By Troyce Krumme
An Inflection Point We Cannot Ignore
Something significant is changing in the relationship between Americans and their data, and it is time for law enforcement to understand that it sits squarely at the intersection of the shifting tides. At least twenty states now have comprehensive consumer privacy laws on the books, and more are coming. For the first time in recent memory, the American public is engaged on this issue in a way that goes beyond partisan politics.
As someone who spent over 25 years in law enforcement and now works to ensure that police agencies retain access to the analytical tools they need to protect their communities, I must say this clearly: The privacy advocates are not wrong. The concerns driving this legislative wave are very real and legitimate. People have a right to know who has their data, how they are using it, and whether it can be used against them. Those are not anti-law enforcement positions. They are deeply consistent with the values that drew most of us to this honorable profession.
But this is where the conversation gets muddy and where law enforcement leadership must increase engagement, rather than ignore or pull away. Privacy legislation, if not carefully crafted with law enforcement inclusion, can strip agencies of critical lawful tools now when those tools are becoming their most effective. The solution is not to staunchly oppose privacy protections entirely. The solution is to be stakeholders at the table, shaping smart workable carve-outs, championing responsible use policies, and demonstrating that professional law enforcement can be trusted users and holders of data and artificial intelligence.
The Case for Law Enforcement Carve-Outs
Acknowledging that privacy concerns are legitimate does not mean that law enforcement must sit idly by and accept legislation that treats a sworn officer or investigator conducting a lawful investigation the same as an ad agency harvesting consumer data for profit. These are categorically different activities, and the legal frameworks governing them should reflect that distinction. The Fourth Amendment already establishes foundational guardrails on law enforcement data access. It requires probable cause, warrants, and judicial oversight. Commercial data users are simply not required to operate under those constraints.
When privacy legislation is created without meaningful law enforcement carve-outs, the real-world consequences can be severe. ALPR networks that have been instrumental in recovering stolen vehicles, locating missing persons, and solving violent crimes can be restricted in ways that negatively impact their core public safety function. Prior to the use of this technology, investigators would have to drive to neighborhoods, canvass the streets, knock on doors, and generate contact with individuals who, in many cases, are motivated to be hostile toward law enforcement. From 2012 to 2021, investigative and enforcement contacts accounted for 182 police officer deaths. Every time an investigator can identify a subject’s location from their desk rather than walking the streets, that is a contact that did not have to happen in a potentially hostile environment.
The argument for law enforcement carve-outs is not a request for unfettered authority. It is a request for comparable legal treatment that recognizes the accountability structures that already govern law enforcement activity, while preserving the agency’s ability to complete its responsibility.
The AI Imperative
No conversation about data use in law enforcement is complete without addressing artificial intelligence. AI is already actively being used at agencies across the country, powering predictive analytics, analyzing surveillance footage, generating investigative leads, and even drafting incident reports. The question is no longer whether law enforcement will use AI, but whether law enforcement will use it wisely.
The power of AI also carries significant risk. Investigative reports drafted using AI, without human fact-checking protocols, can blur the critical line between an officer’s sworn statement and the AI’s suggestion. California enacted legislation in 2025 explicitly addressing this very concern. These issues require definitive structure and guidelines, and law enforcement leadership must be the authors of that structure, not have it forced on them.
Building the Policies That Enhance Public Trust
The most important thing law enforcement leaders can do right now is build a policy framework that governs data and AI use for their agencies. Not because a legislature is forcing it, but because it is the right thing to do. At minimum, that framework should address permissible use definitions, data retention and access logging, human review requirements, officer training and certification, and community transparency. Agencies that have strong internal policies and procedures are in much better positions to defend their tools, maintain public trust, and purposely address the scrutiny that will come.
The agencies that are transparent are much harder to accuse of being a problem when legislation is considered. Enhancing community trust leads to having a seat at the table while legislation is designed. Those partnerships still exist. Legislators need to hear from chiefs, sheriffs, investigators, associations that represent those voices, and prosecutors who can speak credibly about what these tools actually do and why the safeguards already in place are meaningful.
Conclusion: The Profession Must Lead
We are at a moment when the rules dictating how data and artificial intelligence will be used in law enforcement are being written in Congress, state legislatures, and the court of public opinion. Law enforcement leaders must choose to help author that framework, or risk simply being beholden to it without input.
This moment requires humility, honesty, and advocacy. We must acknowledge that the concerns driving the privacy movement are valid. We must build internal policies that demonstrate genuine commitment to responsible use. And we must advocate clearly and without apology for the tools and legal authorities that make us effective in keeping our communities safe. The badge and technology are not in conflict. They are the same instrument of public safety, and our job is to make sure this emerging technology is wielded with the integrity, accountability, and legal clarity that both the public and our profession deserve.
About the Author
Troyce Krumme is a retired Sergeant with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, where he served for 25 years in patrol, investigations, field training, and leadership roles. He previously served as Chairman of the Las Vegas Police Managers and Supervisors Association, representing more than 500 police leaders in critical incident and internal investigations, collective bargaining, and legislative advocacy before the Nevada Legislature. He currently serves as Director of Industry Affairs, Public Safety at LexisNexis Special Services Inc., working with law enforcement associations and agencies nationwide on data access, public safety analytics, and privacy policy.
Comments