License plate readers, surveillance cameras, and predictive analytics help agencies recover stolen vehicles, find missing people, and reduce property crime. Even so, dozens of local governments have turned off cameras, canceled vendor contracts, or rejected proposed agreements outright. In almost every case, the technology worked. The problem was that residents learned about it after the fact, through a news story, a public records request, or an audit finding. The technology itself rarely erodes public trust. Poor communication does.

This practical session treats crime-fighting technology as a public trust decision rather than a procurement decision. We will walk through real examples of what went wrong in communities across the country, along with the communication and governance practices that help keep programs intact. These include engagement before deployment, published camera maps, plain-language use policies, defensible data retention limits, public audit results, and honest reporting of outcomes. You’ll leave with ideas to bring to your police department, elected officials, and community partners, whether your agency is still evaluating the technology or already facing public scrutiny.

What You’ll Learn:

• Recognize the communication missteps that have led communities to reject or cancel crime-fighting technology, and how to avoid a “reveal” moment
• Build a pre-deployment engagement approach that brings residents into the conversation before a contract is signed
• Translate use policies, data retention rules, and audit findings into plain-language information residents can find, understand, and trust
• Position oversight, equity analysis, and outcomes reporting as communication assets that show accountability rather than resistance
• Prepare messaging that keeps pace with emerging legal standards, including the implications of the 2026 Chatrie v. United States Supreme Court ruling