmic errors?
How do constitutional rights (privacy, due process) protect individuals?
What safeguards ensure big data doesn’t lead to wrongful criminal liability?
Landmark Cases Involving Big Data Policing and Criminal Liability
1. Carpenter v. United States (2018) — United States
Facts:
Police obtained months of cell-site location data without a warrant to place Carpenter near crime scenes.
Issue:
Does accessing historical cell phone location data without a warrant violate the Fourth Amendment (protection against unreasonable search)?
Decision:
The Supreme Court ruled that accessing such detailed data requires a warrant, recognizing that digital data has heightened privacy protections.
Significance:
This case limits big data use by police without proper legal oversight, protecting individuals from invasive data searches, and impacts criminal liability arising from evidence obtained improperly.
2. State v. Loomis (2016) — Wisconsin, United States
Facts:
Eric Loomis was sentenced with the help of a COMPAS risk assessment algorithm predicting his likelihood of reoffending.
Issue:
Does the use of a proprietary algorithm, undisclosed and unchallengeable by the defendant, violate due process?
Decision:
The Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld the use but cautioned about transparency and limitations.
Significance:
This case highlights the tension between big data tools in criminal sentencing and the rights of defendants to fair trial and understanding evidence against them.
3. R. v. Jarvis (2019) — Canada
Facts:
Police used surveillance tools analyzing social media data to track the suspect.
Issue:
Does extensive surveillance and data collection violate privacy rights and can the data be used as evidence?
Decision:
The Supreme Court recognized limits on surveillance under privacy rights, ruling evidence gathered unlawfully could be excluded.
Significance:
Emphasizes need for respecting privacy and legality in data-driven policing to avoid wrongful convictions.
4. The “PredPol” Predictive Policing Program Litigation — United States
Context:
Various lawsuits challenge predictive policing software (like PredPol) for bias against minority communities.
Issues:
Claims argue that biased data leads to discriminatory policing, wrongful stops/arrests, and violates equal protection rights.
Outcome:
Several jurisdictions halted or limited use of predictive policing; lawsuits continue to address accountability and liability for harm caused.
Significance:
Raises awareness that big data policing can lead to systemic discrimination and wrongful criminal liability.
5. People v. Jones (2018) — California, United States
Facts:
Police used license plate readers (LPRs) to track a suspect’s movements and used the data to convict Jones.
Issue:
Is warrantless mass collection of location data via LPRs constitutional?
Decision:
California courts are divided, but growing skepticism demands legal frameworks for mass data collection.
Significance:
Shows the emerging legal scrutiny of big data tools in criminal cases and importance of protecting civil liberties.
6. European Court of Human Rights – Big Data and Privacy Cases
While no single case focuses solely on policing, cases like S. and Marper v. United Kingdom (2008) address:
Retention of DNA profiles and data by police after acquittal.
Found violations of privacy under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Significance:
Sets limits on how big data (DNA databases) can be used by police, influencing criminal liability and privacy protections.
Summary of Key Legal Principles
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Privacy and warrant requirement | Police must obtain judicial authorization before accessing private digital data. |
| Due process and transparency | Use of algorithms must be transparent, explainable, and open to challenge in court. |
| Bias and discrimination | Use of big data must not perpetuate or exacerbate social biases leading to wrongful liability. |
| Evidence admissibility | Illegally obtained data or untrustworthy algorithms risk exclusion from trials. |
| Accountability | Police and governments can be held liable for harms caused by improper big data policing use. |
RELATED Blog
0 comments