

Can Software That Predicts Crime Pass Constitutional Muster? - bountie
http://www.npr.org/2013/07/26/205835674/can-software-that-predicts-crime-pass-constitutional-muster

======
jessriedel
Wikipedia:

> Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard of proof in United States law that
> is less than probable cause, the legal standard for arrests and warrants,
> but more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch' "; it
> must be based on "specific and articulable facts", "taken together with
> rational inferences from those facts".

I don't see how software changes this. Police have been concentrating their
patrol time (and hence stop frequency) on high-crime areas since time
immemorial. This is just a more accurate tool for that. Actual detainment will
still require justification based on the particular circumstances and actions
by the individual, just like they always have.

------
jamesaguilar
As long as they're not investigating any particular person or entering any
private space uninvited, I can't imagine how the constitution would limit
where the police choose to patrol.

~~~
jessriedel
With regard to constitutional issues, the article refers explicitly to stops
(temporary detainments) which require 'reasonable suspicion'.

------
adventured
If it's based on crime statistics, this software would be heavily oriented
toward black communities. My guess is that will be regarded as racist /
profiling. I think even more than a Constitutional issue, you're going to run
into social sensitivities around profiling.

~~~
DannyBee
The thing about these statistics is that they are usually statistics on where
reported crimes occur, and reported crimes of certain types.

Crime is essentially infinite these days. I could walk down the street in any
neighborhood, and in the vast multitude of federal and state statutes, I would
feel comfortable that i could arrest every single person i met for something.

Maybe they wouldn't get convicted. But i would legally be able to arrest them.

So then the question becomes "what kinds of crimes do we want o prevent, and
where do these occur", _that_ is what gets you into profiling, because it is
actually profiling. You are making value judgements about what kinds of crimes
you want to be looking for. Because of socioeconomic and other statuses, the
offender profiles for these crimes differ, etc.

Even if you only make the value judgements, and do so blind to race, it's
still profiling, just "offender profiling" rather than "racial profiling".

