Public Safety Tech Under Scrutiny: How PIOs Can Navigate Privacy Concerns, Media Questions, and Public Trust Webinar Recap

Public information officers are increasingly called upon to answer questions about license plate readers (LPRs), ShotSpotter® gunshot detection, drones, and other public safety technologies. Addressing these questions effectively requires preparation long before a reporter calls. Agencies that understand how their technologies work, why they use them, and the policies governing their use are better positioned to address public concerns and build trust.

These were among the key takeaways from SoundThinking's webinar, Public Safety Tech Under Scrutiny: How PIOs Can Navigate Privacy Concerns, Media Questions, and Public Trust, which explored practical strategies for navigating difficult media questions, addressing privacy concerns, and communicating transparently with the public.

The webinar featured Ryan Walsh, Public Information Officer (PIO) for the Springfield, Massachusetts Police Department, and Dave Procopio of Regan Communications. Walsh spent about 17 years as a television news reporter and has been a PIO for the last nine, serving a city of roughly 154,000 people. Procopio was Director of Media Communications for the Massachusetts State Police from 2008 until his retirement in 2024, the first civilian to hold that role. He also spent five years as press secretary in the Suffolk County District Attorney’s Office in Boston.

Procopio described how public attitudes toward law enforcement have shifted since the years after 9/11. Technology became a major part of that scrutiny as agencies adopted LPRs, cameras, and drones. Walsh agreed, saying his office has answered questions about LPRs, ICE, and ShotSpotter in the past year alone.

The media environment has changed too. A city once had a few television stations and one or two newspapers. Now it has websites, social media creators, and residents with phones who post video before the department realizes it's gone viral. One key takeaway from the webinar is that PIOs must monitor social media because traditional outlets follow what goes viral.

Procopio’s core advice for any question about technology is to be informative, not defensive. Explain what the tool is — in plain language, not using police jargon — what value it provides, and how it supports the department’s mission. Explain the policies governing the technology, which may include restrictions on access, supervisory approval requirements, different procedures for emergencies and ongoing investigations, and reviews of how the technology is used.

Walsh also emphasized that preparation goes beyond talking points. Departments should regularly review their technology policies to ensure they reflect evolving community concerns. He described how his department proactively adjusted its LPR data-sharing policy after observing privacy debates in other communities, illustrating how agencies can address potential concerns before they become local controversies.

Procopio pointed to real-world examples of LPRs' public safety value. In Massachusetts, a plate reader on the Mass Pike helped recover a child during an Amber Alert, and another helped stop a man who had threatened a state judge before he reached the judge’s location. These examples give PIOs concrete ways to demonstrate how the technology supports public safety and why their agencies have chosen to deploy it. Procopio also shared that some PIOs may be able to share department policies with reporters. Massachusetts treats them as public records, so as a PIO, he could share them and recommended that other agencies consider doing the same.

Walsh was direct about the cost of scrambling when a reporter sends questions with a 2 p.m. deadline. He builds a one-page fact sheet before the questions arrive, working with the subject matter expert and the policy team. He tracks what is happening in other parts of the country so he knows which topics are likely to reach Springfield next. He is also on the department’s public records request list, which gives him an early look at what reporters are asking. In Massachusetts, the response window is 10 business days, and he uses that time to prepare.

He also recommended learning how each system works in the field. Watching a live ShotSpotter test gave him a better understanding of the technology than any briefing had. When he is not sure of an answer, he tells the reporter he will find out and get back to them. Walsh reminded PIOs to never guess, and never fill the silence.

A PIO’s job includes getting the chief ready. Walsh jots down three bullet points to help his chief answer questions and return to the department's central message. He rehearses with command staff, asks the hard follow-ups, and prepares them for questions they might get at a ribbon-cutting, not just in a scheduled interview. As he put it, “The last thing you want to do as a PIO is make your boss look bad.”

Procopio added that PIOs need a seat at the table. That means access to decision-makers and legal counsel, since legal input shapes what can be released. Who delivers the response matters, and in some cases public trust is better served when the chief steps forward. Procopio also recommended reviewing any operation's timeline for details an outsider would question and preparing answers before the press conference.

Both panelists described a reservoir of goodwill with reporters, built on ordinary days. That means sharing routine, positive news; staying reachable nights and weekends; and meeting with news directors and editors once or twice a year to set expectations. Walsh also offers behind-the-scenes access, such as ride-alongs in hot spot neighborhoods, so reporters see the work firsthand.

When a sensitive issue is emerging, both panelists recommended proactively engaging reporters who have demonstrated a commitment to fair, accurate coverage. Providing context and firsthand access can help reporters better understand complex issues and produce more informed coverage. Walsh also recommended recording sensitive or potentially contentious interviews with command staff, consistent with applicable laws and department policies, to preserve an accurate record of the conversation. He also advised reading the full story before reacting, since someone other than the reporter often writes the headline.

Walsh tracks key numbers by hand, including firearms seized, ShotSpotter activity, and officer use of Narcan, and releases them on anniversaries or in annual reports. When ShotSpotter became a topic of debate in Massachusetts, he pulled Springfield’s data. About 70 percent of the time when there was evidence of a shooting or an actual shooting, no one called 911. The finding helped him illustrate how gunshot detection can alert police to shooting incidents that might otherwise go unreported, potentially delaying assistance to victims.

Springfield’s real-time analysis center gained access to school department cameras, and the community pushed back on the idea of police watching students. Walsh explained that the department has established specific restrictions on access to school cameras. Under those policies, access is limited to crime analysts responding to significant incidents, such as an active shooter or fire. The department invited city council members and every member of the school committee to see how it works, extending invitations five or six times. One committee member visited, and Walsh believed the experience helped build support for the technology. He emphasized that giving elected officials and other stakeholders the opportunity to see the technology firsthand can help address concerns, clarify safeguards, and encourage more informed public discussions.

Walsh used the same approach with ShotSpotter. When the technology drew pushback, city council members were in the center when an alert came in, and city cameras turned to the location. Seeing it happen was very different from reading about it in the newspaper.

Procopio noted a time when troopers used a phone app from another vendor to record audio during undercover drug buys, for officer safety. The recordings were not provided to defendants as discovery rules require, and the issue surfaced through a defendant’s case.

The department acknowledged the missteps and explained the app's intended purpose. It reviewed how widely the app had been used and for how long, then shared the results with the courts, the defense bar, district attorneys, political leaders, the media, and the public. Solutions included policy changes and an order from the colonel. Some cases were dismissed. Procopio’s lesson was that when an agency gets something wrong, it should be honest, transparent, and part of the solution.

Taken together, the panelists' advice offers a practical framework for communicating about public safety technology before, during, and after a media inquiry:

•        Understand the technology, the policies that govern it, and the reporters covering your agency.

•        Anticipate questions, including those raised by stories in other parts of the country.

•        Explain the technology in plain language and share the policies that support your points.

•        Answer fully, include foreseeable follow-ups, and be honest about what is still unknown.

•        Stay transparent and accessible, and acknowledge legitimate problems.

You can’t control the questions. But you can control how ready you are to answer them.

Walsh said no one has a perfect answer for getting a story out the way you want, but preparation, honesty, and relationships with reporters improve your odds. Procopio reminded attendees that technology is a tool and not the police officer. Departments adopt it to protect their communities, and the better prepared a PIO is, the better the department can explain that.

For PIOs, the larger lesson is that public trust cannot be built through messaging alone. It requires understanding the technology, being willing to scrutinize the policies governing it, and developing relationships with reporters and community stakeholders before questions arise. The most effective communications strategies begin well before an agency finds itself under scrutiny.