ShotSpotter (Again) Spotted Altering Shots (And Spots) To Better Serve Police Narratives

from the so-scientific-it-can-be-remodeled-on-the-fly! dept

Dozens of cities around the nation are relying on early warning tech to help their law enforcement get out ahead of crime. (Well, get out slightly behind crime, to be accurate…) Microphones and sensors placed in strategic locations around cities pick up loud noises and pass this information on to police departments so they can scramble cops to the spotted shot.

That's what ShotSpotter does. How well it does it is still up for debate. SpotShotter detects loud noises that might be gunshots, runs everything through some coding, and makes a determination. Maybe the sound is just a backfire or someone setting off fireworks. Or maybe it's actually gunfire.

This is what those in the cop business call "actionable intel." The problem is that ShotSpotter isn't as accurate as cops think it is. On the plus side, ShotSpotter appears to be every bit as malleable as cops want it to be.

A few years ago, we covered the story of a man who sued Rochester police officers after they used ShotSpotter data (after the fact) to justify shooting him. A lot of things in the narrative didn't add up.

Rochester resident Silvon Simmons was headed home from a convenience store around 9 pm when a cop car cut him off. The officer hit Simmons with his spotlight and then opened fire when Simmons ran away from the car. At no time did the officer identify himself as an officer.

The Rochester PD attempted to justify this use of deadly force when faced with no deadly threat. Officers said they found a gun in a yard, but it was several houses away from where Simmons was stopped and in the opposite direction of where he had run when confronted by the police officer. The officers then said Simmons had fired on them, prompting them to fire back. Simmons' DNA and fingerprints were not on the recovered gun.

So, the PD turned to ShotSpotter. What was originally determined to be "helicopter noise" by a ShotSpotter mic near the scene was changed to "multiple gunshots" at an officer's request. Unfortunately for the officer, ShotSpotter's count of shots fired was too few, as it only included the shots fired by officers. Another request resulted in ShotSpotter finding another gunshot in its recordings -- the one supposedly fired by Simmons at officers from the gun he never had in his possession. That was good enough to get him charged with aggravated assault on a police officer. He spent a year in jail before being acquitted on all charges.

ShotSpotter and its law enforcement partners are doing it again. They're altering evidence to fit narratives, as Todd Feathers reports for Motherboard.

On May 31 last year, 25-year-old Safarain Herring was shot in the head and dropped off at St. Bernard Hospital in Chicago by a man named Michael Williams. He died two days later.

Chicago police eventually arrested the 64-year-old Williams and charged him with murder (Williams maintains that Herring was hit in a drive-by shooting). A key piece of evidence in the case is video surveillance footage showing Williams’ car stopped on the 6300 block of South Stony Island Avenue at 11:46 p.m.—the time and location where police say they know Herring was shot.

The key connective evidence in this case comes from ShotSpotter. But since ShotSpotter didn't originally deliver the evidence officers wanted, the evidence apparently had to change. The night in question, 19 ShotSpotter devices "detected a percussive" sound, determining the originating location of this noise to be 5700 Lake Shore Drive. That's about a mile from the address where Williams' vehicle was caught on camera.

Obviously, evidence putting a potential gunshot a mile away from where the murder was supposedly committed wouldn't do. Alterations were made.

[A]fter the 11:46 p.m. alert came in, a ShotSpotter analyst manually overrode the algorithms and “reclassified” the sound as a gunshot. Then, months later and after “post-processing,” another ShotSpotter analyst changed the alert’s coordinates to a location on South Stony Island Drive near where Williams’ car was seen on camera.

It's one thing to review an alert and flag it as a potential gunshot (rather than the original determination that this might have been a firework). It's quite another to move the location of the detected noise to exactly where it does cops and prosecutors the most good.

This discovery has resulted in Williams and his lawyer raising a challenge to the evidence.

“Through this human-involved method, the ShotSpotter output in this case was dramatically transformed from data that did not support criminal charges of any kind to data that now forms the centerpiece of the prosecution’s murder case against Mr. Williams,” the public defender wrote in the motion.

The motion asks for the court to examine and rule on the evidence and ShotSpotter's methodology to determine whether they're scientifically sound. Unfortunately, we won't be seeing any in-depth examination of ShotSpotter or law enforcement's contribution to the shifting ShotSpotter narrative.

Rather than defend ShotSpotter’s technology and its employees' actions in a Frye hearing, the prosecutors withdrew all ShotSpotter evidence against Williams.

It would be presumptive to call this an implicit admission of guilt. But I think we've earned that indulgence. If this were legit evidence -- something both ShotSpotter and investigators could justify with thorough explanations and examination of ShotSpotter's shot spotting tech -- you'd think it wouldn't have been dropped as soon as it was challenged. But it appears prosecutors would rather let an accused murder walk than discuss their tactics and their partner in (fighting) crime in open court.

Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: law enforcement, police, shotspotter


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 2 Aug 2021 @ 9:57am

    What real police do is collect the evidence and figure out who the criminal is. What US ops do is decide who the criminal is and manufacture the evidence to support their decision.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Bloof (profile), 2 Aug 2021 @ 10:23am

    Who would have thought a system that caters to law enforcement would be willing to change results to keep their largest customer happy?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      MightyMetricBatman (profile), 2 Aug 2021 @ 1:02pm

      Re: Heads we win, tails you lose

      Real scientists don't modify the data.

