While law enforcement have access to new technology owned by third parties that assist them with protecting the public, questions arise as to who should own the data gathered by that technology. Sometimes, it is the technology provider itself which blocks public access to the data. For example, many police departments have contracted with ShotSpotter, Inc., for its gunshot detection technology. This tool permits police to learn of gun discharges that are detected using proprietary equipment and software owned by ShotSpotter. ShotSpotter, however, claims that the data gathered by its tool is also proprietary, and thus prohibits the police department from sharing the data with the public or other government agencies unless an additional fee is paid. Accordingly, although the data was paid for once by the police (using taxpayer resources), researchers and other members of the public are generally forced to a second fee to access the data, or submit a creative public records request to acquire data adjacent to the proprietary information. As these third party crime fighting technologies becomes more prevalent and important to lawyers, researchers, and the public in general, courts may be forced to contend with the contract legality of broadly blocking access to data already paid for by police departments, and that is obtained by capturing information from public space using new technologies.
