OnPolicing Blog

Editor’s note: Elina Jadhav is a Northern Virginia student researcher whose work focuses on technology, public policy, and civil liberties. Earlier this year, The Privacy Center at Georgetown University invited her to write about police use of surveillance technology in connection with a research project she was then pursuing. Elina brought a strong understanding of the subject and a sustained interest in how technology, including artificial intelligence, is shaping policing. She wrote this article in summer 2026, as national debate over automated license plate readers was intensifying. Although OnPolicing typically features perspectives from law enforcement leaders and public safety professionals, Elina’s article offers a valuable youth and community perspective on decisions that will shape policing, privacy, and public trust for years to come.

Young people have grown up with facial recognition, location tracking, and algorithms operating quietly in the background of everyday life. That familiarity does not mean we are less concerned about how those same technologies are used by police. In a 2026 national survey of 1,435 Americans, 67.6% of adults ages 25–34 opposed police use of license plate readers, compared with 40.6% of those 65 and older. That divide is worth paying attention to as departments consider police technologies that younger generations may live with for decades.

Artificial intelligence is becoming woven into the infrastructure of policing: sorting information, guiding investigations, and supporting officers in the field. For young people like me, however, these systems do not feel entirely new. We have grown up in the shadow of facial recognition, automated recommendations, location tracking, and forms of data collection that feel ordinary enough to escape scrutiny.

That familiarity does not necessarily produce understanding. It can instead make police technology feel inevitable, even when its use raises important questions about privacy, trust, and public participation.

During an earlier research project on AI and surveillance technologies in policing, I expected to focus primarily on accuracy and legal oversight. But the interviews kept pulling me toward a less technical question, and perhaps a more revealing one: when does the public learn that a technology is being considered, and how much of the decision remains open at that point?

That question stood out to me as a student. Young people are often invited to share their views after a proposal has already taken shape, leaving more room to influence implementation than the underlying decision.

Some agencies are already working to involve communities earlier. While writing this article, I spoke with a senior commander responsible for technology and integration in a large metropolitan law enforcement agency. What was shared with me was described as a basic condition of police work: “We only do that with the trust of the community.” The commander’s comment points to a broader issue for agencies considering AI: how exactly can the trust of entire communities be incorporated before adoption, rather than addressed only afterward?

When Community Input Can Still Matter

Public involvement does not mean residents make operational decisions, but it should mean that concerns are solicited and heard before it’s too late to be considered.

The commander offered the agency’s license plate reader program as an example of what timely community input may look like. The agency began by reconsidering its older license plate reader system and deciding what type of tool it needed. The agency consulted government leaders, met with representatives from the local NAACP, and spoke with local businesses about crimes they were seeing.

After those conversations, the agency developed training and policy before moving into procurement and review.
Community input came before implementation. The agency’s decision on facial recognition offers an even clearer example. The commander described how the agency had tested facial recognition and found it effective. State law would allow the agency to create a program. It has still chosen not to adopt one because residents repeatedly said they were uncomfortable with the technology, particularly the risk that officers could act too quickly on a possible match.

In that case, the community did not merely influence the wording of a policy. It affected whether the agency used the system at all.

Meaningful engagement should leave open the possibility of a different outcome. Sometimes that may mean narrowing how a system is used. Other times, it may mean waiting or deciding that the technology should not be adopted at all.

Start With the Problem, Not the Police Technology Product

When an agency begins a public meeting by presenting a product it has already selected, the discussion is narrow from the start. Residents can ask about safeguards, but the agency has already assumed that the technology is the answer.

A stronger process would begin with the problem. An agency might explain that investigators are taking too long to search existing records or that a specific type of theft has increased. Community members can then respond to the need itself. They may explain how the problem affects a neighborhood or question whether a technical system is the best response.

This also gives residents a chance to ask practical questions before a contract is signed. What information will the system collect? Will it gather data about people who are not suspected of a crime? How long will that information remain available? What must an officer do before acting on an automated result? How can someone challenge a mistake? The agency may not know every answer yet. That is a reason to begin the conversation early.

