From Fingerprints to License Plate Readers: Why Innovation Matters in Public Safety and What History Can Teach Us

“Trust, legitimacy, ethics, compassion, courage, and accountability are not products of algorithms. They remain human responsibilities. As machines become more capable, wise leadership and principled institutions will matter even more.”

Throughout history, nearly every major advancement in policing has faced skepticism. License plate readers are no exception.

When fingerprinting emerged in the early twentieth century, critics questioned its reliability and raised privacy concerns. DNA technology faced similar resistance. So did 911 systems, police call boxes, mobile data computers, automatic vehicle locators, in-car cameras, body-worn cameras, TASERs, drones, acoustic detection systems, and other tools that are now part of modern public safety.

At the time, many of these technologies were described as expensive, intrusive, unnecessary, or dangerous. Body-worn cameras, for example, were introduced in many places from a posture of distrust: prove what happened because people do not believe you. TASERs were often framed as inherently brutal or deadly. Like any tool, there are outliers and legitimate concerns, but much of the early criticism around emerging technology has often proven to be more alarmist than accurate.

Today, few would argue that these innovations failed to make policing better.

Modern license plate reader systems belong in that same lineage. Arguably, no investigative technology since DNA has had a greater impact on solving crimes than license plate readers.

That should not surprise us. We are a vehicle-based society, and vehicles are connected to a significant amount of crime. Suspects arrive in them, leave in them, use them to move stolen property, or are otherwise associated with them before, during, or after an offense.

This is also why precision matters. We know crime is not evenly distributed across a city. A small percentage of places often account for a large share of crime, and in many environments, a relatively small number of people, places, and patterns drive a disproportionate amount of harm. That reality should push us toward smarter, more focused public safety strategies.

The goal is not to cast a wide net. The goal is to fish with a spear.

When used responsibly, license plate readers help agencies focus investigative attention where it is most relevant, reduce guesswork, and avoid broad, inefficient enforcement approaches that can create unnecessary community impacts and disparate outcomes.

Like fingerprints and DNA, license plate readers do not prevent or solve every crime. They are not magic, and they are not a substitute for good police work. They provide information that was previously unavailable or would have taken countless hours to obtain. The same is true of smart computer vision cameras and video management systems that can quickly detect, decode, and deliver images to detectives and analysts — work that previously could take hours or days.

These tools help identify suspect vehicles, locate hit-and-run drivers, recover stolen cars, and develop investigative leads. In many cases, they allow officers and detectives to do what they have always done — faster, more accurately, and with greater accountability.

Innovation in policing has never been about replacing people. It has always been about giving good people better tools.

Henry Ford is often credited with saying that if he had asked people what they wanted, they would have said “faster horses.” Whether or not the quote is exact, the lesson remains relevant. Progress often requires leaders willing to responsibly embrace innovation rather than preserve the status quo out of fear.

Had we rejected fingerprints, countless cases would have gone unsolved. Had we refused DNA analysis, or later familial genealogy, investigators would have lost one of the most powerful tools ever developed for identifying offenders and exonerating the innocent. Had we dismissed body-worn cameras, we would have forfeited one of the greatest tools for transparency and accountability. Had we rejected mobile computers and automatic vehicle locators, officers would still rely almost entirely on radio traffic and paper reports. Had we refused drones outright, officers would continue entering certain scenes without the ability to first create time, distance, better information, and safer outcomes.

History teaches us that disruptive technologies often become indispensable technologies.

License plate reader systems are following that same path. They do not replace the instincts, experience, or judgment of officers and investigators. They provide information that once required significant manual effort or was not available at all. Like the technologies before them, they can make policing more efficient, more accurate, and more accountable when used with clear policy, oversight, and purpose.

That does not mean there is no potential for misuse. Of course there is. The same could be said of running plates through dispatch, querying databases, accessing video, or using crowdsourced camera systems. The answer is not to reject useful tools outright. The answer is strong policy, regular audits, clear retention rules, proper training, and accountability.

So what comes next?

Artificial intelligence will likely be the next truly transformative force in public safety. AI will help analyze evidence, summarize reports, identify crime patterns, translate languages, improve dispatch operations, and reduce administrative burdens that consume officer time. Drone-as-first-responder programs, real-time sensor networks, robotics, and advanced analytics may further reshape how agencies prevent, investigate, and respond to crime.

These tools must be approached thoughtfully and with appropriate safeguards. Healthy debate is necessary. Privacy, accountability, bias, transparency, and policy all matter. But history suggests the question is not whether innovation will arrive. It already has.

The real question is whether we will shape it responsibly or allow fear to delay progress.

There is also a broader societal issue emerging. As AI becomes more capable, the future may be shaped less by labor alone and more by intelligence, energy, raw materials, and trust. Some technology leaders, including Elon Musk, have argued that energy may become one of civilization’s greatest constraints. If intelligent machines become widely available, then the ability to generate, distribute, and responsibly use massive amounts of energy may become a defining source of national power and economic wealth.

That has direct implications for public safety.

AI can help society accelerate medical discoveries, improve transportation, expand education, increase food production, and make communities safer. But the same tools can also be used to create deepfakes, synthetic identities, automated fraud, cyberattacks, drone swarms, and new forms of crime that move faster than traditional systems were built to handle. Future criminals and terrorists may possess capabilities that were once available only to nation states.

Policing will have to adapt.

Tomorrow’s police departments may include AI specialists, drone operators, cyber investigators, robotics technicians, digital forensic analysts, and real-time crime center personnel working alongside traditional officers. The work will still involve people, victims, neighborhoods, and harm. But the tools, speed, and threat environment will look very different.

The greatest challenge may not be technological. It may be preserving human judgment while recognizing a simple truth about human nature: we often resist change, even when we are dissatisfied with the status quo. The familiar phrase applies to all of us — we hate the way things are, and we hate change.

Trust, legitimacy, ethics, compassion, courage, and accountability are not products of algorithms. They remain human responsibilities. As machines become more capable, wise leadership and principled institutions will matter even more.

We should also be honest about the world we already live in. Society routinely allows social media algorithms and private data companies to collect our clicks, likes, searches, locations, and conversations to build profiles around our behavior. Private facial recognition platforms can identify people from uploaded photos with limited public scrutiny. Yet when public safety agencies use regulated tools to solve crimes, recover stolen property, locate violent offenders, or protect victims, the debate often becomes far more heated.

That does not mean public safety gets a free pass. It means the conversation should be balanced, honest, and grounded in outcomes, safeguards, and accountability.

Public safety has always adapted to the future. The men and women who embraced fingerprints, radios, 911 systems, mobile computers, DNA, TASERs, drones, and body-worn cameras were not abandoning the fundamentals of policing. They were building upon them.

License plate readers are another chapter in that same story.

And somewhere, right now, another disruptive technology is emerging that future generations may wonder how we ever lived without.

Progress has always belonged to those willing to responsibly innovate.

About the author

Chief Jason Potts leads the Las Vegas Department of Public Safety. To read his bio, click here.