Dem Lawmakers Rely on Cherry-Picked Data, Debunked Reports to Bash Gun-Shot Detection Tech as Racist

The head of the California-based company behind the gunshot-detection system, ShotSpotter, is accusing four Democratic lawmakers calling for a federal probe of the system of relying on cherry-picked data, misleading anecdotes, and debunked reports from critics to fit their false, anti-ShotSpotter narrative.

In an eleven-page letter this month that included more than 20 pages of exhibits, SoundThinking chief executive Ralph Clark forcefully pushed back on charges against ShotSpotter made by Massachusetts senators Edward Markey and Elizabeth Warren, Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, and Representative Ayanna Pressley Massachusetts.

The four Democrats in a May 14, letter suggested that ShotSpotter’s gunshot-detecting sensors are disproportionately located in minority neighborhoods and could lead to the over-policing of “Black, Brown, and Latino communities” in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They called on the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General to investigate federal grant spending on the product.

The lawmakers, leaning on an American Civil Liberties Union Massachusetts reports, also allege that the system has a high error rate — pointing at one point at a now-debunked claim that ShotSpotter once falsely flagged people hitting a piñata at a birthday as gunshots and alerted Boston police.

In response, Clark accused the Democrats of basing their letter off “selected news reports and studies that have been proven incorrect, incomplete or unreliable.”

“ShotSpotter works. ShotSpotter saves lives. And ShotSpotter does both while complying with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,” he wrote, adding that his company “will continue working with our partners to prioritize addressing the scourge of gun violence that has—for far too long—terrorized the most vulnerable and underserved among us.”

In his letter, Clark noted that the ACLU’s claim that in 2022 ShotSpotter was activated by loud noises from hitting a piñata were debunked by Boston police reports. The reports showed that the noises did prompt a police response, but officers were not alerted by ShotSpotter.

“Note: ShotSpotter activation did not go off during this time,” a police report obtained by the Boston Herald stated.

Clark provided several examples of ShotSpotter alerts saving lives, including a 13-year-old boy in Chicago, and leading to arrests of criminals, including a man accused of killing a Chicago officer.

Clark pushed back on the allegation that ShotSpotter violates individual civil rights by disproportionately placing its sensors in minority communities. Rather, he wrote, ShotSpotter is typically deployed “in neighborhoods with the highest rates of gun violence.”

“These geographic decisions are color-blind—they are based on empirical data,” he added.

He also pointed to research that found that black and Latino residents disproportionately support the use of ShotSpotter in their neighborhoods.

“These results do not surprise us,” he wrote. “Because communities of color unfortunately have long borne the brunt of gun-related violence, residents of these neighborhoods are among the most supportive of ShotSpotter’s benefits.”

And while the Democratic lawmakers are correct that a small number of communities have chosen recently not to renew their ShotSpotter contract, “136 communities across the country renewed over the last 12 months alone and 25 of those customers didn’t just renew, they expanded their coverage areas,” Clark wrote.

More than 150 cities across the country use ShotSpotter. Police departments often claim the technology has helped them aid or save dozens, and in some cases more than 100 lives, by alerting them to shootings where no one called 911.

But the technology has been targeted by anti-police activists who are often open about their intent to degrade police effectiveness. Chicago’s far-left mayor, Brandon Johnson, made headlines in February for canceling ShotSpotter, in part to appease the progressive activists who helped to elect him last year.

In Chicago, many of the loudest voices against ShotSpotter appear to be leftist activists and community organizers who previously were part of Defund CPD and the police-abolitionist movement that grew during the unrest of 2020.

Some ShotSpotter opponents claim that the technology is too expensive and that it confuses other loud noises — fireworks, slamming doors — for gunshots, an allegation that  SoundThinking leaders adamantly deny. But the most zealous anti-ShotSpotter activists go farther than just questioning the return on investment: They claim that the technology itself is “racist” and “evil,” and that ShotSpotter is dangerous because it sends amped up cops with itchy trigger fingers into minority neighborhoods.

Last month, the Chicago City Council approved an order intended to block Johnson from removing ShotSpotter technology from neighborhoods that want to continue using it. Clark noted that vote in his letter to the Democratic lawmakers.

Clark sent his letter to the Democrats on June 10. In it, he invited each of them to visit the company’s Washington D.C.-based Incident Review Center “so we can provide a demonstration of our technology and how it assists law enforcement and saves lives.”

None of the lawmakers has taken Clark up on the invitation, a company spokesman said.