More Than a Youth Perspective on Police Technology

Young people are often called “the future,” but police technology already shapes the environments we move through. It can appear in schools, public spaces and the ordinary routines of daily life long before we are old enough to vote.

My generation has grown up close to artificial intelligence, close enough that we sometimes stop noticing it. Facial recognition opens our phones. Algorithms arrange what we watch. Platforms collect fragments of our behavior in the background. None of this makes us experts, but it does give us a particular familiarity with how quickly technology can become ordinary.

Young people may also raise questions that do not always appear in a technical review. Would a student know if an automated system contributed to an encounter with police? Could the possibility of monitoring affect whether someone attends a protest? If a system made a mistake, would a teenager know where to seek an explanation?

These questions are also about how young people first encounter public institutions. A listening session or youth council may be one of a student’s earliest experiences of civic participation. When students are included while decisions are still developing, they are more likely to see public engagement as something that can shape policy rather than simply respond to it.

That is why one youth advisory board is not enough, especially if it includes only the students already comfortable speaking to authority. Agencies should meet young people where they are, in schools, libraries and community organizations, and involve them before adoption. They should also explain what changed because of that input. When the important choices have already been made, today’s listening session can make tomorrow’s invitation harder to trust.

Listen Beyond the Loudest Voices

Early engagement also raises a difficult question: who is actually being heard?

Public meetings often draw people who have time to attend or already hold strong views. Their concerns matter, but they may not represent everyone affected by the decision. As the commander l told me, “The loudest person in the room sometimes is not always representative of the whole.”

The commander pointed to victims of crime, who may support a new tool but may not want to speak publicly. The same problem applies in the other direction. A teenager who distrusts the technology, an immigrant unfamiliar with local government, or a parent working two jobs may never attend a hearing. Opening a meeting to the public is therefore not enough. Agencies should also use anonymous surveys, small-group sessions, and outreach through organizations residents already trust.

There may be no single community position. Some residents may prioritize faster investigations, while others worry about privacy or misuse. The purpose of engagement is not to erase that disagreement. It is to make the tradeoffs visible before the agency decides.

Keep the Conversation Going

Police technology programs change after launch. Agencies add uses, revise policies, and discover problems that were not obvious during procurement. Public engagement should continue for as long as the system remains in use.
The agency I spoke with as I was writing this pointed to a Real-Time Crime Center transparency page, tours, and published updates about its technology programs. The commander also described inviting strong critics of the agency’s license plate reader system into the center for extended conversations.

According to the commander, in one meeting, the department changed some of its practices after hearing a critic’s recommendations, while the critic reconsidered parts of the stated position after learning how the system operated.

That is a better measure of engagement than whether criticism disappears. A useful conversation can leave disagreement in place while still changing policy and correcting misunderstandings.

The commander was direct about the alternative: “Any of these programs that try to live in the shadows and implement first are wrong.”
Agencies should regularly explain what a system is doing, what it is not doing, and what results it has produced. A tool may help solve crimes while creating confusion about how residents are monitored. Ongoing review gives agencies a chance to correct those problems before they become permanent.

Before the Answer Becomes Inevitable

Artificial intelligence will continue to enter policing, often faster than policies and public understanding can keep up. That pressure makes it tempting to finish the technical work first and speak with the public afterward. By then, however, the most important decision may already be closed.

Early engagement will not produce agreement on every technology. It may slow down a purchase or force an agency to confront concerns it would rather resolve internally. It can also produce stronger policies and show agencies when opposition reflects a serious risk to trust.

As a young person, I do not expect students to control police technology decisions. I do expect us to be treated as members of the community who can ask serious questions about systems that may affect our schools, neighborhoods, and participation in public life.
There is a meaningful difference between hearing, “Here is the technology we are adopting,” and being asked, “Here is the problem we are trying to solve. What should we understand before we decide?” Trust may begin with that difference.

About the Author

Elina Jadhav is a high school researcher from Ashburn, Virginia with interests in technology, public policy, and civil liberties. Her work examines how surveillance technologies become embedded in policing and everyday life, and how young people can help shape the decisions surrounding their use. She previously published on this topic with The Privacy Center at Georgetown University in “Questioning the Normalization of Surveillance.”