Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 11:34 am
Time: 11:34 am
Results for automobile theft (arizona)
1 results foundAuthor: Taylor, Bruce Title: Combating Auto Theft in Arizona: A Randomized Experiment with License Plate Recognition Technology Summary: License Plate Recognition Technology (LPR) is a relatively new tool for law enforcement that reads license plates on vehicles using a system of algorithms, optical character recognition, cameras, and databases. Through high-speed camera systems mounted on police cars or at fixed locations, LPR systems scan license plates in real time, and compare them against databases of stolen vehicles, as well as vehicles connected to fugitives or other persons of interest, and alert police personnel to any matches. Although the use of LPR technology is extensive in the United Kingdom and becoming more prevalent in the United States, research on LPR effectiveness is very limited, particularly with respect to how LPR use affects crime. This report presents results from a randomized field experiment with LPRs conducted by the Police Executive Research Forum and the Mesa, Arizona Police Department (MPD) to target the problem of auto theft. The experiment sought to determine whether and to what extent LPR use improves the ability of police to recover stolen cars, apprehend auto thieves, and deter auto theft. We did this by examining the operations of a specialized 4-car MPD auto theft unit that worked in auto theft hot spots over a period of time both with and without LPR devices. The experiment was conducted in two phases. Phase 1 of the study, which lasted 30 weeks, involved operations focused on “hot routes”—high risk road segments, averaging 0.5 miles in length, that we believed auto thieves were likely to use based on analysis of auto theft and recovery locations and the input of detectives. At randomly selected times over this 30-week period, officers worked 45 randomly assigned routes using the LPR equipment (each police car was equipped with an LPR system) and another 45 randomly selected routes doing extensive manual checks of license plates. An additional 27 routes were randomly assigned to serve as a control group for the analysis of trends in auto theft. (These routes received only normal patrol operations.) In Phase 2, conducted over 18 weeks, operations shifted to larger “hot zones” of auto theft activity that averaged about 1 square mile in size. Fifty-four hot zones were identified and randomly assigned to the same conditions as in Phase 1. At randomly selected times during Phase 2 officers worked 18 zones using the LPRs and another 18 zones doing manual license checks. The remaining 18 zones served as a control group that received only normal patrol. Each phase involved the same number of officers working approximately one hour a day in each LPR and manual route/zone for eight days spread over two weeks. (For purposes of surveillance, investigation, and pursuit, the auto theft unit operated as a team with all officers working in the same route or zone at the same time.) The main difference was that in Phase 2 the officers conducted more roving surveillance. Experimental results showed that LPR use considerably enhanced the productivity of the auto theft unit in checking license plates, detecting stolen vehicles and plates, apprehending auto thieves, and recovering stolen vehicles. Combining results across both phases, the use of LPRs resulted in 8 to 10 times more plates checked, nearly 3 times as many “hits” for stolen vehicles, and twice as many vehicle recoveries. Further, all hits for stolen plates, all arrests for stolen vehicles or plates, and all recoveries of occupied vehicles were attributable to use of the LPRs (all arrests for stolen vehicles and recoveries of occupied vehicles occurred in Phase 1). Across both phases, use of the LPRs produced 36 hits for stolen vehicles or plates, 5 arrests for stolen vehicles or plates, and 14 vehicle recoveries (4 of which involved occupied vehicles). These numbers are modest relative to the time officers spent using the LPRs (the officers worked 192 shifts over the course of the two phases, using LPRs approximately half of the time); however, the results were constrained by a number of factors, including limits on the data that were entered into the LPR system (which consisted primarily of state-level data on stolen automobiles), relatively low levels of auto theft in Mesa during the experiment, and, perhaps most importantly, the design of the experiment, which required the officers to work the locations according to a predetermined, randomized schedule (in order to ensure that the places and times worked with LPRs were comparable to the places and times worked without LPRs). Data from other operations by the auto theft unit suggest that officers using LPRs can improve hits for stolen vehicles considerably when targeting operations based on recent theft data and daily traffic patterns. Our experiment primarily demonstrates the improvements in productivity that police can achieve using LPRs relative to manual license checks under equal conditions. LPR use did not reduce crime in the hot routes and zones, though note that the dosage of LPR intervention in each location was modest. However, the manual license check operations produced shortterm reductions in auto theft during Phase 1 of the experiment. We speculate that the unit had a more visible presence when doing manual checks because they spent more time moving along the main routes as well as roaming parking lots, apartment complexes, and side streets—often at slow speeds and with frequent pauses. This may have made the officers more conspicuous and made it more obvious to onlookers that they were checking vehicles. These effects were likely intensified by the smaller locations the officers worked during Phase 1. When using the LPRs in Phase 1, in contrast, the officers were more likely to make quick passes through side streets and parking lots and then remain at fixed positions along the route. Finally, we did not find evidence of crime displacement or a diffusion of crime control benefits associated with either form of patrol in either phase. We conclude by discussing limitations of the study, questions for future research, and policy implications of the results (such as how police might optimize the use of LPRs to improve recoveries of stolen vehicles and apprehension of auto thieves while also achieving the crime reduction benefits of the manual license check patrols). Details: Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum, 2011. 71p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 18, 2013 at: http://www.policeforum.org/library/technology/FinalreportPERFLPRstudy12-7-11submittedtoNIJ.PDF Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.policeforum.org/library/technology/FinalreportPERFLPRstudy12-7-11submittedtoNIJ.PDF Shelf Number: 129020 Keywords: Automobile Theft (Arizona)License Plate Recognition TechnologyMotor Vehicle Theft |