      If one finds out the system has systemic errors determining the location then the only scientific answer is fix the system for future work, not edit old data.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Baron von Robber, 2 Aug 2021 @ 10:27am

    Reminds me of Creationist Algebra: Draw curve, then plot points.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    wierd, 2 Aug 2021 @ 10:43am

    So in my own city, I only hear about ShotSpotter being used to send officers to go look at an area. This is Peoria, IL so there's an insane amount of gang violence going on. All we hear in the news is that police responded to an alert in the area and they find victims. It almost seems to be more of use finding victims in time to get them to the hospital.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 2 Aug 2021 @ 10:48am

    'Our evidence is rock solid! No you can't see it, it's ours.'

    Rather than defend ShotSpotter’s technology and its employees' actions in a Frye hearing, the prosecutors withdrew all ShotSpotter evidence against Williams.

    The most 'generous' interpretation I can think of is that they consider the tech so valuable that they are willing to let a(n accused) murderer walk rather than let it be examined in court, where the super-duper complex technology of 'record sound, match sound to action' could be seen by criminals and they could... stop shooting people?

    Yeah, they got caught red-handed fabricating evidence here and bolted the second they might lose their favorite murder justification tool by having it shown in court that it's not even remotely accurate or trustworthy, every single case that involves ShotSpotter as even a piece of the evidence should be challenged from here on out as they've made clear they'll drop anything from it rather than let it be examined.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      sumgai (profile), 2 Aug 2021 @ 11:05am

      Re: 'Our evidence is rock solid! No you can't see it, it's ours.

      Whereas if I were ShotSpotter....

      I'd be demanding that my technology be admitted into evidence so that I could prove it was human intervention that was at fault, not my technology. After all, I want to make sales to other cop outfits, and withdrawals of this sort only harm my sales potential.

      Either that, or I'd be serving up a heaping spoonful of lawsuits for "willful tortious interference with my business model".

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        That One Guy (profile), 2 Aug 2021 @ 11:11am

        Re: Re: 'Our evidence is rock solid! No you can't see it, it's o

        After all, I want to make sales to other cop outfits, and withdrawals of this sort only harm my sales potential.

        I'm pretty sure 'we will tailor our recordings to suit your officers' narrative' would be great for securing sales to police departments in the US, albeit one neither they nor the police would honestly admit to, and the fact that it didn't work out here because they got caught probably wouldn't hurt that.

        As for the second option, lawsuits for threatening their 'business model' that wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if it was done, gotta protect the holy profits after all.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          sumgai (profile), 2 Aug 2021 @ 11:21am

          Re: Re: Re: 'Our evidence is rock solid! No you can't see it, it

          That's one way to look at it. My perspective is that if the "evidence" is challenged in case after case (and likely withdrawn), pretty soon sales will go down, not up. Defense lawyers do talk to each other, all the time, and it doesn't take long for news of this sort to make the rounds.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Aug 2021 @ 12:49pm

        Re: Re: 'Our evidence is rock solid! No you can't see it, it's o

        If their tech was good enough to pass muster, they would not be willing to spoil it by faking results.

        As such, I believe their tech is yet another example of mostly-useless algorithmic guesswork and they know it. The real product they're selling is their ability to fabricate evidence on request.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    sumgai (profile), 2 Aug 2021 @ 11:14am

    What I wanna know is, how is it that nobody thought to give a GSR test to Williams in the first place??

    And the man would need to have an IQ lower than a raw carrot to bring his own victim into a place where cops are either already present, or only a phone call away.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 2 Aug 2021 @ 1:53pm

      Re:

      Because the act of bringing someone to a hospital is not probable cause to search them.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 5 Aug 2021 @ 9:33pm

      Re:

      That's part of the pattern, apparently. Details about the Rochester case, from the Motherboard article:

      "[ShotSpotter] found a fifth shot, despite there being no physical evidence at the scene that Simmons had fired. Rochester police had also refused his multiple requests for them to test his hands and clothing for gunshot residue.

      "Curiously, the ShotSpotter audio files that were the only evidence of the phantom fifth shot have disappeared."

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    ECA (profile), 2 Aug 2021 @ 11:53am

    Love the tech, hate those that use it.

    Instead of paying for more police, why not pay for tech?
    Instead of having police wondering the area, pay for Tech.
    The real problem tends to be how much area you cover with Sound equipment. And if you can overlap most of the area's.

    How to mis-use a computer in 1 easy lesson. Thow the monitor outside.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    JoeCool (profile), 2 Aug 2021 @ 3:56pm

    More fitting name

    Given cases like this, maybe it should be called ShitSpotter.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 4 Aug 2021 @ 8:28am

    The story of Silvon Simmons is every bit as messed up as the abundant media coverage indicates, however your (now repeated) assertion that the gun found at the scene was "several houses away" is inaccurate. The gun was less than 10 feet from where Simmons was handcuffed in the yard after being shot.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Tanner Andrews (profile), 10 Aug 2021 @ 5:12am

    A Throwdown is a Throwdown

    The gun was less than 10 feet from where Simmons was handcuffed in the yard after being shot

    It actually makes more sense this way. Why would cops plant the throwdown far away, which would require additional walking about, when they could throw it down right by where the arrest took place?

    It is still problematic that they found no fingerprints on the gun, and no gunshot residue on the arrestee, though that may be explained by the fact that the charges were entirely bogus and the police story was unreliable.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Sponsored Promotion
Public Money, Public Code - Sign The Open Letter at publiccode.eu
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.