Lancashire police officers are researching an integration with the digital assistant that would allow the force to send out crime bulletins to residents, such as missing persons reports, wanted suspects in the area, and the number of officers currently on duty, according to a TechSpot report. The integration could also be used for internal communications, such as to update officers on daily crime logs or breaking incidents.
However, the most interesting potential usage would directly involve residents, allowing victims and witnesses to report crimes directly to the police via their Amazon Echo—another example of how artificial intelligence (AI) tools can potentially free up human workers like police to do more complex work.
This court tends to agree with Justice Scalia that the primary purpose of the DNA collection statute is criminal investigation. As such, this court also agrees that the Fourth Amendment should require a warrant or some level of suspicion before the search of one’s DNA is allowed. However, until the King decision is modified or repudiated, it remains the law of the land and this court is bound to apply it. Because the analysis under King and the rationale for the conclusion in King cannot be meaningfully distinguished in the case of a misdemeanor arrestee, and because there is no federal law decided in the five years since the King decision was issued making such a distinction, the court concludes that the collection of DNA from Mr. Buller is constitutional under the Fourth Amendment.