Is Squad Car Technology Distracting Police Officers?

Teenagers are infamous for it. Most responsible adults wouldn't want to admit that they do it. But now, should we add the state's police officers to the list of distracted drivers?

A group of students from St. Mary's University (SMU) think so.

Student researchers at SMU have concluded that the amount of technology inside a police squad car may be contributing to a growing number of police-involved auto crashes. Conducted at the request of the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT), the Graduate School of Public Safety Administration study focuses on 378 police-involved crashes between 2006-10. 

According to the SMU study, the total cost of the 378 closed crashes was $1,188,666, with distracted driving accounting for 14 percent of claims and 17 percent of costs.

Moreover, technology inside the squad car was said to have played a role in 12 percent of claims and account for 24 percent of costs.

Locally, Orono Police Chief Correy Farniok and Wayzata Police Chief Mike Risvold said their departments have each had just one crash involving an officer since 2006. Both occurred during pursuits, and Chief Farniok and Risvold said technology inside the squad car did not play a factor in either instance.

“The only other police vehicle crash since I have been chief in Wayzata (2004) was a vehicle driving through a red light and striking the squad,” Chief Risvold said. “Again, not technology related.”

Chief Farniok went on to stress that modern technology allows crash investigators to determine whether an officer was on the phone, texting or otherwise distracted in the seconds preceding a crash.

“All of our squad cars are equipped with cameras that also record audio,” he said. “If there is a crash they record the previous 15 seconds, and we can tell if they were on the phone, texting inappropriately or whatever.”

SMU researchers also noted in their limitations section a distinct culture within law enforcement that may be skewing some of the data. Put simply, officers may not be completely truthful when recounting the details of a crash for fear of disciplinary action.

The study states"individual departmental policies and procedures presented an additional difficulty in gathering accurate data. An officer will be closely scrutinized following involvement in a work related crash. An officer who shows inattention, carelessness, or distraction while performing essential duties is at-risk for departmental discipline. Ultimately, discipline may lead to termination. It is understood that an officer may weigh these factors when giving a statement regarding the facts of a crash."

Chief Farniok, however, dismissed those assertions and clearly laid out the policy of his department—which he said is mirrored by departments across the state.

“It’s better to be truthful, because if I find out you lie during the course of an investigation there will be either a long-term suspension or termination—there’s no discretion,” he said. 

Wayzata’s top cop defended the use of technology in squad cars, pointing to increased public safety and faster response capabilities.

“Officers are being asked to use more and more technology in the squad car,” Risvold said. “They must balance officer safety, the safety of the public, and department policy when using that technology. Technology in the squad car, when used properly, can aid in officer safety, the public's safety and create great efficiencies.”

While 378 crashes involving police vehicles over a four-year span may seem negligible, the study notes that “48 percent of the closed claim files did not state clearly whether the crash was influenced by technology as reported by the claims adjuster or officer." At the time of the study, the researchers were also not given access to 47 open cases of police-involved auto crashes between 2006-10, which they admit could further prove their conclusions.

The researchers are also calling for the creation of a statewide program in which law enforcement officers are trained to recognize the increased risk associated with the use of technology while driving.

Washington County Sheriff Bill Hutton on Wednesday supported a rethink of what law enforcement agencies are asking officers to do in the field. His comments came during a keynote speech at SMU in which he discussed the perils and prevalence of distracted driving among law enforcement officers.

"We're hiring techy young recruits to operate all the new pieces of equipment while driving at the same time," Hutton said. "When they can't do that, we write in our reports that they can't multitask. We need a fundamental shift in thinking."

Washington County spans from Scandia in the north to Denmark Township down south, but 46 percent of all damage to cruisers comes from striking or running over wildlife, Hutton explained.

Hutton gave an anecdotal account of one deputy who struck a racoon while driving the speed limit along a rural route. The damages, he said, rang in at $3500.

"In my day, we relied heavily on the radio. But all updates now come through on (deputies') computer screens," Hutton said. "I don't know how we can ask people to (drive and watch computer screens) safely." 

Hutton's remarks were supported by St. Mary's University psychologist Dr. Kenneth Solberg, who spoke at length on brain function while multitasking.

"Using a computer while driving is a bad idea because both functions require engagement from the same part of the brain," Solberg explained. "The ability to multitask depends on how similar the tasks are and how familiar they are to the person doing them."