I think there's good evidence that by the time it reaches common use, it will be used that way.
Consider ShotSpotter, which uses an array of microphones in an urban environment to detect gunshots (and often then deploy officers to the location) [1]:
> A ShotSpotter expert admitted in a 2016 trial, for example, that the company reclassified sounds from a helicopter to a bullet at the request of a police department customer, saying such changes occur “all the time” because “we trust our law enforcement customers to be really upfront and honest with us.”
In this case, it seems like it's more like "evidence laundering" - a cop found a bullet (presumably through legitimate means) and would like to use the ShotSpotter results as additional evidence that the shooting took place, and so requests a re-classification of the audio recording. Even in this case, where the parallel evidentiary construction is presumably legitimate, one can imagine the problem - a jury may put more stock in a ShotSpotter result than the cop's testimony about a bullet. But in this case, the ShotSpotter "result" is due precisely to that testimony.
Never mind the fact that ShotSpotter microphones are powerful enough to pick up loud conversations [2]:
> The apparent ability of ShotSpotter to record voices on the street raises questions about privacy rights and highlights another example of how emerging technologies can pose challenges to enforcing the law while also protecting civil liberties.
Predictive policing will require large-scale data collection, and policing institutions don't seem to always use it the way we'd want them to.
[1] https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/four-problems-w...
[2] https://www.southcoasttoday.com/story/news/crime/2012/01/11/...
Consider ShotSpotter, which uses an array of microphones in an urban environment to detect gunshots (and often then deploy officers to the location) [1]:
> A ShotSpotter expert admitted in a 2016 trial, for example, that the company reclassified sounds from a helicopter to a bullet at the request of a police department customer, saying such changes occur “all the time” because “we trust our law enforcement customers to be really upfront and honest with us.”
In this case, it seems like it's more like "evidence laundering" - a cop found a bullet (presumably through legitimate means) and would like to use the ShotSpotter results as additional evidence that the shooting took place, and so requests a re-classification of the audio recording. Even in this case, where the parallel evidentiary construction is presumably legitimate, one can imagine the problem - a jury may put more stock in a ShotSpotter result than the cop's testimony about a bullet. But in this case, the ShotSpotter "result" is due precisely to that testimony.
Never mind the fact that ShotSpotter microphones are powerful enough to pick up loud conversations [2]:
> The apparent ability of ShotSpotter to record voices on the street raises questions about privacy rights and highlights another example of how emerging technologies can pose challenges to enforcing the law while also protecting civil liberties.
Predictive policing will require large-scale data collection, and policing institutions don't seem to always use it the way we'd want them to.
[1] https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/four-problems-w...
[2] https://www.southcoasttoday.com/story/news/crime/2012/01/11/...