The proposal would have allowed San Francisco police officers to use robots that can use deadly force against suspects. The SFPD has about a dozen robots typically used to survey areas human officers can't reach and to defuse potential bombs, according to NPR.
The proposal surprised many in the robotics and policing community, said Illah Nourbakhsh, the K&L Gates Professor of Ethics and Computational Technologies at Carnegie Mellon University.
Nourbakhsh said many did not expect the proposal to be brought up without warning, and the resulting backlash was strong. Still, Nourbakhsh said, the future of police robots with deadly force capabilities probably doesn't end in San Francisco.
"We don't know how many robots with deadly force capabilities are being used with the Army, and with the police forces, we probably don't know what is going on, either," he said.
David Harris, a national policing expert and law professor at the University of Pittsburgh, said the news out of San Francisco shows just how easy these proposals could become reality. He noted California has a state law that requires all municipalities to list and define the authorized uses of all military-grade equipment in their police departments. He said it's likely the U.S. will see more of these lethal force robots in other cities.
"Imagine this being done in a state where that was not the law," Harris said.
Nourbakhsh and Harris said any push to use lethal force robots in municipal police departments should be met with caution, regulations and a broad focus on ethics by local governments and private robotics companies.
There is little way of knowing if that is being done.
Murrysville Police Chief Tom Seefeld said there has been no discussion among member departments of the Westmoreland County SWAT team or intent to use robots as a resource when encountering potential deadly force situations.
"Although robots are very useful for other reasons during a tactical deployment, our mission is to be very responsible, reasonable and lawful in our SWAT Team deployments and tactics," he said.
Christopher Fabec, chief for the recently organized Southern Armstrong Regional Police Department, said he is open to the idea of adding technology such as robotics to day-to-day policing.
"It could be a good resource, another tool on our belts," he said.
Because the cost for something such as a weaponized robot likely would be out of reach for any single department, several communities could split the cost in much the same way the municipalities that make up the new police department share operational expenses.
While employing technology can be useful, the chief said, he remains cautious.
"You don't want something that takes the officer out of the equation," Fabec said
Penn Township police Chief John Otto said situations where deadly force might come into play require split-second decision making.
"Are computers going to be able to make decisions like that? I don't think so," he said.
Otto agreed robots can serve a purpose in some instances and can be a way to keep human officers safe during potentially violent or dangerous situations.
Pittsburgh robotics
Pittsburgh has emerged as a national leader in the robotics industry. According to the Pittsburgh Robotics Network, there are more than 140 organizations in the local robotics industry.
Pittsburgh Public Safety spokeswoman Cara Cruz said the city's police department doesn't have robots with lethal force capabilities, and none are currently being considered.
Allegheny County Police Superintendent Christopher Kearns said the county has multiple robots, but none is "designed for a lethal purpose, and such a use has never been discussed."
The county SWAT department uses a "recon scout throw bot," said Kearns, that is meant to give the SWAT team a better look inside corners and inside houses. Another SWAT robot can't climb stairs and never has been used.
Kearns said the county police's Explosive Ordnance Disposal team, also known as the bomb squad, also has multiple robots that are used to "examine and manipulate suspicious devices at a safe distance."
Though Kearns said no lethal purposes have been considered for county robots, he indicated the policy's job is to preserve life, and the department "would always consider any option that preserves the life of hostages, innocent bystanders or first responders."
A slippery slope
Harris acknowledged there are circumstances in which lethal force robots might make sense and police departments would have a strong desire to use them.
In 2016, the Dallas Police Department used a bomb-disposal robot armed with an explosive device to kill a suspect who had shot and killed five police officers.
But Harris said local governments shouldn't allow a small number of justifiable instances to lead them to permitting the broad use of lethal force robots. He said cities have to be careful what they allow because police departments are not synonymous with the military.
Nourbakhsh said he can imagine scenarios in which humans are allowed to remotely fire lethal weapons from robots, then a next step where robots will autonomously fire but humans have veto control, followed by a reduction in the amount of time for veto control. He said these steps could be justified by police as necessary for public safety.
He also said that robots currently are far more advanced than the bomb-diffusing robots of the past. Nourbakhsh said there are legged robots that can outrun people in some instances, and automation has been making significant strides in robotics. He said there is no telling just what robots might accomplish.
"This is a never-ending wave front of capabilities," Nourbakhsh said.
Oversight needed
Because of the potential of robots to use lethal force across a broad spectrum of instances, Nourbakhsh and Harris agree more oversight needs to be created at the government level and within the private sector.
Nourbakhsh said no one fully understands what kind of mistakes robotics and automotive technology will and can make. He cited the unusual behavior of automated vehicles and the mistakes those cars make that are dissimilar to mistakes human drivers would make.
He said he encourages private robotics companies to establish ethics boards so decisions regarding robot policing can be vetted from an ethical mindset, not just one from any applications police departments desire. He also wants private robotics companies to participate in ethics training if they are selling robots to local police.
Harris notes most states don't have laws like California's, and most municipalities can use lethal force robots without first notifying the public. He said state and local governments should create oversight over the use of lethal force robots and consider regulations now.
© 2022 The Tribune-Review (Greensburg, Pa.). Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
