Robots in law enforcement -- today and tomorrow

Everyone involved in law enforcement robotics wonders at (and is trying to shape) the future of robots in our field. Robots have a relatively extensive history in law enforcement, but mostly in the special operations end of the LE spectrum. EOD teams have long been required to be equipped with heavy-duty robots that do many of the functions of a suited-up bomb tech—and with good reason, since explosive devices are inherently unpredictable and their detonation usually causes catastrophic damage to anyone nearby. It’s certainly preferable to risk a machine over a person. While robots are making inroads into other areas of law enforcement, their presence is far from universal. The use and type of robot in “tactical” scenarios is wide open.

FBI requirements for EOD teams requires robots with certain characteristics be a part of the bomb squad toolbox. The operational parameters for EOD robots are fairly straightforward since the end functionality is to render safe a suspicious device. Speed is not an issue, though weight-pulling and the ability to withstand the recoil of a PAN disruptor is.  There are only a handful of robots that meet those specs, so choices are few. Remotec and ICORR are the most common types in non-military use in the US today.

A growing segment of the robotics market is the “tactical” robot. There is no universal standard for what constitutes a tactical robot. Similarly, there is no standard for what is truly a tactical situation. Typically, “tactical” in law enforcement means “SWAT.” That limited application of the term “tactical” reflects an equally limited view of tactical strategies for day-to-day law enforcement. Having been a deputy in a high crime area, I can say that there are two schools of thought for patrol officers: those that put a high level of tactical thought and planning into their daily jobs—how to approach a subject house, how to approach a traffic stop—and those who find tactical thinking to be “overkill,” more for the SWAT wannabees and young guys still fired up about their jobs.

Currently, tactical robots are used mostly by SWAT or other fast response teams. They are deployed on a situational basis on high-risk calls only. There are no universal standards for tactical robots and their use is far more idiosyncratic than in any other aspect of the profession. The comparatively giant EOD robots like the Remotec F6 series are too large and heavy for most SWAT purposes, so mini-robots, eight balls, and throwbots all have found their place in the tactical team toolbox. While they are all useful, they have serious limitations or shortcomings. Throwbot and minis get caught up in clothes and shoes on the ground. They can’t see on top of beds or over couches. They can’t open doors.

Worse still is the small robots’ ridiculously short range of operation and of radio control.  Often, operators have to walk the robot from cover to an area where it can penetrate a subject location to get intel. At a training operation last year, I watched as two cover officers with AR-15s accompanying a robot operator, weapon slung, who drove their small tactical robot about 100 feet ahead. Why, I asked the operator? “Because our control system doesn’t go that far so we have to walk it up.” This kind of operational necessity is an example of technology not meeting the needs of the user. What is really needed is a good mid-size robot with long range and useful functions.

In Oregon, Sergeant Tristan Sundsted is the head of the Washington County Sheriff’s Office robot unit. Yes, robot unit. Their operations are far and away the most advance and forward-thinking of any I’ve come across in my travels in the US a robotics company marketing director. Sgt. Sundsted is setting the bar high for other law enforcement professionals. (For the record, neither he nor his agency are customers of my company; I report on them simply because they are doing it right.) Sgt. Sundsted's team has spent more time on the ground using robots than possibly any unit out there. As a former EOD team member, I am pretty adept at using a robot to get the job done, but the diversity and range of uses the Washington County team's robots see on a weekly basis far outstrips the typical bomb guy's experiences.

Sgt. Sundsted reports that standard operating procedure for their sheriff’s office is to use robots wherever and whenever possible. Each patrol shift heads out with a robot. Robots are used in conjunction with or in place of a dog. If a fugitive hides in a building, SOP in many agencies is to clear the structure manually: officers enter and execute a room-by-room search. We’ve all done it. It can be nerve wracking and dangerous. Other agencies release a K9 into the building. The dog smells around and finds the bad guy. While this second option keeps the human officers out of harm’s way, it does nothing for intel gathering. A dog can get shot and then all we know is that there is an armed fugitive in the building. Somewhere.

The third and fourth options are to send a dog and a robot or just a robot. A robot alone can be effective depending on the size and contents of the building but a robot-and-dog team could be unbeatable. It may be possible to dodge a robot’s video camera sweep, but you can’t hide your smell. Once located, the robot can go in for closer examination and send back live video streams of what the suspect is up to, possibly showing weapons or booby traps.

The limitations of robots in such a patrol scenario are obvious. It is conceivable that a new wave of all-terrain, high-speed robots will be available to meet the need for fast pursuit over longer distances but there has to be some advances in technology before this is realistic. LE robots are battery powered, and range is an issue, particularly when on-board lighting and rough terrain draw power, as well. Speed, too, can be a deal-breaker. Few robots can outrun a man, particularly in open terrain. Digital control latency--the lag time between signals going out from a control radio to the robot and back--also becomes an issue at high speed. A robot moving at walking speed is much less likely to crash with a 1/10 of a second of latency. A robot driving at 20mph may find that fraction of a second to be just enough to make dodging a pothole or downed log impossible.

"Any time you go for high speed you also need suspension," says Lithos President and lead robot designer Allen Mann. "LE robots aren't designed with suspension at all. It's just not necessary at slow speeds, but once you start going fast suspension is going to be critical for control." 

The final impediment to the practical use of robotics in the field is the deployment of weaponry. Few robots are armed even with Tasers. The use of lethal weapons is still a public relations nightmare that keeps the practice a future option rather than a current practice. But it wasn’t long ago that military drones were simply observation platforms and lethal weaponry was never going to be on our military menu. That’s certainly changed.

In the future, a true patrol robot scenario is easy to envision. With enhanced sensors and faster speeds over the ground, robots could easily be a standard tool for street patrol units in both urban and rural areas. The days of special ops-only robotics are drawing to a close and a more universal application of robotic elements is soon to follow.