Are a large proportion of ShotSpotter alerts inaccurate because police find no evidence?

It is erroneous to assume that the failure to find physical evidence at a ShotSpotter alert location means that an alert was “inaccurate.” Many gunfire incidents, particularly in urban environments, may not leave physical recoverable evidence that first responders can locate and recover. For example, shooters may remove shell casings, police may arrive after a scene has cleared, the gunfire may occur in an area where physical evidence is obscured, or the shooter may have used a revolver, which, unlike a semi-automatic weapon, does not eject casings.

Nevertheless, ShotSpotter has been shown to improve evidence collection by responding officers to shooting incidents. For example, according to the Urban Institute, police departments using ShotSpotter have a rate of finding shell casings that is up to three times higher due to the precise location provided by ShotSpotter alerts. Shell casings are critical evidence in an investigation that can be used to identify the gun that was fired, and ultimately identify and prosecute a suspect.

Comments are closed.