If your blood doesn’t boil with anger (at least metaphorically) when you read this report, I suggest there’s something severely out of kilter with your moral sense.
On May 31 last year, 25-year-old Safarain Herring was shot in the head and dropped off at St. Bernard Hospital in Chicago by a man named Michael Williams. He died two days later.
Chicago police eventually arrested the 64-year-old Williams and charged him with murder (Williams maintains that Herring was hit in a drive-by shooting). A key piece of evidence in the case is video surveillance footage showing Williams’ car stopped on the 6300 block of South Stony Island Avenue at 11:46 p.m.—the time and location where police say they know Herring was shot.
How did they know that’s where the shooting happened? Police said ShotSpotter, a surveillance system that uses hidden microphone sensors to detect the sound and location of gunshots, generated an alert for that time and place.
Except that’s not entirely true, according to recent court filings.
That night, 19 ShotSpotter sensors detected a percussive sound at 11:46 p.m. and determined the location to be 5700 South Lake Shore Drive—a mile away from the site where prosecutors say Williams committed the murder, according to a motion filed by Williams’ public defender. The company’s algorithms initially classified the sound as a firework. That weekend had seen widespread protests in Chicago in response to George Floyd’s murder, and some of those protesting lit fireworks.
But after the 11:46 p.m. alert came in, a ShotSpotter analyst manually overrode the algorithms and “reclassified” the sound as a gunshot. Then, months later and after “post-processing,” another ShotSpotter analyst changed the alert’s coordinates to a location on South Stony Island Drive near where Williams’ car was seen on camera.
“Through this human-involved method, the ShotSpotter output in this case was dramatically transformed from data that did not support criminal charges of any kind to data that now forms the centerpiece of the prosecution’s murder case against Mr. Williams,” the public defender wrote in the motion.
The document is what’s known as a Frye motion—a request for a judge to examine and rule on whether a particular forensic method is scientifically valid enough to be entered as evidence. Rather than defend ShotSpotter’s technology and its employees’ actions in a Frye hearing, the prosecutors withdrew all ShotSpotter evidence against Williams.
The case isn’t an anomaly, and the pattern it represents could have huge ramifications for ShotSpotter in Chicago, where the technology generates an average of 21,000 alerts each year. The technology is also currently in use in more than 100 cities.
Motherboard’s review of court documents from the Williams case and other trials in Chicago and New York State, including testimony from ShotSpotter’s favored expert witness, suggests that the company’s analysts frequently modify alerts at the request of police departments—some of which appear to be grasping for evidence that supports their narrative of events.
There’s more at the link.
Chicago police and prosecutors clearly haven’t learned much since the Homan Square scandal blew up in their faces. Trouble is, this doesn’t involve just the Chicago police. It’s happening in other cities as well, and in other individual cases, as the report makes clear.
I know (and trust) a number of policemen. I confidently expect them to do the upright, honest, ethical thing when they investigate a crime, and I can’t conceive of them “cutting corners” and ignoring the law in order to “solve” a crime and get it off their books. Unfortunately, there are clearly a great many others who aren’t of similar mind. They’ll do whatever it takes to get a conviction, even framing an innocent man, in order to “look good” to their superiors and get a case off their books as “solved”, when in fact it’s nothing of the sort.
I want to know what happens to the police and prosecutors who asked ShotSpotter to falsify evidence in this case. I want to see them criminally charged and convicted of subornation of perjury, malfeasance in office, misprision of felony (by those who covered up for the guilty parties), felony under color of law, and a host of other offenses. If that doesn’t happen, it’ll be a double disgrace.
Sadly, I suspect that’s not likely to happen, because too many cops protect their own even when they know they’re guilty as sin. That’s the negative side of “behind the badge”.